7/27/2019 MRivera BAM311 Wk7 Notes

1/4

The Question: is there a point where a company is making sufficient profit so

that it becomes immoral to abandon its workers and go to a third-world country

to make even more money? Does the company, if the plant is "sufficiently"

profitable, owe those jobs to longtime employees?

Isitimmoralforacompanytorelocatetoaforeigncompanytomakemoremoney,no.Ithinkthewords,morality/immorality,gettossedaroundwithhighfrequencyandappliedtocompanieswhoseeklargerprofits.Iwouldofferthattheactsofa

companyrelocatedsimplyforlargerprofitsthanwhattheyhavebeenearningin

thiscountryisunethical,butnotimmoral.

Thetheoryofowingsomeonehisorherjobonthebasisoflongevityishighly

debatable.Onecouldarguethatloyalserviceshouldofferacertainrighttothejob

orevenapercentageofthecompanyasarewardforassistinginthesuccessofthe

business.However,apersonontheopposingsidewouldarguethatajobisnot

promisedtoanyoneregardlessoflongevity.Additionally,longevitydoesntimply

greatworkfromsaidemployee.Sincelongevitydoesntimplygreatwork,why

shouldtheemployeedeservetherighttoajoboracertainpercentageofthe

company?

7/27/2019 MRivera BAM311 Wk7 Notes

2/4

QUESTION: Say you own a house. Can you do whatever you want with it? Don't you have to get a

permit to add a second story? Doesn't the government in fact place many restrictions on what you

can and cannot do with your house (you can't, for example, establish a lead smelting plant in your

backyard)? You cant hire illegal immigrants to work on your property. And so on.

Why not place tighter restrictions on a business ability to move operations outside the country?

Itisagoodtheorytoplacetighterrestrictionsonbusinesses.Thegovernmentpolicetheactionsofcitizensinregardstotheirprivatepropertyasthecasestates,

sowhynotbusinesseswhowouldhavealargerimpactonsocietyiftheyrelocated

factoriesoutofthecountry.AsIamsurepeoplemaymention,politicalfiguresmay

benefitfromlargerprofitsofbusinessesthatrelocateastheymayhavestockinsaid

companies.

Idonotbelievethatthiscountrycouldplacetighterrestrictionsoncompaniesas

theydoitscitizens.Becausecompanieshavetheresourcesandfinancialabilityto

persuadethegovernmentnottopassanylegislationagainstsuchrestrictions,

companieswillbeabletorelocatewithoutissue.

7/27/2019 MRivera BAM311 Wk7 Notes

3/4

QUESTION: One argument one of your authors this week gives is this: EAW benefits the employees

just as much as the company. In the free enterprise system, so he says, when one company leaves a

city another one is likely to come in (especially as the factory/office infrastructure is likely more-or-

less ready). So the employees who've been let go will likely find opportunity at the new company.

What do you think of this argument?

Ithinkthatstatementofopportunitiesstillbeingpresentifthecompanyleavesa

StateisrelativetowhatStatetheyleaveandalsohowstrong/weaktheeconomyof

thecountryisinwhentheyleave.Forinstance,whenthemajorityofGMleft

Michigan,othercompanieswerenotracingtoestablishanewholdonMichigans

economy.JobswerenotavailableinothercompaniesandMichiganhassuffereda

lossinmanyaspects,notonlymanufacturing,butalsotransportation,engineering,

construction,andeveneducation.

Ithinktheargumentisasvalidasitoncewasandthattherealityofcompanies

relocatingoutsideoftheU.S.isquitedetrimentaltothefutureofoureconomy.

7/27/2019 MRivera BAM311 Wk7 Notes

4/4

QUESTION: It's typical that governments offer significant incentives to companies to stay or locate

in their cities. Pfizer, with a large facility in Ann Arbor, announced some years ago that they were going to

build a very large research facility. But where? It amounted to a call to local governments to begin the

bidding--how much would they offer to the company in order to come there, or stay there in the case of

Ann Arbor.

Ann Arbor offered them huge concessions on property taxes and other items in order to win the bidding.

That's our tax dollars being given to the company, the employees' tax dollars being given. This creates a

moral contract of sorts between the company and the city. Now it's not simply a case of an owner and her

private property. The owner hasn't acted autonomously, the owner instead has combined, in a sense, with

the city. I would say in this case the company is then not free to move when it wishes. For how long this

obligation exists is more difficult to say.

Of course Pfizer left the city several years ago. I have not followed the situation closely, but I have read

nothing about the company returning any of the tax incentives given in that first decade (which were

predicated on the company remaining in the city for a much longer period.

Should these arrangements with states of cities affect a companys obligation to its workers?

Mostdefinitely;thecompanyshouldhaveanobligationtothecityorStateiftheyagreetostayforacertainperiodoftimeinordertoreceiveanyfinancialincentives.

Theobligationisnotjustahandshakedeal,butalegalagreementwithsubstantialfinancialincentivestiedtotheagreement.WhywouldthecityandStatenotsueover

breachofcontract?Theywoulddefinitelyhadtohavesignedsomelegalcontractas

thecityhadtoofferaformalbidandPfizerneeddocumentationofthedealto

satisfytheirownlegalobligationstoshareholdersandtheIRS.

Toomanycompaniestakeadvantageoffinancialincentivesandafterawhile,they

holdadditionalbidstocitieswiththeagendatorelocateinhopestoreceive

additionalfinancialsavingstoincreasetheirbottomline.