LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ report shows ways in which companies are attracting and retaining employees by building homes. One company shown here is building the homes to keep costs down using subcontractors. Costs are kept down so that houses can be built at $200,000, to make them affordable at $1000 a month mortgages for workers earning $40,000 to $100,000.

LyrArc Article Gist
A critical factor for success in managing succesful brand acquisitions for Chinese companies is retaining the management of the company and maintaining the brand committment.

LyrArc Article Gist
In a new trend that looks good for America is seen at companies such as American Fleet, which makes diesel engines for trucks. During the pandemic it was making 40 engines when it could make 30 normally, by adding overtime. It looked for mechanics. Now as demand is slowing workers work fewer hours. And the company which has a hard time finding mechanics is avoiding layoffs. It wants to avoid the expense and trauma of hiring and retaining workers. With fewer engines to build workers are prepping engine blocks and upgrading equipment so that when demand picks up again they will be ready. Workers are being hired to fill unfilled positions allowing overworked employees to return to normal hours.This is a national trend reflected in declining overtime hours and working hours are shifting also with workers opting to work less because of work-life priorities. This should be seen as part of the renewal of America, because when workers do well, the middle class does well, and when the middle class does well America does well. America does well when companies and workers mean the same thing. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Harold Meyerson poses some difficult questions for those who like Mitt Romney say America's choice is between the merit based society Romney sees and the "European social democratic vision." In Romney's words- "a merit-based opportunity society- an American-style society- where people earn their rewards based on their education, their work, their willingness to take risks and their dreams." Meyerson cites several studies to show that European societies today are more dynamic on several measures of performance than America's. In intergenerational mobility he cites a Brookings Institution study by Julia Isaacs, that shows incomes are three times more likely to remain the same in America compared to Denmark, Norway and Finland, and one and a half times more frequently than in Germany. Another measure evident from Germany's experience is the degree of union-company-government cooperation to worker retraining, corporate boards that have representatives of workers and management, the "kurzarbeit" program of retaining employees to smooth out impact of cyclical swings in the economy on workers and companies, and worker's willingness to show restraint on wages especially because management wages are not way out of line as in America. Meyerson reminds readers that the U.S. had a more merit based society in terms of upward intergenerational mobility, distribution of rewards of work between workers in manufacturing and service sectors and management, educational mobility with the G.I. bill, in the first 30 years after the Second World War. In a separate article in the Washington Post on Jan. 5, 2012, David Ignatius poses questions about the effects of globalization in shrivelling the middle class. The access to lower wage manufacturing in China, India, Mexico, and other countries, and lowering of wages in the U.S. to be competitive, was part of globalization. The two tier wage structure in the U.S. automobile industry is one example, making middle class wages a thing of the past. Globalization opened up new markets for American companies. Yet many of the gains in employment were made in emerging markets, as the example of GM's expansion in China showed, with automobile manufacturing expansion inside China....

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ's Chuin-Wei Yap provides a glimpse of life in Chengdu with the closing of the Panchenggang steel factory. The Chengdu Iron and Steel factory was started in 1958 under Mao's effort at industrialization. The city depended on the huge steel complex for jobs as generation after generation worked at the same factory. The factory was closed in 2015. Mr. Deng is a laid off worker who gets $24,000 in buyout following 26 years at the plant, and 1500 yuan or about $235 month for 2 years of unemployment benefits with required retraining classes. Economic uncertainty is faced by many laid off workers, worrying about children's college education, spouses doing odd jobs, including a pedicab run by Mr. Deng's wife. About 2 million workers in China work in steel factories, with production having reached extremely high level of overcapacity of 800 million tons. With the plant gone, the local hospital Panchenggang District Hospital, is restructured and bought by a private company, 115 doctors and other staff are offered buyouts....

LyrArc Article Gist
Sweden's new government elected in 2006 after years of Social Democratic governments, is not in favor of state involvement in industry. The enterprise minister Oloffson says, the Swedish government is not prepared to own car factories. Southwest Sweden where Saab in located, in the town of Trollhattan, will be hard hit if Saab closes. It has 54,000 people, with 4000 employed at Saab. Saab turnedout its first car here in 1947. But its not the same Saab that became known for its engineering. Under General Motors Saab lost its edge as a car with advanced engineering. And last year Saab sold 93,295 cars, 21,383 in the USA, and this year demand will drop steeply. Already losses for 2008 are $343 million. No matter what the label meant in the past, the hard facts are that here is a neglected car company, which may sell only sixty or seventy thousand cars in the years ahead and keep going down in numbers, with no money for investment in new technology in these credit markets for declining numbers, and offering huge losses that may approach half a billion dollars in 2009. Even a Social Democratic government might think to pause. Given Sweden's generous employee retraining, would the money for rescue be better spent in some new field with better prospects....

LyrArc Article Gist
In this WSJ report a top American Defense Department official before resigning says- "I have no problem with feeding China or trading with China. I have a problem with arming China." Advanced or sensitive manufacturing technology is still being approved for export to China says this report in WSJ, even as the US perceives this to be a national security threat. Experts say the Commerce Department report approval process needs overhaul and the US needs close coordination with the European Union on this process. Of the total US $124 billion in exports to China in 2020 only half of one percent needed a license Commerce Department data reviewed by WSJ shows. Of that small fraction of one half percent Commerce Department approved 2562  applications or 94%. This even includes array of semiconductors, aerospace components, artificial intelligence technologies that could be added to China's military. This means that even towards the end of the Trump administration with its talk about national security threats, through the four years 2016-2020, nothing much happened in this important field.  The difficulty that the Trump administration faced and America faces is putting company and business interests first or American security interests and retaining competitive technological advantage interests first. American administrations and business have consistently failed to follow what plain ordinary Americans understand by America first. Even when it is clearly evident that America is handing over sensitive advanced technologies with very little in return, and creating out of nowhere competition that poses serious risks for the national interest, business and administrations operate indifferent to the national interest. Even right into the period when this is making the world a riskier and more dangerous place.   This is the state of affairs today, and the situation is not about Congressmen visiting Taiwan or ships going through the seas in that region, or international law. All that is American policy  and is well known and well understood. What is missing is the right action and the right determination behind other action that is sending a different message at the same time -that the US is oblivious to its own interests. That administrations, even those such as the recent Republican one under Mr. Trump, see a higher priority in following American business wherever it goes in pursuit of individual company interests alone, even if it does not accord with the national interest. Lobbying groups distort what policy should be in the public interest and in the interest of both countries, leading to a breakdown in the whole process itself whenever governments surrender their role of protecting the public interest.  Outshoring manufacturing was bad economically at the level of communities across the US, leading to divisions that weakened the country in the last decade, it was also bad for the economy of the country with loss of the best manufacturing jobs, beyond what economists in their ignorance of the big picture sought to show was the consumer- often the same person who lost a job or stopped seeking work- paying less. It was bad also for China as it created the hyper growth that rapidly contaminated land, air and water and created an inherently unstable relationship in trade with destruction of jobs at a pace that America had not faced with Japan and with which it could not cope. Could a pace that worked for both nations have worked? At the root is the notion that business knows best even if it is in plain sight to every plain American that the country's most advanced technologies are being shipped out. Governments do not fulfill their responsibilities and fail when they fail to tell business what rules are in the public interest, as it was never in the first role of business to protect the public interest. That the European Union has simply followed the US in this has created a problem for both the US and the European Union of deviating from what plain Americans or Europeans see as abundantly clear.  Even in plain dollars and cents business and economists fail to grasp the true cost for the whole country or whole people compared to the benefit for an individual or an individual company. The cost of wars even small wars can be be trillions of dollars which are borne by the whole country or people, and most of it by the middle and less economically well off classes in a country. Creating a belligerent competitor in world affairs and the risk of conflict and war is to lose trillions of dollars when the benefit to an individual, groups, or individual companies is no more but a tiny fraction of that trillion dollar cost, not including what all the plain people pay in human lives. It is not that anyone benefits as the people in the belligerent competitor country follow the same pattern of loss that would happen in the US. One should ask is it not a loss for China also? The example of Imperialist Japan is not so far off in time for Americans or Asians including the Chinese and Japanese people who suffered so greatly to forget. Business remains oblivious to the public interest not just for America but for the world, individual companies do not see it as their role beyond that of pursuing individual company interest. Is it not then for the government to set the rules. Is it alright for government to not fulfill its responsibilities? Even when this pushes the world faster to into conflicts as technologies take the place of exercise of wisdom in conflict, and even when there are unmet challenges such as climate change that affect the whole planet.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Should Arthur Levinson and some of the team he has assembled at Genentech leave it will be a big loss for Roche, as it was his team that helped bring a series of new drugs to the market such as Avastin, Herceptin, and Rituxan to bring Genentech sales from $1 billion in 1999 to $9 billion in 2007. As drug companies buy biotechs in large numbers, with $70 billion in deals this year almost twice the toal for 2007, the question remains whether the drug companies have succeeded in retaining talent as consolidation yields cost savings but does not improve drug discovery. Drug companies are struggling with this, and a couple of models have emerged for keeping minds engaged in scientific discovery satisfied that they have the freedom to operate as they always have and work with the teams they have assembled, similiar to the work style and in the similiar culture as before. Almost like walking into the offices they use as if its like before. J&J has come up with a hub and spoke model to acquire companies and then leave them alone- preserving their management teams, unique cultures and brands. Centocor was bought in 1999 by J&J and 10 of the top executives stayed on and developed Remicade, a drug for inflammatory disease that has sales of $3.3 billion. Glaxo has developed a new structure under new CEO Andrew Witty, which breaks up the primary research labs into "discovery performance units" or DPUs, which also include new biotech startups. In April Glaxo acquired Sitris, a Cambridge, Massachusetts startup. The company had come up with a new science for tackling heart disease, diabetes and other diseases associated with aging. Harvard trained scientist and CEO, Christoph Westphal, went with Glaxo turning down other companies because the independence of the DPU appealed to him. Each DPU has a 3 year budget and this also appealed to Westphal. He could walk into the labs, says Westphal as if nothing had changed. Is Roche making a mistake in acquiring Genentech when it could have left it alone. Are the consolidation savings worth it if some of the discovery team at Genentech leaves and there is the feeling that the culture will change, and if Levinson feels that he was not consulted about Roche's move. These are questions that remain even when Roche's CEO, Severin, says he does not want to change things at Genentech because Roche's actions will speak louder than its words. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This New York Times editorial says a smaller Wall Street and growing jobs in other fields will be good for New York as well as good for the country. It says New York politicians should focus on finding new ways for New York to broaden its tax base and get new businesses and new opportunites in fields such as media, advertising, entertainment, health care and tourism. Especially welcome are initiatives such as the science and tech campus of Cornell University promoted by Mayor Bloomberg. Tighter financial rules and higher capital requirements are good for the country and for New York the editorial emphasizes, because they help control reckless banking practices that destroy capital and opportunities for growth elsewhere in the economy. It points to Kevin Rose's Nov. 21, 2011 account in the Times showing a healthy culture shift in New York and the country with the status jobs being seen not at Goldman Sachs but at Google, Apple and Facebook. Rose's account shows that in the last 3 years the number of Wall Street employees of ages 20-34 declined by 25%....

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that the U.S. Federal Reserve's forecasts in March 2012 show the U.S. will experience low inflation and high unemployment for many years. These forecasts are in sharp contrast to the expectations in the equity markets based on an uptick for a couple of months of unemployment numbers. The Fed's own statements suggest the improvement in hiring may be temporary and a response to the overreaction in hiring in 2009-2010 to the financial crisis, and not a lasting improvement. The Fed pointed out that the long term unemployed are at about 40% of the total unemployed and the share of the population that is working in March 2012 has barely budged from 58% in 2009.