This makes no sense from a global perspective. Why was Andy keen to reduce job growth in Asia and also reduce technology growth in the whole world? Did he think

This makes no sense from a global perspective. Why was Andy keen to reduce job growth in Asia and also reduce technology growth in the whole world? Did he think Americans were more deserving than Asians? That should have been clearly unethical from a humanitarian point of view considering the higher poverty levels that are still present in Asia. If local=better then perhaps he should have focused on job growth in California and worried about companies that export their growth phase jobs and expertise to other parts of the US - especially underdeveloped parts which won't contribute much back except cheap labor. That's also costing Californians their jobs. What makes Iowa or Arkansas more important than a booming megacity in China?