3 ms·
Standard accounting practice, developed by the US govt explicitly for this purpose. Seriously, if you're a multinational getting static for your global manufac
by quesera 15y ago
Standard accounting practice, developed by the US govt explicitly for this purpose.
Seriously, if you're a multinational getting static for your global manufacturing organization from miscellaneous congreesspeople who don't understand economics, what tabulation methodology would you choose to make your point?
Edit: note, obviously that they don't include all employees of the corps that make planes and deliver boxes, just the share of employees that exist to serve the volume of business that Apple creates. This is not RIAA style accounting.
- mcantelon 15y ago>what tabulation methodology would you choose to make your point? Having a headline about "Creating jobs" next to a map with a number that isn't actually the number of jobs created is misleading.
- quesera 15y agoI disagree. The volume of business that Apple creates for UPS, etc, literally creates these jobs. That's neither dishonest nor misleading, in my opinion, but I agree that the first time I saw an "economic impact assessment" that included such a large number of jobs, I assumed the implication was that the company in question had these people directly on payroll. It's more complicated than that.
- mcantelon 15y ago>The volume of business that Apple creates for UPS, etc, literally creates these jobs. By the same logic Foxconn could argue that it's creating jobs because it makes things that get shipped around as well.
- quesera 15y agoThat's simply not correct. Foxconn creates zero consumer demand. Consumer demand creates jobs.