Obama: U.S. Businesses Have Responsibility To Hire American Workers, Pay Decent Wages

WASHINGTON (AP) - Government has a responsibility to make the U.S. the best place in the world to do business, but companies have a responsibility to invest in the nation's future by keeping jobs here, hiring American workers and paying decent wages, President Barack Obama says.

Obama devoted his weekly radio and Internet message Saturday to ideas from his State of the Union address, specifically a plan to put the U.S. on a more competitive footing globally by spending scarce dollars on innovation, education and the nation's infrastructure.

"In today's global, competitive economy, the best jobs and newest industries will take root in countries with the most skilled workers, the strongest commitment to research and technology and the fastest ways to move people, goods and information," the president said, previewing a speech he is giving to the influential U.S. Chamber of Commerce early next week.

Underscoring his points, Obama referenced his visit this week to Penn State University, where researchers are designing more energy-efficient buildings. He also spoke about next Thursday's trip to Marquette, Mich., a place the White House says illustrates how increased Internet access can help businesses grow. Obama has called for expanding high-speed, wireless Internet access to 98 percent of Americans within five years.

He talked about federal tax credits and financing programs that are helping companies boost their bottom lines and hire workers.

Obama said that government has a responsibility to support businesses but that businesses have responsibilities, too.

"They should set up shop here and hire our workers and pay decent wages and invest in the future of this nation," he said. "That's their obligation."

Obama, who has been working overtime to overcome perceptions that he is anti-business, said his message to the Chamber of Commerce on Monday will be that everyone will benefit if government and businesses work together.

"Our workers will succeed. Our nation will prosper. And America will win the future in this century just like we did in the last," he said.

Republicans devoted their weekly message to the economy and jobs, too, but Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas used it to chide Obama for proposing to extend Washington's "spending binge" at a time of growing budget deficits.

Congressional budget experts recently projected that the difference between federal spending and revenues will surge to a record $1.5 trillion for the budget year that ends Sept. 30.
Hensarling called for spending cuts and spending reform.

"You know, my questions for the president are these: Mr. President, how does spending us down the road to national bankruptcy help us `win the future'? And Mr. President, how does borrowing even more money from the Chinese make us more competitive?" he said.

"After two years, it's pretty clear we can't borrow, spend and bail out our way to economic prosperity. No nation can," Hensarling added. "So while I appreciate the president's can-do rhetoric, his job-destroying policies won't do, and that's what matters most to American families."

Comments

[Arts4u]

09:11 PM on 02/15/2011

Perhaps the long-term unemployed should just ask for their social security money that they've paid into the system for years! I am guessing that many would love to have access to that money now to help with starting a small business or returning to college for a new career.

[ZeraLee]

04:24 PM on 02/10/2011

Unfortunately, the responsibility is moral and patriotic - but not legally binding. Businesses do not exist to benefit society or fuel the economy. They exist to make money. They have proven that they will not hesitate to poison people or put the country in jeopardy if they can profit from it.

In the end, a country is it's citizens. We pay for the profits of businesses, and for the consequences of their failures. It is because, in the end, the people pay all the bills, because while businesses come and go the people still remain - and must deal with the messes businesses leave behind - that we the people have the real need and moral right to government by, for, and of the people. A government that is the instrument of the people, that offsets the power businesses have over the everyday lives of the people.

Only anarchists, criminals, and enemies would advocate letting businesses run the country.

[Michael Morrison]

03:38 AM on 02/09/2011

How about Government start doing its share:

1. Enforce U.S. Intellectual Property: You can't honestly expect innovation when any new idea will be off-shored to the Chinese.

2. Play hardball with the Chinese until they stop manipulating their currency: No way American companies can compete when there is a built-in 40% price disadvantage just for making stuff in the U.S.

3. Ensure that Chinese can't sell toxic crap in the U.S. unless there is somebody who can be held responsible. Many countries require foreign firms to use registered agents and post bonds.

[Strings55]

09:00 PM on 02/08/2011

reviewingthesituation said on Feb 7, 2011 at 07:50:56:

“You're contradict­ing yourself. China may have a more centralize­d government­, but if you think they have more safety regulation­s, you probably believe Sarah Palin is a wit. American businesses set up shop in China (and other outsourcin­g locations) precisely because they get to bypass safety and environmen­tal regulation­s, sidestep liability for individual employees and save a bundle on wages."

Nothing in those businesses is going to start or stop unless the Chinese government approves or prevents it. Nothing gets bypassed or sidestepped unless they want it to be. They have that level of control. You should know that. My point it that having a central government controlling business doesn't create happy, well compensated, independent people or safe products.

Why do that here?

[MadAppraiser]

05:36 PM on 02/08/2011

Only Jesus Christ had larger dreams than President Obama!

[DJ-Brown]

11:21 AM on 02/08/2011

I'm not impressed. He can say this until the cows come home but as long as business prioritizing making big money over saving their country this just isn't happening. For as much "sucking up" as he is doing between this and gifting them all the Bush tax cuts where supposedly was done to save and restore jobs but really was just a sucker punch to Americans who are out of work. Hey... what the heck - bring them more gifts, and more, and more... who knows maybe one day they they might care about their country. But it's doubtful.

[fortressfountain]

11:20 AM on 02/08/2011

The businesses and corporations should not be subsidized by the usa taxpayers and then when they cannot find work told they are lazy.
Unemployment or ssi for everyone until the problem is fixed.
Free market my ***!

[MichaelSureda]

11:32 PM on 02/07/2011

True. American must corral the export of jobs by corporations being subsidized by the
American taxpayer with an overhaul of the tax structure balancing the outsourcing of jobs.
Especially to regimes where the power stuctures are in direct idealistic conflict with
Democratic ideals.
Even if this were accomplished, the awareness of our own American sub-cultures must be
raised with a realization that other economies are building massive populations dwarfing our own. Populations raised with lower expectations of value to human life than we take for
granted today. A force that will require world resources greater than those presently available, beyond employment issues, within the next two generations.
25 million under-employed Americans is a very low figure for an economy where more than
150 million citizens are currently living on less than $40,000 a year, in an environment
of $100,000.+ media promoted lifestyles. That median figure is doomed to grow as
8-10,000 Americans per day reach retirement age on fixed incomes with extended,
costly elder care, and the underclass continues to multiply.

[NamithaSF]

07:27 PM on 02/07/2011

Most companies will hire as many people as they need and they will use offshore resources if it helps their business.

[Rope-A-Dope]

05:05 PM on 02/07/2011

I read a bunch of comments here and I am stunned by the number of people that are upset at the notion that businesses hire American workers, instead of offshoring jobs to other countries. These out of work people are your neighbors... how can you defend this activity when you see first-hand how bad it is for our country and our neighborhoods? The money paid in bigger dividends is not (by and large) returned into our economy. It is not taxed, it is not part of the social security fund, it is just sitting in some rich persons investment account doing nothing for America. I say Obama was 100% correct in calling out businesses to hire more workers here in America -- before DEREGULATION that allowed for Mega companies to be formed most business was local, they hired local, and money was infused into the economy locally. All you folks interested in going back in time all the way to the founding should be pissed about what has happened to the social conscience absent in leading American businesses.

[RTIII]

08:29 PM on 02/07/2011

Hi Rope-A-Dope,

Surely some people feel as you suggest, but when I read these comments, what I see is that many people understand that there's a difference between what businesses _should_ do and what they are _obligated_ (by law) to do.

I agree with your sentiment that American business should do more for AMERICANS - and America.

To make sure that happens, however, we need to change the charters of our corporations.

Back when corporations were first permitted in the American system (by that I mean within the USA), it wasn't even conceiveable that it would be possible to have companies out-source to foreign workers as they do now. So, the social contract that creates the legal fiction of a corporation didn't include any ideas about this issue.

In the modern world, we now know about this issue and we CAN and SHOULD do something about it.

I propose we ALTER the corporate charter in the USA to legally impose such "obligations" as Obama - and you (and I) envision.

Good luck getting it passed, though. We need it badly, but that doesn't mean we can get it through our fas.c.ist government.

Best of luck,
RT

[Arts4u]

09:16 PM on 02/15/2011

The internet brought about many negative changes with regards to how business could be conducted. Unfortunately, laws have not kept abreast with how it can be manipulated and used to the advantage of large business and shady business. These are all thoughts that we have all had over the years, but no one seems to have cared enough or had enough foresight to keep ahead of it. We opened up Pandora's Box and haven't even tried to contain the mess it has created.

[StuartGalley]

04:56 PM on 02/07/2011

This guy is so utterly clueless about anything business related.

[NamithaSF]

04:49 PM on 02/07/2011

Salaries are still high for people who have skills in demand. Just because you have a BA, MS, or Ph.D. does not mean you start at 100K.

Not much need for Ph.D.'s in home economics or history. Ph.D.'s in solar or material science are highly sought after. In Cali we pay CHPs and prison guards 300K/year (with OT) and a chemistry prof works more hours and gets 70K.

[oilfield]

11:24 PM on 02/07/2011

maybe the chemistry prof need to organize? lol

[maigrey]

03:09 PM on 02/07/2011

OT
I applied online as usual for a job this morning. This is the response. Naturally I am not in the hospitality industry but I have managed people. My industry is dying and I know I will never work in it again.
No salutation or anything. Is this woman being rude. Or am becoming oversensitive? I've removed her name, email and phone number.

And why are you applying for a job as assistant manager in the hospitality
industry?

Do I ignore her? Or do I answer her?

[RTIII]

08:31 PM on 02/07/2011

Answer. If you want the job, that is.

Ignore the rude as best you can.

[maigrey]

09:09 PM on 02/07/2011

I did. Nicely. I received for my troubles a scathing email about unemployed people. Let's suffice it to say she is an extremely unhappy human and I ended up being a target for a lot of rage. I at least know now why I would never be hired. Now what to do with this volatile email? Hmm... Nah. She's not worth the time.

[wrg500]

02:06 PM on 02/07/2011

Companies have a responsibility to make a profit for their stock holds, period. They WILL move their operations to which ever location that provides them the best opportunity to do so. Right now due to overbearing regulations, taxes etc. the US isn't in a position to provide companies the opportunity to compete on a global scale so the move to a climate that does. It's basic economics.

[Rope-A-Dope]

04:54 PM on 02/07/2011

earning bigger dividends for shareholders might be basic economics, it is certainly the goal of publicly traded companies, however, that does not make it a sound policy. there are many reasons companies should invest in their employees and citizens locally. feeding a growing divide between the very wealthy and the poor is not sustainable.

[wrg500]

09:20 AM on 02/08/2011

If you can't operate locally at a profit due to regulations and taxes et.al. how can a company invest in their employees locally? I'm NOT saying regulations are not needed but I'm pretty sure many are completely worthless and add nothing but added burden on companies trying to compete in a global market.

[RTIII]

08:34 PM on 02/07/2011

The regulations are NOT overbearing. They are, however, not applied everywhere, and in the interests of the most return on investment, business gravitates to places where there are the least labor and environmental regulations. This does not mean the regulations are wrong, or that the businesses are right. What it means is that we have let the businesses convince us not to have tarriffs, as was, by the way, the founding principal of our nation - we STARTED on tarriffs.

[wrg500]

09:23 AM on 02/08/2011

Check your history and see how well tariffs worked back in the 30's during the depression. Tariffs usually start trade wars which benefit no one.