The New York Times misses several points but gets one right

In a recent editorial “Cashing Their Chips”, the NYT’s editors discussed Intel in the context of the American Jobs Creation Act.

This week, Intel announced that it would be cutting 10,500 jobs, or about 10 percent of its work force. The company’s chief executive, Paul Otellini, said that while it was a difficult decision, the move was “essential to Intel becoming a more agile and efficient company.”

That kind of cutback is par for the course in today’s business environment. What’s notable about it is that Intel was also one of the major corporations that took advantage of the American Jobs Creation Act (AJCA), a one-year tax holiday for American businesses operating overseas that lawmakers claimed was going to act as an engine for job growth. By reducing taxes on repatriated profits, it was supposed to generate cash for companies to use in underwriting new hiring at home.

In reality, it was little more than a multibillion-dollar giveaway. Intel repatriated $6.2 billion under the program, which taxed foreign profits at a rate of just 5.25 percent, compared with the normal rate of 35 percent. Now, instead of creating new jobs, it is cutting existing ones.

The NYT wants you to believe that the AJCA failed to create US jobs. But the fact that one company, Intel, cut US jobs after taking advantage of the tax break implies nothing about whether the AJCA created US jobs in the aggregate. Nor does the NYT appear to understand that if the AJCA caused Intel to cut fewer US jobs, then the AJCA created US jobs. In other words, the NYT’s editors didn’t even know how to think about the issue.

It is not clear to me why a firm that is able to bring back overseas money with less taxes will want to use that money for US job creation. Giving credit to the NYT, they did point this out. However, the NYT missed all the subtleties. Less money paid to Government means more money to do other things. If the extra money is distributed to shareholders, then shareholders have more money and spend it. If the extra money is sent back overseas and creates overseas jobs, well, what are the overseas payees going to do with their dollars? They will spend them, and the dollars will end up buying US goods. That, presumably, requires US jobs to create the additional goods that are bought. No matter what alternative you consider, it is likely that more jobs of a more useful kind are created (because governments spend too much money and spend it inefficiently).

On the other hand, the NYT might rightfully respond to me that no matter how the tax system is modified, the total tax bill will remain the same. In which case, the NYT might say, I missed some of the subtleties, at least if I hadn’t included this paragraph. But then, the issue is pretty much moot and the editorial was superfluous.

However, the NYT’s editorial was right on one point.

The moral is this: Businesses will slash jobs when they deem it wise and build plants when they think it’s cost effective. All the Jobs Creation Act accomplished was to hand companies a nice little present with a big, fat price tag and a misleading name.

Businesses do make decisions based on profitability, not unrelated tax breaks. However, even here, the NYT’s editors could not resist letting their emotions get the better of them. The AJCA does not have a big, fat price tag. Government taxes are the big, fat price tag, not tax cuts.