Interesting article in US NEWS: American companies less American

Invest in corporate America. Just don't work there
By Richard J. Newman

Posted 3/18/06

Uncooperative data are a drag. When I was researching various ways in which overseas workers and companies are pulling ahead of those in America, I came across some unwelcome evidence. I looked up how many U.S.-based companies belonged to the Fortune Global 100 in 1995 and how many in 2005. I expected to find American companies sliding down the list, replaced by the Samsungs of the world, aggressive upstarts fueled by ambition, hungry customers new to the middle class, and cheap labor. But that's not what has been happening. In 1995, there were 24 U.S. companies in the Global 100. In 2005, there were 33. Corporate America has apparently been getting a bigger share, not a smaller share, of the world's business.
...........

So is the notion of America's falling behind a bogus premise? You could argue that. Or you could look deeper. Here's what you can't tell from revenue rankings and patent data: where the growth and innovation that show up on the bottom line of U.S. corporations is taking place. Are those patents all coming from laboratories on American shores? Or are many of IBM's patents coming from engineers in India and Russia and eastern Europe? Here's a clue: Nearly half of IBM's engineers and technical specialists work outside the United States. Hiring trends are similar: While big U.S. firms like Microsoft, Accenture, and EDS are taking on modest numbers of American workers, their payrolls are mushrooming in places like India. Corporations closely guard the details of patent and employment data, but this much is obvious: American companies are becoming less American.
........

But there is another important trend, beyond offshoring and globalization, that many are missing: There's a growing wedge between U.S. companies and their American employees. What used to be good for General Motors, so to speak, also used to be good for the Americans who worked for General Motors. In many ways (putting labor disputes aside), the interests of U.S. companies and U.S. workers were closely aligned, especially when borders were harder to breach and trade seemed like more of a zero-sum game.
........

American companies that are struggling need to take even more from those helpful low-cost countries. What is good for General Motors these days is massive cost-cutting, to help reverse an enormous $10.6 billion loss in 2005 and keep the company afloat. And the way companies cut costs these days is by shipping any work that is transferable overseas and building stuff there, too. In the old days, of course, the fortunes of companies and their workers rose and fell in unison; manufacturers laid off U.S. workers when times were tough and rehired them when business picked up. But jobs that go overseas are gone forever, or at least until assembly line workers and engineers in China and India start to earn the same as their American counterparts. And that's not going to happen before the unemployment insurance runs out. Companies exist to make money, not to keep people employed. But U.S. companies can increasingly make money while bypassing American workers. "The fate of U.S. workers is no longer part of corporate decision making," says Hira. That sounds ominous, yet for Americans with the energy to get off the couch and pay attention, it's an opportunity. Those who are creative, entrepreneurial, well educated, and able to consistently learn the latest skills will thrive. But if you have the choice, it's probably better to be a stockholder of corporate America than an employee.

(emphasis added)