Business and trade policies in our country require that businesses be global in their thinking whether they are global in their operations or not. Competition is keen from the huge internationals right on down to the mom and pop on the corner.
Think of the environment for business today in the context of major league sports. There are big and small markets vying for the best organizations with various resources available to them. Within the markets, the organizations are vying for the best talent available in the pool.
Everything is about competition for the best deal. If you don’t make the best offer, your competition will steal the deal. It all comes down to how bad you want the best players for your team. Who are the best players on your roster?
In our market, Boeing is our NFL team, Microsoft is our NBA team and all the other companies represent teams vying for spots on our market roster. Some are major league competitors and some are not. Each one of them is a “free agent” looking to make a deal. What do we have to offer to keep our star players on our team? How much to we have to give to get the next superstar in our uniform?
When Seattle made the decision to give up on the Super Sonics they needed to know the actual value that business had to the local economy. I hope they did some analysis. Regardless of your personal feelings about an NBA team, the business represented a significant asset to the city. Losing that business created a hole in the economy. In this case Seattle decided the cost of keeping that business was higher than the value coming back. I wonder about their analysis.
How do we accurately calculate what a team, a player or a business is worth to our city, county or state?
At a time when international competition is fierce, businesses have to do what is right for their shareholders. Decisions are made every day about sourcing raw materials and recruiting a skilled workforce.
Historic relationships between companies and communities have been abandoned as external factors played an increasing role in critical decisions by business owners and managers. Long gone are the days when a player belonged to a team for life. Long gone are the days when American workers produced the goods and services consumed by Americans. American consumers hunger for cheaper and cheaper goods and services driving retailers to look to cheaper markets for materials and labor force. In order to compete in an international market, who can blame them?
The cost of doing business in a particular place is now a significant factor in determining where future investments will be made. Proximity to raw materials, availability of energy sources, availability of skilled work force, availability of developed infrastructure and government regulations and taxes play a part in the decision making process.
At the same time, it is now necessary for current host communities to determine the economic value a business represents as competition heats up for future company investments. Loss of American jobs to foreign countries has been a foregone conclusion since we adopted a pro-active policy of elevating third world countries’ economic status. Reductions in American worker wages is also a side benefit as those countries now compete against small businesses across our land for anything and everything made here.
Labor laws in this country vary by state. As a result, some states are more competitive than others. State tax laws also play a significant part in the assessments. Competition for the best deal is brutal on both sides of the negotiations.
Government policies may require that products made for national defense must be produced in the United States, but they don’t specify where in the country. The competition for a manufacturing company such as Boeing could be likened to the process of recruiting a sports team to your market. The cost-benefit analysis considers all the variables and spits out a winner.
At the end of the day, how do we stack up against our competition? What do we have to offer that will attract a winning team to our market? What are the negatives that might turn the cream of the crop away from our market? What are the negatives that might cause existing players to be traded away from our team?
If we fail to stay sharp, we risk losing core players to free agency and we stand little chance of recruiting new talent.
It’s up to us to decide on what level we want to compete and adjust our game accordingly.
Posted on May 11, 2009 at 11:59 am in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary | RSS feed
|
Reply |
Trackback URL
No Loss for Words
Think of it as the IBL – The International Business League
by Steve DanaBusiness and trade policies in our country require that businesses be global in their thinking whether they are global in their operations or not. Competition is keen from the huge internationals right on down to the mom and pop on the corner.
Think of the environment for business today in the context of major league sports. There are big and small markets vying for the best organizations with various resources available to them. Within the markets, the organizations are vying for the best talent available in the pool.
Everything is about competition for the best deal. If you don’t make the best offer, your competition will steal the deal. It all comes down to how bad you want the best players for your team. Who are the best players on your roster?
In our market, Boeing is our NFL team, Microsoft is our NBA team and all the other companies represent teams vying for spots on our market roster. Some are major league competitors and some are not. Each one of them is a “free agent” looking to make a deal. What do we have to offer to keep our star players on our team? How much to we have to give to get the next superstar in our uniform?
When Seattle made the decision to give up on the Super Sonics they needed to know the actual value that business had to the local economy. I hope they did some analysis. Regardless of your personal feelings about an NBA team, the business represented a significant asset to the city. Losing that business created a hole in the economy. In this case Seattle decided the cost of keeping that business was higher than the value coming back. I wonder about their analysis.
How do we accurately calculate what a team, a player or a business is worth to our city, county or state?
At a time when international competition is fierce, businesses have to do what is right for their shareholders. Decisions are made every day about sourcing raw materials and recruiting a skilled workforce.
Historic relationships between companies and communities have been abandoned as external factors played an increasing role in critical decisions by business owners and managers. Long gone are the days when a player belonged to a team for life. Long gone are the days when American workers produced the goods and services consumed by Americans. American consumers hunger for cheaper and cheaper goods and services driving retailers to look to cheaper markets for materials and labor force. In order to compete in an international market, who can blame them?
The cost of doing business in a particular place is now a significant factor in determining where future investments will be made. Proximity to raw materials, availability of energy sources, availability of skilled work force, availability of developed infrastructure and government regulations and taxes play a part in the decision making process.
At the same time, it is now necessary for current host communities to determine the economic value a business represents as competition heats up for future company investments. Loss of American jobs to foreign countries has been a foregone conclusion since we adopted a pro-active policy of elevating third world countries’ economic status. Reductions in American worker wages is also a side benefit as those countries now compete against small businesses across our land for anything and everything made here.
Labor laws in this country vary by state. As a result, some states are more competitive than others. State tax laws also play a significant part in the assessments. Competition for the best deal is brutal on both sides of the negotiations.
Government policies may require that products made for national defense must be produced in the United States, but they don’t specify where in the country. The competition for a manufacturing company such as Boeing could be likened to the process of recruiting a sports team to your market. The cost-benefit analysis considers all the variables and spits out a winner.
At the end of the day, how do we stack up against our competition? What do we have to offer that will attract a winning team to our market? What are the negatives that might turn the cream of the crop away from our market? What are the negatives that might cause existing players to be traded away from our team?
If we fail to stay sharp, we risk losing core players to free agency and we stand little chance of recruiting new talent.
It’s up to us to decide on what level we want to compete and adjust our game accordingly.
Rate this:
Share this:
Related
Posted on May 11, 2009 at 11:59 am in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary | RSS feed | Reply | Trackback URL