ReportWire

Tag: globalization

  • Nostalgia Is Not a Strategy: Rethinking Competitiveness in 2026

    [ad_1]

    In a world of geopolitical rivalry, supply-chain vulnerability and rising costs, competitiveness has become a strategic balancing act. Unsplash+

    Competitiveness is not a new concept. It is likely embedded in our DNA, much like other fundamental instincts such as cooperation, survival, reproduction and mobility. What has changed over time is its geographical scope: once local, then national, competitiveness has now become global. That shift has fundamentally transformed how we understand prosperity, business, work and everyday life.

    At its core, competitiveness is the ability to solve problems better than others. “Better” may mean cheaper, faster or, most importantly, with greater added value for the user. Competitiveness applies to everyone. A plumber is competitive if he fixes your sink quickly and reliably; a doctor if she cures you efficiently; a company if it consistently creates value and earns a profit. Historically, competitiveness was constrained by geography. A local plumber could not repair a sink in Beijing. But globalization has changed that equation. Today, even small, locally rooted companies may be tempted—or forced—to compete far beyond their original markets. Within a few decades, barriers to trade, communication and capital flows have fallen dramatically, opening global markets to firms of all sizes and origins. 

    The golden age of competitiveness

    The era of openness can be dated quite precisely. It began on December 18, 1978, when Deng Xiaoping announced China’s open-door policy. That decision triggered a four-decade-long expansion of the global economy that lasted until the Covid-19 pandemic struck. During this period, unique in human history, it became possible to travel, communicate, invest and conduct business in virtually every country. 

    For companies, access to previously closed markets meant the possibility of supplementing an export strategy with direct investments. Such a change also implied greater knowledge of local markets, legislation, government policies, customers and value systems. Globalization rewarded scale, specialization and efficiency. 

    This period of openness also promoted multilateralism. Conflicts, at least in principle, were managed through international institutions rather than unilateral force. As President Reagan once observed, “Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means.” 

    Vulnerability steps in

    While this period delivered remarkable economic growth, it also produced structural vulnerabilities. Globalization encouraged specialization and, in turn, specialization created dependency. Certain nations came to dominate strategic minerals, key technologies or critical manufacturing capacities that could not easily be replaced.  

    China’s trade surplus has exceeded $1 trillion. This has been driven by expanding exports in critical minerals such as rare earths, renewable energy technologies like solar and wind, biotechnology and automobiles. For example, in 2001, China began investing in electric vehicle technologies, aiming to enhance competitiveness in an area where it struggled to match the U.S., Germany and Japan in traditional internal combustion engine and hybrid vehicle manufacturing. In 2009, with the support of financial subsidies from the Chinese government, fewer than 500 electric vehicles were sold. However, by 2022, following over $29 billion in tax breaks and subsidies since 2009, China sold more than 6 million EVs, accounting for over half of the global EV market. Projections suggest that by 2025, China will have sold well over 11 million electric vehicles. 

    With domestic consumption accounting for just 39 percent of China’s GDP, compared to roughly 70 percent in the U.S. and Europe, exports, in part, fill the production gap. The result is mounting international trade tension.  

    The empires strike back

    Today, the U.S., China and Europe together account for over 60 percent of global GDP. What’s more, they are also political, technological and military powers. In 2025, the U.S. and China account for nearly half of global defense spending. Military procurement has become one of the fast-growing business sectors worldwide, rising by 9 percent to a total of $2.7 trillion in 2024.  

    Thus, the empires are back. As Henry Kissinger wrote in his book Diplomacy, “Empires are not interested in an international system; they want to be the international system.” Multilateralism is under strain, and geopolitical confrontation is increasingly replacing cooperative governance.

    The politicization of conflict

    The proliferation of tariffs and industrial policies is rightly alarming. However, these tools often mask another reality: access to markets is threatened. Or at least it is subject to political interference. “Geo-economy” is the new policy. It means transforming economic strength into political and diplomatic goals.

    In the past, conflicts between nations largely centered around employment and economic fairness, and were resolved within multilateral frameworks such as the World Trade Organization. Today, international disputes increasingly invoke national security. The recent cases involving Huawei and TikTok in the U.S. illustrate this shift. When security is invoked, debate becomes more emotional, less evidence-based and firmly sovereign. Each nation claims the final say. 

    How does a fractured world economy function?

    A fractured economy does not imply deglobalization. The world economy will remain interconnected, but its rules will no longer be universal. For example, transaction platforms such as SWIFT for payments or global credit card networks may no longer be universally accepted. Instead, countries will increasingly develop parallel institutions to retain control. 

    At the same time, multilateral institutions have not disappeared, and some will continue to operate to the greatest extent possible. According to the World Trade Organization, a majority of global trade still operates under multilateral agreements. Despite pressure from the U.S., non-American trade accounts for 86 percent of global commerce. 

    Alternatively, bilateral agreements continue to expand rapidly, either between economic blocs, such as the European Union and Mercosur, or between countries. China continues to forge bilateral agreements, notably with many nations in the Global South.

    Between multilateralism and bilateralism lies a third model: ad hoc coalitions. These involve limited groups of countries aligning around defense policy, economic strategy or shared values. Examples include Europe’s SAFE program and the Coalition of the Willing, which bring together countries concerned about military security in Europe. Their aim is to make decisions and implement them quickly without being hampered by the need for broad consensus. 

    What strategies for companies in 2026?

    Navigating this environment is extraordinarily complex. Companies must contend with several layers of political interference, market disruptions and profound technological change, from teh electrification of the economy to the rise of A.I. Nevertheless, four strategic axes are emerging for 2026. 

    Diversification. Companies are reducing excessive dependence on a limited number of suppliers, markets or customers. It is a quiet revolution taking place under the radar, but with a profound impact on nations and companies alike. China is redirecting its business towards Europe and the Global South while companies worldwide seek alternative energy and technology partners. Managing vulnerability has become a strategic imperative. 

    Resilience. The world will not stop interfering with corporate strategies. Thus, even if the future is more unpredictable, decisions must still be made, often under uncertainty and risk. Resilience is the capacity to adapt quickly as conditions change. As Carl von Clausewitz noted, “Strategy is the evolution of a central idea through continually changing circumstances.”

    Reliability. In a fractured economy, a company’s competitiveness also depends on strengthening confidence in its relationships with business partners. When the environment is in turmoil, a few things, precisely, should not change. Trust is one of them. Reliability implies transparency and efficiency. The ease of doing business is critical. As Peter Drucker said: “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently something that nobody needs.”

    Pricing power. In 2026, operating costs will inevitably rise. Political barriers and national priorities leave limited room for cost reduction. Price increases often become unavoidable. Competitiveness, then, depends on a firm’s ability to convince customers that value justifies price. Warren Buffett’s advice remains apt: “Price is what you pay; value is what you get.” 

    Optimism for 2026?

    Business leaders must remain optimistic—whether by choice or necessity. Their primary role is to solve problems and motivate people toward success. Nostalgia, however comforting, is not a strategy. The world of 2026 will not return to a reassuring past. Nor does it have to be worse. It will simply be different. When Mark Twain was asked what he thought after listening to an opera by Richard Wagner, he replied: “It’s not as bad as it sounds.” 

    That, perhaps, is the most realistic mindset for planning 2026. 

    Stephane Garelli is Professor Emeritus at IMD and the University of Lausanne, the founder of the World Competitiveness Center, and a former managing director of the World Economic Forum and the Davos Annual Meetings. His latest book, World Competitiveness: Rewriting the Rules of Global Prosperity is published by Wiley.

    Nostalgia Is Not a Strategy: Rethinking Competitiveness in 2026

    [ad_2]

    Stéphane Garelli

    Source link

  • Can the Global Economy Be Healed?

    [ad_1]

    Now that many governments around the world are moving to protect industries they consider vital, and international institutions like the I.M.F. and the World Trade Organization are being sidelined, Rodrik believes it will be largely up to the U.S. and China, as the world’s two dominant economic powers, to define new rules of global commerce after Trump has departed. He is particularly enthused by China’s two-decades-long effort to promote renewable energy, which he says could serve as a model to apply in other countries, and in other sectors of the economy. Largely as a result of technological progress in China, solar energy is now so cheap that even a red state like Texas is rapidly expanding its solar capacity. And thanks to the growth of the electric-vehicle industry in China, which is now the world’s largest car market, cheap Chinese E.V.s are being exported to many other countries. “We’re much further ahead on this”—the green transition—“than anyone thought feasible, and it happened through a mechanism that nobody predicted,” Rodrik said.

    In his book, he argues that the key to the success of China’s green-energy initiative was the breadth of tools it employed, and the flexibility with which they were applied. The Chinese government supplied E.V. startups with venture capital, subsidies, customized infrastructure, specialized training, and preferential access to raw material. But instead of imposing a top-down production plan, it left a lot of the details up to the businesses. “The hallmark of Chinese developmentalism is an experimental approach,” Rodrik writes. “The national government sets broad objectives. Then a variety of industrial policies are deployed in different industries and locations, followed by close monitoring, iteration, and revision when called for.”

    Rodrik also saw much to like in the Biden Administration’s industrial policies, which aimed to hasten the green transition by offering subsidies, tax credits, and public support for industrial research. Trump is busy dismantling many of these policies. Rodrik would support restoring them in the future. He also advocates for allowing countries, including the U.S., to use targeted tariffs to protect specific industries that they consider vital, but he insists it’s a mistake to focus solely on manufacturing, which employs less than ten per cent of the U.S. workforce. The real challenge, he argues, is boosting wages in the vast services sector, which employs more than eighty per cent of American workers. “Whether we like it or not, services will remain the main job engine of the economy,” he writes. Some service jobs, such as managerial ones, are well paid, but many of them, particularly in areas like retail and care, are low-wage positions. “An inescapable conclusion follows: a good jobs economy hinges critically on our ability to increase the productivity and quality of jobs in such services.”

    Rodrik concedes that there is no tried and tested formula to achieve this. The approach that he advocates mimics the Chinese model in encompassing government agencies at the national and local level, as well as educational institutions, private businesses, and workers. He supports efforts to organize service workers in labor unions, and he discusses the possibility, raised by Arin Dube, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, of establishing wage boards to set minimum wages that vary across industries, occupations, and locations. Rodrik, citing the contrast between nurse practitioners, who earn a median yearly salary of a hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars, and low-wage care workers, also argues that training, technology, and regulatory reform can a play a big role—as can directed scientific research.

    He calls for the establishment of a workers’ equivalent of DARPA, the Pentagon agency that has helped finance the development of the internet, G.P.S., and the mRNA technologies used to make COVID-19 vaccines. Whereas DARPA focusses on research that potentially has military implications, Rodrik’s proposed “ARPA-W” would focus on developing “labor-friendly technologies,” including some that employ artificial intelligence. As some observers predict that A.I. could eliminate huge numbers of jobs, many of them well paid, Rodrik, echoing the M.I.T. economists David Autor, Daron Acemoglu, and Simon Johnson, argues that technological progress needs to be refocussed. Referring to his proposal for an ARPA-W, he writes, “The overarching objective would be to allow workers to do what they cannot presently do, instead of displacing them by taking over the tasks that they already do.”

    [ad_2]

    John Cassidy

    Source link

  • Navarro to Council on Foreign Relations: What People In This Audience Call ‘Populism’ or ‘Nationalism’ Simply Means Doing What Is Best For Americans First”

    [ad_1]

    White House senior counsel for trade and manufacturing Peter Navarro spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations on Friday morning about the administration’s “America First” policy agenda, their general attitude towards China, and economic fears over tariffs. Navarro delivered brief remarks about the gulf between the CFR and Trumpworld, participated in a discussion on the administration’s economic strategy, and answered questions from the audience.

    He began with a frank assessment of the CFR’s “establishment, technocratic, and globalist ideology” and contrasted it with the Trump administration’s “America First” policy.

    “CFR has been uniformly anti-tariff and anti-Trump, and highly skeptical of an America First form of policy that, in truth, is restoring our trade balance, rebuilding our industrial base, strengthening alliances like NATO, keeping –and as we just saw in the Mideast, negotiating– broader peace, and reasserting American sovereignty on the global stage,” Navarro began.

    The Council on Foreign Relations states that its role is “to inform U.S. engagement with the world.”

    Their official mission statement reads: “Founded in 1921, CFR is a nonpartisan, independent national membership organization, think tank, educator, and publisher, including of Foreign Affairs. It generates policy-relevant ideas and analysis, convenes experts and policymakers, and promotes informed public discussion—all to have impact on the most consequential issues facing the United States and the world.”

    Navarro said “the obvious question” is: How did the gulf between the Council on Foreign Relations and Trumpworld grow so wide?”

    “If you ask an AI search engine — try it, I did — it will tell you the Council on Foreign Relations embodies an establishment, technocratic, and globalist ideology, uncomfortably wedded with Wall Street and the multinational corporations that love open borders, cheap offshore labor, and an endless stream of subsidized imported goods,” he said. “By contrast, the Trump administration, since 2017, has stood squarely with the people who make and grow things in this country, our farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers.”

    “What many in this audience dismiss as ‘populism’ or ‘nationalism’ simply means doing what is best for Americans first, protecting their jobs, communities, and industrial base,” he said.

    “This is what the Council on Foreign Relations has never understood: weakening our industrial base has never strengthened our strategic position. It has only invited aggression. That’s why, in Trump world, we do not trade off economic security for national security — we believe economic security is national security.”

    “Memo to CFR,” Navarro said. “You cannot project power if you’ve surrendered production. You cannot deter aggression when your supply chains run through your opponent’s ports. You can’t lead the free world if you can’t make what the free world needs.”

    “During the Trump first term, and you all remember this, CFR’s predictions of economic calamity widely missed the mark. The inflation and recession you forecast never came. The alliances you said would disintegrate have endured. Those wars you predicted? Four peaceful years during the Trump first term. China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia kept their powder dry,” Navarro continued. “Now, in his second term, President Donald John Trump is once again performing beautifully. And it’s long past time for the Council on Foreign Relations to catch up with the world it refuses to understand.”

    “In closing, I come to you today not to quarrel, but to simply challenge — respectfully — the assumptions that still dominate this room. The world has changed. The American people have changed. The age of blind globalization is over,” he said.

    Full transcript:

    PETER NAVARRO, WHITE HOUSE TRADE ADVISER: I’d like to thank the Council on Foreign Relations for this kind invitation. After all, it’s not every day I get to speak before an audience that has opposed nearly every policy I’ve ever helped advance in the White House. But let’s be honest with each other — CFR has been uniformly anti-tariff, anti-Trump, and highly skeptical of an America First foreign policy that, in truth, is restoring our trade balance, rebuilding our industrial base, strengthening alliances like NATO, and as we just saw in the Middle East, negotiating a broader peace and reasserting American sovereignty on the world stage.

    So let’s ask ourselves the obvious question: How did the gulf between the Council on Foreign Relations and Trump world grow so wide?

    If you ask an AI search engine — try this, I did — it will tell you that the Council on Foreign Relations embodies an establishment, technocratic, and globalist ideology, one comfortably wedded with Wall Street and the multinational corporations that love open borders, cheap offshore labor, and an endless stream of subsidized imported goods.

    By contrast, the Trump administration since 2017 has stood squarely with the people who make and grow things in this country — our farmers and ranchers, our manufacturers and workers. What many in this audience dismiss as populism or nationalism simply means doing what’s best for Americans first, protecting our jobs, communities, and the industrial base that anchors our national strength.

    History is indeed a harsh mistress here.

    Exhibit A: Council on Foreign Relations members helped negotiate NAFTA, which hollowed out the U.S. manufacturing base and triggered one of the largest illegal mass migrations in modern history. CFR analysts championed China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization — the single worst trade deal in American history. Then came the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Forgive me here, Mike — CFR sold it as a geopolitical rampart against the rise of China, yet the TPP would have surrendered much of America’s manufacturing base, including our crucial auto and auto parts sectors, to Japan, Vietnam, and ironically, ultimately China itself.

    President Trump saw this very clearly and tore up the TPP on day one. I was standing right behind him on that beautiful day.

    This is what the Council on Foreign Relations has never understood: weakening our industrial base has never strengthened our strategic position. It has only invited aggression. That’s why, in Trump world, we do not trade off economic security for national security — we believe economic security is national security.

    Memo to CFR: you cannot project power if you’ve surrendered production. You cannot deter aggression when your supply chains run through your opponent’s ports. You can’t lead the free world if you can’t make what the free world needs.

    Here’s the second big problem with the Council’s free-trade dogma: the belief that the World Trade Organization somehow delivers fair trade. By its own rules, it does not. The WTO’s “most favored nation” rule says you must treat all partners the same, but what it doesn’t say is that everyone must charge the same tariffs.

    So what happens? Virtually every country in the world charges America far higher tariffs than we charge them. Germany, for example, charges us 10% on autos; we charge them 2.5%. The result: Bavaria sells us seven cars for every one Detroit sends to Germany.

    That’s the tilted playing field that the Council on Foreign Relations has defended — and the one President Trump has begun to level with his policy of reciprocal tariffs.

    Of course, the moment President Trump uses the “T-word,” CFR waves the bloody shirt of — you know what I’m about to say — inflation and recession. But the record tells a very different story. Under President Trump’s first term, inflation stayed low, growth was strong, and the American manufacturing base saw its first real revival in decades. Far from tariff chaos, Trump world had price stability and the strongest job market in modern history.

    Let’s be clear: the inflation we’re living with today did not come from tariffs. It came from Joe Biden’s reckless fiscal expansion, his neglect of our supply chains, and a hopelessly politicized Federal Reserve that accommodated the Biden bonfire. That’s why we in Trump world now hold the credibility high ground on tariffs.

    Exhibit B: During the Trump first term — and you all remember this — CFR’s predictions of economic calamity widely missed the mark. The inflation and recession you forecast never came. The alliances you said would disintegrate have endured. Those wars you predicted? Four peaceful years during the Trump first term. China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia kept their powder dry.

    Now, in his second term, President Donald John Trump is once again performing beautifully. And it’s long past time for the Council on Foreign Relations to catch up with the world it refuses to understand.

    In closing, I come to you today not to quarrel, but to simply challenge — respectfully — the assumptions that still dominate this room. The world has changed. The American people have changed. The age of blind globalization is over.

    If the Council on Foreign Relations wants to be relevant, it must stop mistaking nationalism for isolationism, sovereignty for retreat, and strength for aggression. For ultimately, MAGA and the America First movement isn’t about pulling back — it’s about standing tall. It’s about defending what we make, who we are, and the nation we love.

    Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions — and Anna Swanson of the “conservative” New York Times is going to grill me here.

    [ad_2]

    Peter Navarro, Council on Foreign Relations

    Source link

  • The IMF sees greater chance of a ‘soft landing’ for the global economy | CNN Business

    The IMF sees greater chance of a ‘soft landing’ for the global economy | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    The International Monetary Fund (IMF) sees better odds that central banks will manage to tame inflation without tipping the global economy into recession, but it warned Tuesday that growth remained weak and patchy.

    The agency said it expected the world’s economy to expand by 3% this year, in line with its July forecast, as stronger-than-expected growth in the United States offset downgrades to the outlook for China and Europe. It shaved its forecast for growth in 2024 by 0.1 percentage point to 2.9%.

    Echoing comments made in July, the IMF highlighted the global economy’s resilience to the twin shocks of the pandemic and the Ukraine war while warning in its World Economic Outlook that risks remained “tilted to the downside.”

    “Despite war-disrupted energy and food markets and unprecedented monetary tightening to combat decades-high inflation, economic activity has slowed but not stalled,” IMF chief economist Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas wrote in a blog post. “The global economy is limping along,” he added.

    The IMF’s projections for growth and inflation are “increasingly consistent with a ‘soft landing’ scenario… especially in the United States,” Gourinchas continued.

    But he cautioned that growth “remains slow and uneven,” with weaker recoveries now expected in much of Europe and China compared with predictions just three months ago.

    The 20 countries using the euro are expected to grow collectively by 0.7% this year and 1.2% next year, a downgrade of 0.2 percentage points and 0.3 percentage points respectively from July.

    The IMF now expects China to grow 5% this year and 4.2% in 2024, down from 5.2% and 4.5% previously.

    “China’s property sector crisis could deepen, with global spillovers, particularly for commodity exporters,” it said in its report

    By contrast, the United States is expected to grow more strongly this year and next than expected in July. The IMF upgraded its growth forecasts for the US economy to 2.1% in 2023 and 1.5% in 2024 — an improvement of 0.3 percentage points and 0.5 percentage points respectively.

    “The strongest recovery among major economies has been in the United States,” the IMF said.

    The agency expects that inflation will continue to fall — bolstering the case for a “soft landing” in major economies — but it does not expect it to return to levels targeted by central banks until 2025 in most cases.

    The IMF revised its forecasts for global inflation to 6.9% this year and 5.8% next year — an increase of 0.1 percentage point and 0.6 percentage points respectively.

    Commodity prices pose a “serious risk” to the inflation outlook and could become more volatile amid climate and geopolitical shocks, Gourinchas wrote.

    “Food prices remain elevated and could be further disrupted by an escalation of the war in Ukraine, inflicting greater hardship on many low-income countries,” he added.

    Oil prices surged Monday on concerns that the latest conflict between Israel and Hamas could cause wider instability in the oil-producing Middle East. Brent crude prices were already elevated following supply cuts by major producers Saudi Arabia and Russia.

    High oil and natural gas prices, leading to skyrocketing energy costs, helped drive inflation to multi-decade highs in many economies in 2022. The latest jump in oil prices could cause a fresh bout of broader price rises.

    Bond investors are already on edge. They dumped government bonds last week in the expectation that the world’s major central banks would keep interest rates “higher for longer” to bring inflation down to their targets.

    The IMF also pointed to concerns that high inflation could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If households and businesses expect prices to go on rising, that could cause them to set higher prices for their goods and services, or demand higher wages.

    “Expectations that future inflation will rise could feed into current inflation rates, keeping them high,” the IMF noted.

    It added that the “expectations channel is critical to whether central banks can achieve the elusive ‘soft landing’ of bringing the inflation rate down to target without a recession.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 6 migrant workers were hit and injured by an SUV outside a North Carolina Walmart, and authorities are searching for the driver, police say | CNN

    6 migrant workers were hit and injured by an SUV outside a North Carolina Walmart, and authorities are searching for the driver, police say | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Six migrant workers were hit and injured by an SUV outside a North Carolina Walmart in what appears to be an “intentional assault” Sunday afternoon, and authorities are looking for the driver involved, police said.

    The incident happened after 1 p.m. outside the store in the city of Lincolnton, about 38 miles northwest of Charlotte, according to the Lincolnton Police Department.

    All six injured were taken to a local hospital with various injuries, police said, adding that none of the injuries appeared life-threatening.

    Police described the driver involved in the incident as “an older white male” who was driving an older model mid-size black SUV with a luggage rack.

    The department didn’t provide details on the circumstances of the collision, or what led police to believe it may have been intentional.

    “The motives of the suspect are still under investigation,” Lincolnton Police said on Facebook.

    Police released surveillance images of a black SUV and asked for the public’s assistance in identifying the vehicle and its driver.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US to pay $6.5 million in lost wages owed to Mexican migrant workers | CNN

    US to pay $6.5 million in lost wages owed to Mexican migrant workers | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Some 13,000 Mexican migrant workers are owed $6.5 million in unpaid wages, according to a tweet from the United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs, which announced a joint effort with Mexico to locate and compensate the workers.

    “This program will return millions of dollars in back wages to Mexican nationals who participated in US temporary foreign worker programs,” tweeted Ken Salazar, the United States Ambassador to Mexico, on Tuesday.

    The Mexican ministry and the United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs is launching the H-2A Workers’ Wages Recovery Program to ensure the workers can collect their compensation, Salazar added.

    Skilled foreign farm workers are the backbone of US agriculture and are often in the US on H-2A seasonal visas. It is unclear who these workers were employed by when they failed to receive their full wages, and what years they were employed.

    The money owed to these thousands of workers was recovered by the US Department of Labor after it failed to locate the individuals in order to deliver their checks, according to a press release from Mexico’s Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare.

    The partnership will attempt to locate the migrant workers who are believed to have “received less than the legally established salary from their employers in the United States,” according to a press release by Mexico’s Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare.

    The US is expected to send Mexico a list with names of workers who are “owed wages and overtime.” Mexico will then look up the workers in government databases and inform them of their checks.

    “Together, we watch over labor rights,” tweeted Luisa Alcalde, Mexico’s Minister of Labor and Social Welfare, on Tuesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Entrepreneur | Outsourcing, Offshoring or Nearshoring — Which is Best for My Company?

    Entrepreneur | Outsourcing, Offshoring or Nearshoring — Which is Best for My Company?

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Large corporations have been using offshoring to gain a competitive advantage by lowering their manufacturing costs since companies like General Electric pioneered the practice in the 1960s. Outsourcing started in the 1950s and became an attractive business strategy in the late 1980s as businesses began focusing more on their core competencies (NCST). Initially, these business strategies were mainly reserved for big corporations. However, as remote work technologies have developed and offshoring has gone from a strategy for lowering manufacturing costs to recruiting talent from around the world, companies of all sizes have turned to offshoring or nearshoring as a business strategy.

    The strategy has grown since 2020 due to five main factors:

    • global competition and the search for the best talent
    • COVID-19 forcing businesses of all sizes to work remotely
    • employees voluntarily resigning from their jobs en masse, compelling businesses to find talent abroad
    • high inflation rates and fear of a recession prompting businesses to examine strategies for cutting costs and maximizing their budgets
    • companies applying these strategies to almost all positions and not only IT.

    Related: Your Most Pressing Offshoring Questions, Answered

    What are the differences between these concepts?

    We must first understand the difference between outsourcing and nearshoring/offshoring. Outsourcing is when one company hires another to be responsible for a complete activity, losing control of the work done; the former pays for deliverables. For example, when a company outsources its designs to a design company, it relinquishes control of the activity, and the hired company takes responsibility for the designs. It will manage the team and deliver the designs.

    Nearshoring or offshoring is when a company hires staff abroad through a firm. The company controls the team, which reports directly to the company. The firm oversees legal compliance, payroll and HR — it might also provide office space and other value-added services. Let’s say a company wants to retain control of its design team and design activities; instead of outsourcing the work to a design company, it would hire designers from Mexico through a nearshore staffing firm. That firm would be the employee and be in charge of everything related to staffing, but the staff would report directly to the first company, ensuring they share the same culture and values.

    Nearshoring/offshoring is sometimes referred to as staff outsourcing because a company is outsourcing everything to do with staffing in a given country to a firm. Another term used for these practices is virtual staffing, where a company hires, for example, virtual designers. However, virtual staffing is a misnomer because the staff would not be virtual; they would report directly to the hiring company and would be an extension of its team in another country.

    The difference between nearshoring and offshoring is that, in the former, staff is in a neighboring country rather than an overseas country, as with offshoring.

    Related: 10 Strategies for Hiring and Retaining New Employees

    Which one is better for my company, outsourcing or nearshoring/offshoring?

    Deciding which strategy is better for your company requires first understanding your needs.

    From my experience, you should outsource when an activity:

    • is not your company’s core competency
    • does not affect your clients directly
    • does not involve support for your clients
    • does not strictly have to be controlled by you
    • cannot be handled by someone hired in-house, and economies of scale are available (for example, needing designs but not many scenarios would justify hiring a designer via outsourcing, whereas nearshoring/offshoring will be cheaper when you need to hire and manage a designer)
    • is one you do not know how and do not want to oversee (for example, outsourcing your accounting and taxes to a CPA firm makes sense when you prefer not to invest time and energy in an accounting and tax department).

    You can always use nearshoring or offshoring to cut costs or stretch your budget while getting talent from around the world. For example, if you have the budget to hire one digital designer but require a team, you might be able to hire three digital designers in another country. Based on my experience, I recommend analyzing which positions can be performed remotely by:

    • ascertaining if you are having trouble filling a position;
    • reviewing for each position how much you would save if you were to nearshore/offshore it; and
    • identifying any department, such as customer service, that could be completely nearshored or offshored.

    These analyses will guide you in developing a plan for building your remote team through a staffing company.

    Related: How to Prepare Your Employees for Outsourced Hires

    Should I go nearshore or offshore?

    Companies initially recruited from developing countries primarily to save money. They, therefore, turned to counties like India and the Philippines and began offshoring low-level positions.

    Companies are now using offshoring and nearshoring to save money and tap into global talent. They are offshoring positions of all levels. Companies are not looking for the cheapest solutions but for workers in the same time zone, countries with cultures similar to that in their country, and firms that share their values. Companies thus often look in neighboring countries, which is why nearshoring has been growing.

    Whether nearshoring or offshoring is better depends on what you are looking for. If you are looking only for savings, I recommend offshoring. Offshoring’s likely drawbacks are differences in time zones, culture and distance. If you are looking to save but willing to save a little less to have your team in the same time zone as you, in a country with a similar culture, and one flight away from your offices, then nearshoring is the best strategy for you.

    [ad_2]

    Pedro A. Barboglio Murra

    Source link

  • To reinvent globalization, companies and countries should think ‘diversifying,’ not ‘decoupling,’ according to McKinksey Global Institute’s research

    To reinvent globalization, companies and countries should think ‘diversifying,’ not ‘decoupling,’ according to McKinksey Global Institute’s research

    [ad_1]

    The pandemic, Ukraine, geopolitical stress, climate change, and macroeconomic uncertainty: These are turbulent times. No wonder business leaders and policymakers are re-examining everything from their supply chains to their trading patterns. The overarching question, as we see it, is what this means for globalization.

    The simple fact is that globalization is not going away. No nation can stand alone. The world is and will continue to be a dense web of interconnections. McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) research found that every major region relies on others for important manufactured goods or resources. More than half of Europe’s energy, a quarter of China’s minerals, and the majority of electronics for Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa are imported. Even the United States, which is less dependent on trade than most countries, relies on imports for more than 30% of the value embedded in the goods it consumes.

    These connections have brought broad benefits, such as fostering economic growth, improving efficiency, reducing prices, and increasing the availability of goods.  At the same time, the economic logic of scale and specialization has created vulnerabilities. About 40% of global product trade is concentrated in its origins–meaning that the importing economies rely on three or fewer nations for things they need, like laptops, mobile phones, cobalt, and palm oil.  

    Concentration sometimes arises because a product is only produced in a few places. For example, Brazil and the U.S.  supply more than 90% of soybeans. However, three-quarters of concentrated trade–or 30% of all global trade–is a matter of choice, with individual countries sourcing from only a few places, even though there are other options.

    Such “economy-specific concentration” can be observed widely, from natural resources (iron ore and wheat) to intermediate products (televisions and memory chips) to final goods (vaccines and aircraft). There are many reasons for this, including geographic proximity, consumer choice, comfort with established trading partners, market structure, and trade barriers and preferential arrangements.

    While such concentration can be efficient, it can also bring troubling side effects. If concentrated trade flows are disrupted, products are harder to replace on short notice.

    When the pandemic and stressed supply chains cut semiconductor chip production in Asia, for example, that affected automakers in Europe and the U.S., too.  In sensitive sectors associated with national strategic interests, concentrated trade relationships can result in uncomfortable levels of risk.

    In response to these concerns, some have called for “decoupling” to reduce dependence on certain foreign countries. However, in practical terms, severing connections costs time and money. Plus, reducing sources of supply tends to increase concentration.

    Instead, we would argue for increasing diversification. It just makes sense not to have all the important eggs in two or three baskets. Companies and countries that thoughtfully manage their concentrated exposures are likely to be more resilient–not only able to absorb a supply disruption but to bounce back better. Singapore, for example, realized that it was depending on a handful of pipelines for its critical imports of natural gas. Over the last decade, it has systematically diversified its supply, building a liquefied natural gas terminal to access the seaborne market.

    Greater diversification could also promote a more inclusive trading system and economy. The connection between trade and wealth creation is strong: diversification could enable more countries to participate more fully. Picture a world in which countries ranging from Vietnam to Poland, India to Mexico, and Venezuela to Egypt play a larger role in global trade.

    Is diversification happening? It’s complicated. An MGI analysis of a range of large economies found that their concentration patterns across sectors hadn’t changed much from 2016 to 2021.

    In April 2022, though, 81% of global supply-chain leaders surveyed said they had initiated dual sourcing of raw materials, up 26 percentage points from the previous year. So, change could be in the making.                                        

    Globalization has played a significant role in the sharp decline in extreme poverty–from 36% of the world’s population in 1990 to less than 10% in 2017. However, the benefits have not accrued everywhere or nearly enough. There have certainly been losers.

    By focusing on resilience and diversifying sources of supply, we believe it is possible to re-imagine globalization and build the foundation for sustainable and inclusive growth.

    Bob Sternfels is the managing partner of McKinsey & Company. Olivia White is a director of the McKinsey Global Institute.

    The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

    More must-read commentary published by Fortune:

    Learn how to navigate and strengthen trust in your business with The Trust Factor, a weekly newsletter examining what leaders need to succeed. Sign up here.

    [ad_2]

    Bob Sternfels, Olivia White

    Source link

  • Davos draws record crowds, but its relevance is fading | CNN Business

    Davos draws record crowds, but its relevance is fading | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    For decades, business leaders, billionaires and politicians have gathered in Davos, Switzerland under the banner of forging ties that can help solve global problems.

    It’s a glitzy exercise often criticized as out of touch. It also looks increasingly out of date as the biggest war in Europe since 1945 turbocharges splits in the world economy.

    This year’s World Economic Forum, hosted in the Alpine ski town since the early 1970s, kicks off Monday. It’s expected to draw a record 2,700 attendees, including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol and US climate envoy John Kerry.

    Yet the WEF’s first winter meeting in Davos since 2020 comes as economic heavyweights are playing by different rules, with companies moving supply chains closer to home, strategic stockpiling picking up pace and corporate executives who once extolled free trade appearing increasingly wary of rising geopolitical risks.

    “I think Davos is totally irrelevant,” said Rana Foroohar, a Financial Times columnist, whose book “Homecoming” argues that a new shift toward localization is displacing the forces of globalization that have been dominant over the past half century.

    WEF makes the case that its conference allows decision makers to zoom out and collaborate, a challenge as they battle concurrent, compounding crises such as the pandemic, the soaring cost of living, climate change, food insecurity and war.

    “Only personal interaction creates the necessary level of trust, which we need so much in our fractured world,” WEF Chair Klaus Schwab, the founder of the event, said at a press conference last week. This year’s theme is “Cooperation in a Fragmented World.”

    Schwab’s vision for a progressively interconnected global economy that also spreads democracy around the world has been under threat at least since the 2008 financial crisis. Data from the World Bank shows that global trade of goods and services as a percentage of total economic output peaked that year. Outflows of cross-border investment hit a high in 2007.

    But damage to the Davos mission has accelerated over the past 12 months.

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine squashed what columnist Thomas Friedman once termed the “Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention,” which argued that no two countries with McDonald’s restaurants would go to war with each other. Since the invasion, more than 1,000 Western companies have curtailed operations in Russia, and Europe swiftly cut ties with what was once its top energy supplier despite the high costs. WEF itself had to freeze relations with Russia after hosting its politicians and oligarchs for years.

    Tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, the United States and China, now loom even larger, especially as Beijing ramps up military exercises aimed at menacing Taiwan. China’s strong-arm approach to containing Covid-19 also spooked companies and investors. Many remain wary even as restrictions are rolled back rapidly.

    That’s pushing businesses and governments to rethink supply chains for key products, as reducing vulnerabilities and protecting national interests takes precedence over maximizing cost savings.

    Where former US President Donald Trump used to champion “America First” trade policies, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has been emphasizing “friendshoring,” or strengthening trade ties with countries like India, a fellow democracy. Apple

    (AAPL)     is looking to move more of its production outside China, whose labor market once served as an engine of its success. The European Union is reportedly drawing up plans to hoard scarce drugs so it can avoid future shortages.

    At the same time, the United States is pushing ahead with a robust industrial strategy aimed at boosting its prowess in manufacturing everything from computer chips to electric vehicle parts. That’s triggered a dispute with Europe, which worries new subsidies will put its companies at a disadvantage.

    “This really is a paradigmatic shift in this moment,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale management professor who speaks regularly with many well-known executives. He said they’ve increasingly been talking about cutting deals and making investments using this new playbook.

    Meanwhile, nationalism and populism — which can encourage leaders to criticize tenets of a globalized economy such as porous borders and lower barriers to trade — remain muscular forces. Just look to Italy’s new prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, who was installed in October. Her party’s agenda is rooted in skepticism of the European Union and anti-immigration policies.

    The consequences of this transition are still playing out. While the trend towards deglobalization is expected to have some negative consequences, such as adding to inflation, Foroohar sees an opportunity to reinvigorate communities that lost out on jobs during the free-trade bonanza, reduce the carbon footprints of supply chains and ease crippling global inequality.

    During the past two years, the richest 1% scooped up nearly twice as much new wealth as the rest of the world, according to an Oxfam report published ahead of Davos.

    “Economic pendulums shift throughout history,” said Foroohar, who is also a CNN analyst. “Every time the pendulum shifts too far, which it clearly has, it starts to shift back a bit.”

    Some core elements of globalization remain intact. The digital transformation of economies makes it easier for money and ideas to move across borders. The same, unfortunately, goes for viruses and other diseases. International cooperation is essential to solve food shortages and keep high-stakes climate goals within reach.

    “It’s basically too simple to say it’s an era of globalization or an era of deglobalization,” said Markus Kornprobst, a professor of international relations at the Vienna School of International Studies. “It’s an in-between era.”

    But even Davos organizers seem aware of the changing tides. Panels on the agenda include sessions titled “De-Globalization or Re-Globalization?” and “Keeping the Lights on amid Geopolitical Fracture.”

    The forum will still draw big names. Top CEOs such as JPMorgan Chase’s

    (JPM)     Jamie Dimon, Microsoft’s

    (MSFT)     Satya Nadella, Uber’s

    (UBER)     Dara Khosrowshahi and BP’s

    (BP)     Bernard Looney are on the list of attendees; Scholz, von der Leyen and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez will give speeches from the main stage.

    Yet there will also be notable absences. Those skipping the gathering this year include US President Joe Biden, China’s Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. That raises questions about whether Davos can hang on to its reputation an essential event for the rich and powerful.

    — Hanna Ziady contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Greece drops some espionage charges against aid workers who rescued migrants from the sea | CNN

    Greece drops some espionage charges against aid workers who rescued migrants from the sea | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A Greek court dropped espionage charges against a group of aid workers who rescued migrants from the sea, in a move hailed by rights groups and lawmakers.

    Irish-German citizen Sean Binder and 23 other humanitarian workers had their misdemeanor charges set aside by a court on the island of Lesbos Friday, however felony charges against the group remain pending.

    The court in the island’s capital Mytilene called a halt to the prosecution of the some of the misdemeanor charges due to “procedural irregularities” in the investigation, Binder’s lawyer, Zacharias Kessas, said outside the court.

    “They recognized that there are certain procedural irregularities that made it impossible for the court to proceed on the core of the accusation, so concerning the misdemeanors, somebody can say that the accusations are dropped,” Kessas said.

    “But we cannot feel happy about this because really they just realized what we were shouting for the last four years, so there are still many things to be done in order to reach the final step which is the felonies that are still ongoing, and the investigation is still in process.”

    A statement from Amnesty International Friday said the Lesbos court “sent the indictment back to the prosecutor due to procedural shortcomings, including a failure to translate the indictment.”

    Binder and Syrian refugee Sarah Mardini were arrested in 2018 after participating in several search and rescue operations with non-profit organization Emergency Response Center International near Lesbos, an island in the Aegean Sea.

    The group had faced four charges classified by Greek judicial authorities as “misdemeanors”: espionage, disclosure of state secrets, unlawful use of radio frequencies and forgery, according to a UN Human Rights Office statement.

    The court’s move was welcome by rights group and politicians.

    Lawmakers from the European Union said it was “a step toward justice.”

    The spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Liz Throssell, welcomed the court’s recommendation to drop some of the charges but reiterated the UN’s call “for all charges against all defendants to be dropped.”

    Binder’s elected representative, MEP Grace O’Sullivan, said the prosecution “essentially was full of holes” in a video posted to Twitter.

    “Good news from Greece. We’ve just heard that Sean Binder and the other search and rescue humanitarian workers have had their charges dropped,” she said.

    While the misdemeanor charges were dropped on Friday, an investigation into felony charges against the humanitarian workers remains pending, Amnesty International said in a statement.

    The aid workers stand accused of assisting smuggling networks, being members of a criminal organization, and money laundering – charges that could result in up to 25 years in prison if they are found guilty, according to a European Parliament report published in June 2021.

    Referring to the felony charges that remain pending, O’Sullivan said while they didn’t know how long that would take, “today is actually a step in the right direction. A step towards justice.”

    “All we want is justice. We want this to go to trial and it doesn’t seem like this will happen anytime soon given what happened today,” Binder said outside the courthouse.

    “At the same time, we have been so lucky to have so much support internationally, everywhere, and I think that has forced the prosecution of this court to at least recognize the mistakes made and at least to some extent there has been less injustice.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What the return of Chinese tourists means for the global economy | CNN Business

    What the return of Chinese tourists means for the global economy | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    In the years before Covid, China was the world’s most important source of international travelers. Its 155 million tourists spent more than a quarter of a trillion dollars beyond its borders in 2019.

    That largesse fell precipitously over the past three years as the country essentially closed its borders. But, as China prepares to reopen on Sunday, millions of tourists are poised to return to the world stage, raising hopes of a rebound for the global hospitality industry.

    Although international travel may not return immediately to pre-pandemic levels, companies, industries and countries that rely on Chinese tourists will get a boost in 2023, according to analysts.

    China averaged about 12 million outbound air passengers per month in 2019, but those numbers fell 95% during the Covid years, according to Steve Saxon, a partner in McKinsey’s Shenzhen office. He predicts that figure will recover to about 6 million per month by the summer, driven by the pent-up wanderlust of young, wealthy Chinese like Emmy Lu, who works for an advertising company in Beijing.

    “I’m so happy [about the reopening]! ” Lu told CNN. “Because of the pandemic, I could only wander around the country for the past years. It was difficult.”

    “It’s just that I’ve been stuck inside the country for a little too long. I’m really looking forward to the lifting of the restrictions, so that I can go somewhere for fun! ” the 30-year-old said, adding that she wanted to visit Japan and Europe the most.

    As China announced last month it would no longer subject inbound travelers to quarantine starting January 8, including residents returning from trips abroad, searches for international flights and accommodations immediately hit a three-year high on Trip.com

    (TCOM)    .

    Bookings for overseas travel during the upcoming Lunar New Year holiday, which falls between January 21 and January 27 this year, have soared by 540% from a year ago, according to data from the Chinese travel site. Average spending per booking jumped 32%.

    The top destinations are in the Asia Pacific region, including Australia, Thailand, Japan and Hong Kong. The United States and the United Kingdom also ranked among the top 10.

    “The rapid buildup in … [bank] deposits over the past year suggests that households in China have accumulated significant cash holdings,” said Alex Loo, a macro strategist for TD Securities, adding that frequent lockdowns have likely led to restraints on household spending.

    There could be “revenge spending” by Chinese consumers, mirroring what happened in many developed markets when they reopened early last year, he said.

    That’s good news for many economies battered by the pandemic.

    “We estimate that Hong Kong, Thailand, Vietnam and Singapore would benefit the most if China’s travel service imports were to return to 2019 levels,” said Goldman Sachs analysts。

    Hong Kong — the world’s most visited city with just under 56 million arrivals in 2019, most of them from mainland China — could see an estimated 7.6% boost to its GDP as exports and tourism income increase, they said. Thailand’s GDP may be boosted by 2.9%, while Singapore would get a lift of 1.2%.

    Elsewhere in the world, Cambodia, Mauritius, Malaysia, Taiwan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, South Korea and Philippines are also likely to benefit from the return of Chinese tourists, according to research by Capital Economics.

    Hong Kong has suffered particularly acutely from the closure of its border with mainland China. The city’s pillar industries of tourism and real estate have been hit hard. The financial hub expects GDP to have contracted by 3.2% in 2022.

    The city government announced Thursday that up to 60,000 people would be allowed to cross the border daily each way, starting Sunday.

    Several other Southeast Asian countries reliant on tourism have kept entry rules relatively relaxed for Chinese tourists, despite the record Covid-19 outbreak that has swept through China in recent weeks. They include Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines.

    “This is one of the opportunities that we can accelerate economic recovery,” Thailand’s health minister said this week.

    New Zealand has also waived testing requirements for Chinese visitors, who were the second largest source of tourist revenue for the country before the pandemic.

    But other governments are more cautious. So far, nearly a dozen countries, including the United States, Germany, France, Canada, Japan, Australia and South Korea, have mandated testing.

    The European Union on Wednesday “strongly encouraged” its members states to require a negative Covid test for visitors from China before arrival.

    There is clearly “conflict” between the tourism authorities and the political and health officials in some countries, said Saxon, who leads McKinsey’s travel practice in Asia.

    Airlines and airports have already blasted the EU’s recommendations for testing requirements.

    The International Air Transport Association, the airline industry’s global lobby group, together with airports represented by ACI Europe as well as Airlines for Europe, issued a joint statement on Thursday, calling the EU move “regrettable” and “a knee-jerk reaction.”

    But they welcomed the additional recommendation to test wastewater as a way of identifying new variants of the disease, saying it should be an alternative to testing passengers.

    Besides restrictions, it will take time for international travel to fully rebound because many Chinese must renew their passports and apply for visas again, according to analysts.

    Lu from Beijing said she was still considering her travel plans, taking into consideration the various testing requirements and the high price of flying.

    “The restrictions are normal, because everyone wants to protect people in their own country,” she said. “I’ll wait and see if some policies will be eased.”

    Liu Chaonan, a 24-year-old in Shenzhen, said she had initially wanted to go to the Philippines to celebrate the Chinese New Year, but didn’t have time to apply for the visa. So she switched to Thailand, which offers quick and easy electronic permits.

    “Time is short and I need to leave in about 10 days. People may choose some visa-friendly places and countries to travel to,” she said, adding that she plans to learn scuba diving and wants to buy cosmetics. Her total budget for the trip could exceed 10,000 yuan ($1,460).

    Saxon said he expected China’s outbound international travel to fully recover by the year end.

    “Generally, individuals are pragmatic and countries will welcome Chinese tourists due to their spending power,” he said, adding that countries may remove restrictions quickly when the Covid situation improves in China.

    “It will take time for international tourism to get going, but it will come rushing back, when it happens.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • International Citizens Insurance; Promotions and New Hires

    International Citizens Insurance; Promotions and New Hires

    [ad_1]

    Gregg Manning promoted to COO and Marco Sawrey joined ICI as VP of Sales After Another Record Year Offering Global Health, Life, and Travel Insurance to Individuals and Groups

    Press Release
    –


    updated: Jan 6, 2023 12:07 EST


    BOSTON, January 6, 2023 (Newswire.com)
    –
    International Citizens Insurance (ICI), the leading international insurance broker, is excited to announce the promotion of Gregg Manning to the position of Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Manning has previously served as Vice President of Operations since joining the firm in 2015. Under Gregg’s leadership, the company has become the leading international insurance brokerage in the USA for individual international health insurance plans. More recently, he has helped move the company into new lines of business, including international life insurance and global group benefits. Previous to joining ICI Mr. Manning worked for a variety of companies, most significantly at Edvisors as Vice President of Product. 

    The company is also happy to welcome Marco Sawrey as VP of Sales. Marco is charged with leading its growing sales teams to improve service to its global clientele while improving the team’s overall performance. Previous to joining ICI, Mr. Sawrey was VP, Latin America and Global Retail Development with Syndigo. His experience also includes various roles at Amazon and Fortis Investors. 

    “Our team continues to grow and get better. Mr. Manning has earned a long overdue promotion,” said Joe Cronin, President of ICI. “He has been the number one reason for our growth over the last seven years, including three years in the Inc. 5,000 list of Fastest Growing Companies. Marco is another strong addition to our team and is already positively impacting performance and client satisfaction.”

    About International Citizens Insurance

    International Citizens Insurance (www.InternationalInsurance.com) is owned and operated by International Citizens Group, Inc. The company’s mission is to educate consumers on the value of global medical, life, and travel insurance while providing a resource to research, compare, and purchase plans for their relocation abroad or international trip. The company offers expatriate plans, international health insurance, international group benefits, travel insurance, and insurance for international employees. 

    Source: International Citizens Insurance

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Taiwan’s military has a problem: As China fears grow, recruitment pool shrinks | CNN

    Taiwan’s military has a problem: As China fears grow, recruitment pool shrinks | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Taipei, Taiwan
    CNN
     — 

    Taiwan has noticed a hole in its defense plans that is steadily getting bigger. And it’s not one easily plugged by boosting the budget or buying more weapons.

    The island democracy of 23.5 million is facing an increasing challenge in recruiting enough young men to meet its military targets and its Interior Ministry has suggested the problem is – at least in part – due to its stubbornly low birth rate.

    Taiwan’s population fell for the first time in 2020, according to the ministry, which warned earlier this year that the 2022 military intake would be the lowest in a decade and that a continued drop in the youth population would pose a “huge challenge” for the future.

    That’s bad news at a time when Taiwan is trying to bolster its forces to deter any potential invasion by China, whose ruling Communist Party has been making increasingly belligerent noises about its determination to “reunify” with the self-governed island – which it has never controlled – by force if necessary.

    And the outlook has darkened further with the release of a new report by Taiwan’s National Development Council projecting that by 2035 the island can expect roughly 20,000 fewer births per year than the 153,820 it recorded in 2021. By 2035, Taiwan will also overtake South Korea as the jurisdiction with the world’s lowest birth rate, the report added.

    Such projections are feeding into a debate over whether the government should increase the period of mandatory military service that eligible young men must serve. Currently, the island has a professional military force made up of 162,000 (as of June this year) – 7,000 fewer than the target, according to a report by the Legislative Yuan. In addition to that number, all eligible men must serve four months of training as reservists.

    Changing the mandatory service requirement would be a major U-turn for Taiwan, which had previously been trying to cut down on conscription and shortened the mandatory service from 12 months as recently as 2018. But on Wednesday, Taiwan’s Minister of National Defence Chiu Kuo-cheng said such plans would be made public before the end of the year.

    That news has met with opposition among some young students in Taiwan, who have voiced their frustrations on PTT, Taiwan’s version of Reddit, even if there is support for the move among the wider public.

    A poll by the Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation in March this year found that most Taiwanese agreed with a proposal to lengthen the service period. It found that 75.9% of respondents thought it reasonable to extend it to a year; only 17.8% were opposed.

    Many experts argue there is simply no other option.

    Su Tzu-yun, a director of Taiwan’s Institute for National Defense and Security Research, said that before 2016, the pool of men eligible to join the military – either as career soldiers or as reservists – was about 110,000. Since then, he said, the number had declined every year and the pool would likely be as low as 74,000 by 2025.

    And within the next decade, Su said, the number of young adults available for recruitment by the Taiwanese military could drop by as much as a third.

    “This is a national security issue for us,” he said. “The population pool is decreasing, so we are actively considering whether to resume conscription to meet our military needs.

    “We are now facing an increasing threat (from China), and we need to have more firepower and manpower.”

    Taiwan’s low birth rate – 0.98 – is far below the 2.1 needed to maintain a stable population, but it is no outlier in East Asia.

    In November, South Korea broke its own world record when its birth rate dropped to 0.79, while Japan’s fell to 1.3 and mainland China hit 1.15.

    Even so, experts say the trend poses a unique problem for Taiwan’s military, given the relative size of the island and the threats it faces.

    China has been making increasingly aggressive noises toward the island since August, when then-US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi controversially visited Taipei. Not long after she landed in Taiwan, Beijing also launched a series of unprecedented military exercises around the island.

    Since then, the temperature has remained high – particularly as Chinese leader Xi Jinping told a key Communist Party meeting in October that “reunification” was inevitable and that he reserves the option of taking “all measures necessary.”

    Chang Yan-ting, a former deputy commander of Taiwan’s air force, said that while low birth rates were common across East Asia, “the situation in Taiwan is very different” as the island was facing “more and more pressure (from China) and the situation will become more acute.”

    “The United States has military bases in Japan and South Korea, while Singapore does not face an acute military threat from its neighbors. Taiwan faces the greatest threat and declining birth rate will make the situation even more serious,” he added.

    Roy Lee, a deputy executive director at Taiwan’s Chung-hua Institution for Economic Research, agreed that the security threats facing Taiwan were greater than those in the rest of the region.

    “The situation is more challenging for Taiwan, because our population base is smaller than other countries facing similar problems,” he added.

    Taiwan’s population is 23.5 million, compared to South Korea’s 52 million, Japan’s 126 million and China’s 1.4 billion.

    Besides the shrinking recruitment pool, the decline in the youth population could also threaten the long-term performance of Taiwan’s economy – which is itself a pillar of the island’s defense.

    Taiwan is the world’s 21st largest economy, according to the London-based Centre for Economics and Business Research, and had a GDP of $668.51 billion last year.

    Much of its economic heft comes from its leading role in the supply of semiconductor chips, which play an indispensable role in everything from smartphones to computers.

    Taiwan’s homegrown semiconductor giant TSMC is perceived as being so valuable to the global economy – as well as to China – that it is sometimes referred to as forming part of a “silicon shield” against a potential military invasion by Beijing, as its presence would give a strong incentive to the West to intervene.

    Lee noted that population levels are closely intertwined with gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic activity. A population decline of 200,000 people could result in a 0.4% decline in GDP, all else being equal, he said.

    “It is very difficult to increase GDP by 0.4%, and would require a lot of effort. So the fact that a declining population can take away that much growth is big,” he said.

    Taiwan’s government has brought in a series of measures aimed at encouraging people to have babies, but with limited success.

    It pays parents a monthly stipend of 5,000 Taiwan dollars (US$161) for their first baby, and a higher amount for each additional one.

    Since last year, pregnant women have been eligible for seven days of leave for obstetrics checks prior to giving birth.

    Outside the military, in the wider economy, the island has been encouraging migrant workers to fill job vacancies.

    Statistics from the National Development Council showed that about 670,000 migrant workers were in Taiwan at the end of last year – comprising about 3% of the population.

    Most of the migrant workers are employed in the manufacturing sector, the council said, the vast majority of them from Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines.

    Lee said in the long term the Taiwanese government would likely have to reform its immigration policies to bring in more migrant workers.

    Still, there are those who say Taiwan’s low birth rate is no reason to panic, just yet.

    Alice Cheng, an associate professor in sociology at Taiwan’s Academia Sinica, cautioned against reading too much into population trends as they were affected by so many factors.

    She pointed out that just a few decades ago, many demographers were warning of food shortages caused by a population explosion.

    And even if the low birth rate endured, that might be no bad thing if it were a reflection of an improvement in women’s rights, she said.

    “The educational expansion that took place in the 70s and 80s in East Asia dramatically changed women’s status. It really pushed women out of their homes because they had knowledge, education and career prospects,” she said.

    “The next thing you see globally is that once women’s education level improved, fertility rates started declining.”

    “All these East Asian countries are really scratching their head and trying to think about policies and interventions to boost fertility rates,” she added.

    “But if that’s something that really, (women) don’t want, can you push them to do that?”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • India on track for record $100 billion in remittances, says World Bank | CNN Business

    India on track for record $100 billion in remittances, says World Bank | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New Delhi
    CNN Business
     — 

    The extensive Indian diaspora will help the South Asian country reach a special milestone this year.

    Asia’s third largest economy is on track to receive more than $100 billion in yearly remittances in 2022, according to a World Bank report published Wednesday. This will be the first time a country will reach that milestone figure, it said.

    Remittances, or money transfers from migrant workers to families back home, are an important source of income for households in poorer countries. They not only reduce poverty in developing nations but have also been associated with higher school enrollment rates for children in disadvantaged households.

    Over the last few years, the World Bank report said, Indians have moved to high-skilled jobs in high-income countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Singapore — from low-skilled employment in Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar — and sending more money back home as a result.

    India had received $89.4 billion in remittances in 2021, according to the World Bank, making it the top recipient globally last year.

    “Remittance flows to India were enhanced by the wage hikes and a strong labor market in the United States,” and other rich countries, the bank said.

    Despite being poised to reach the record figure, India’s remittance flows are expected to account for only 3% of its GDP in 2022, it said.

    Apart from India, the other top recipient countries for remittances in 2022 are expected to be Mexico, China, and the Philippines. The next year may be more challenging for Indian diaspora, however.

    2023 will “stand as a test for the resilience of remittances from white-collar South Asian migrants in high-income countries,” because of rising inflation in the United States and slowing global growth, according to the report.

    Globally, remittances to low and middle income nations are expected to grow an estimated 5% to $626 billion this year, it added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why foreign workers in the US are especially vulnerable to the Twitter turmoil | CNN Politics

    Why foreign workers in the US are especially vulnerable to the Twitter turmoil | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Twitter employees who are relying on the company for work visas have been left in limbo, finding themselves at the whims of its new billionaire owner, knowing if they quit, they may have to leave the United States.

    Earlier this week, Elon Musk gave remaining staff an ultimatum to commit to working “hardcore” or to leave. But some staff who would like to leave the company feel like they can’t because doing so, may leave them no choice but to depart the US, multiple former Twitter employees told CNN.

    Tech companies in the US, including Twitter, have leaned on an employment-based visa, known as H-1B, to bring skilled foreign workers into the country. The program allows companies in the US to employ foreign workers in high-skilled occupations like architecture, engineering, mathematics, among other fields.

    In fiscal year 2022, Twitter had nearly 300 people approved to work on H-1B visas, according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services data. It’s unclear how many have chosen to stay.

    Facebook – another company that’s undergoing mass layoffs – had more than 1,300 people approved to work on H-1B visas, the data shows.

    Employees on temporary visas, like H-1B or other work visas, are especially vulnerable to the layoffs happening at Twitter and across the tech industry. Some staff who were on employment-based visas and have already been laid off by Musk have found themselves scrambling.

    “Firing folks who are on a H-1B in a major economic downturn is not just putting them out of the job, it’s tantamount to ruining their lives,” one former employee told CNN, adding that some people who had accepted Musk’s ultimatum had accepted it “out of self-preservation.”

    Twitter users are flocking to Mastodon. What is it?

    Fiona McEntee, an immigration lawyer based in Chicago, represents immigrants who are on H-1B visas and are part of the recent tech layoffs.

    While McEntee stressed everyone’s situation is unique, one of the primary challenges employees on H-1B visas face is that they have a limited window of time to find a new employer, adjust to another visa, or leave the United States. The 60-day grace period usually starts from the last day of employment.

    “It’s a short time period to line these things up.” McEntee said, noting that filing a visa transfer, for example, can take time. McEntee’s firm has been receiving multiple calls from people affected by the layoffs who are concerned about next steps.

    “A layoff is hard enough on people to begin with but when you’re faced with having to leave what’s been your home for a significant time, it adds a whole layer of trauma to this,” she told CNN.

    One former Twitter employee described the challenges facing a former colleague who is in the US with his family on an employment-based visa and now faces the prospect of having to leave.

    For that reason, some staff at Twitter who are on H-1B visas are staying on despite wanting to leave the company, a former employee told CNN, adding that they’re “concerned with being forced into a flooded job market where they may be unable to find a job and before being forced out of the country.”

    The US Department of Homeland Security issues 65,000 H-1B visas annually as mandated by Congress, in addition to another 20,000 for those who have a masters’ degree or doctorate from a US university. The visa can be granted for up to six years.

    “These are people who didn’t just necessarily arrive last year or the year before, or even when they were approved,” said David Bier, associate director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute. Bier noted that some people may have been working for Twitter under a different visa before being hired on an H-1B.

    “Many of these people will have been in this country for over a decade,” Bier said.

    One former Twitter employee stressed the importance of visa holders and their contribution to US innovation and technological leadership.

    “For companies to turn their backs on them now is particularly callous and destructive and undermines the trust talented people have around in the world in the hope of America and its opportunities,” they added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • G20 leaders’ declaration condemns Russia’s war ‘in strongest terms’ | CNN

    G20 leaders’ declaration condemns Russia’s war ‘in strongest terms’ | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Bali, Indonesia
    CNN
     — 

    Russia’s international isolation grew Wednesday, as world leaders issued a joint declaration condemning its war in Ukraine that has killed thousands of people and roiled the global economy.

    The Group of 20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, concluded Wednesday with a leaders’ statement that “deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and demands its complete and unconditional withdrawal from the territory of Ukraine.”

    Speaking after the closing of the summit, Indonesian President and G20 host Joko Widodo told a news conference that “world leaders agreed on the content of the declaration, namely condemnation to the war in Ukraine” which violates its territorial integrity. However, some of the language used in the declaration pointed to disagreement among members on issues around Ukraine.

    “This war has caused massive public suffering, and also jeopardizing the global economy that is still vulnerable from the pandemic, which also caused risks for food and energy crises, as well as financial crisis. The G20 discussed the impact of war to the global economy,” he said.

    The 17-page document is a major victory for the United States and its allies who have pushed to end the summit with a strong condemnation of Russia, though it also acknowledged a rift among member states.

    “Most members strongly condemned the war in Ukraine and stressed it is causing immense human suffering and exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy,” it said. “There were other views and different assessments of the situation and sanctions.”

    Jokowi said the G20 members’ stance on the war in Ukraine was the “most debated” paragraph.

    “Until late midnight yesterday we discussed about this, and at the end the Bali leaders’ declaration was agreed unanimously in consensus,” Jokowi said.

    “We agreed that the war has negative impact to the global economy, and the global economic recovery will also not be achieved without any peace.”

    The statement came hours after Poland said a “Russian-made missile” had landed in a village near its border with Ukraine, killing two people.

    It remains unclear who fired that missile. Both Russian and Ukrainian forces have used Russian-made munitions during the conflict, with Ukraine deploying Russian-made missiles as part of their air defense system. But whatever the outcome of the investigation into the deadly strike, the incident underscored the dangers of miscalculation in a brutal war that has stretched on for nearly nine months, and which risks escalating further and dragging major powers into it.

    Waking up to the news, US President Joe Biden and leaders from the G7 and NATO convened an emergency meeting in Bali to discuss the explosion.

    The passing of the joint declaration would have required the buy-in from leaders that share close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin – most notably Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who declared a “no-limits” friendship between their countries weeks before the invasion, and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

    While India is seen to have distanced itself from Russia, whether there has been any shift of position from China is less clear. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has called for a ceasefire and agreed to oppose the use of nuclear weapons in a flurry of bilateral meetings with Western leaders on the sidelines of the G20, but he has given no public indication of any commitment to persuade his “close friend” Vladimir Putin to end the war.

    Since Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine in February, Beijing has refused to label the military aggression as an “invasion” or “war,” and has amplified Russian propaganda blaming the conflict on NATO and the US while decrying sanctions.

    When discussing Ukraine with leaders from the US, France and other nations, Xi invariably stuck to terms such as “the Ukraine crisis” or “the Ukraine issue” and avoided the word “war,” according to Chinese readouts.

    In those meetings, Xi reiterated China’s call for a ceasefire through dialogue, and, according to readouts from his interlocutors, agreed to oppose the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine – but those remarks are not included in China’s account of the talks.

    China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi later told Chinese state media that Xi had reiterated China’s position in his meeting with Biden that “nuclear weapons cannot be used and a nuclear war cannot be fought.”

    In a meeting with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov Tuesday, Wang praised Russia for holding the same position. “China noticed that Russia has recently reaffirmed the established position that ‘a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,’ which shows Russia’s rational and responsible attitude,” Wang was quoted as saying by state news agency Xinhua.

    Wang is one of the few – if not only – foreign officials to have sat down for a formal meeting with Lavrov, who has faced isolation and condemnation at a summit where he stood in for Putin.

    On Tuesday, Lavrov sat through the opening of the summit listening to world leaders condemn Russia’s brutal invasion. Indonesian President and G20 host Widodo told world leaders “we must end the war.” “If the war does not end, it will be difficult for the world to move forward,” he said.

    Xi, meanwhile, made no mention of Ukraine in his opening remarks. Instead, the Chinese leader made a thinly veiled criticism of the US – without mentioning it by name – for “drawing ideological lines” and “promoting group politics and bloc confrontation.”

    Compared with the ambiguous stance of China, observers have noted a more obvious shift from India – and the greater role New Delhi is willing to play in engaging all sides.

    On Tuesday, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi called for leaders to “find a way to return to the path of ceasefire and diplomacy in Ukraine” in his opening remarks at the summit.

    The draft of the joint declaration also includes a sentence: “Today’s era must not be of war.” The language echos what Modi told Putin in September, on the sidelines of a regional summit in Uzbekistan.

    “If the Indian language was used in the text, that means Western leaders are listening to India as a major stakeholder in the region, because India is a country that is close to both the West and Russia,” said Happymon Jacob, associate professor of diplomacy and disarmament at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.

    “And we are seeing India disassociating itself from Russia in many ways.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Undaunted by DeSantis, immigrant workers are heading to Florida to help with hurricane cleanup | CNN

    Undaunted by DeSantis, immigrant workers are heading to Florida to help with hurricane cleanup | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Just weeks after Ron DeSantis made a very public display of his efforts to keep migrants from coming to Florida, Hurricane Ian’s destruction is drawing a growing number of immigrants to the Republican governor’s state.

    “They’re arriving from New York, from Louisiana, from Houston and Dallas,” says Saket Soni, executive director of the nonprofit Resilience Force, which advocates for thousands of disaster response workers. The group is made up largely of immigrants, many of whom are undocumented, Soni says. Much like migrant workers who follow harvest seasons and travel from farm to farm, Soni says these workers crisscross the US to help clean up and rebuild when disaster strikes.

    To describe their work, he likes to use a metaphor he says a Mexican roofer once shared with him.

    “What you have now is basically immigrants who are sort of traveling white blood cells of America, who congregate after hurricanes to heal a place, and then move on to heal the next place,” Soni says.

    Already, Soni says his team has been in the Fort Myers area with hundreds of immigrant workers – about half of whom came from out of state. And he says more will arrive in the coming weeks.

    He calls it a “moment of interdependence.” And he says it’s something he hopes DeSantis and others in Florida will recognize.

    “Many who were traveling in the opposite direction weeks ago are now traveling to Florida to help rebuild,” he says.

    And each morning when they wake up, he says, many migrants have told him they are praying for DeSantis.

    “They’re praying for him to lead a good recovery, they’re praying for him to be the best governor he can be. Because they need him and he needs them. And they know that,” Soni says.

    Does DeSantis?

    “There’s no way that he doesn’t,” Soni says.

    But so far, the Florida governor’s words and actions tell a different story.

    Back in 2018, DeSantis campaigned for governor with a TV ad showing him teaching his kids to build a wall. And since then, he’s positioned himself as one of the most vocal critics of the Biden administration’s immigration policies and announced high-profile immigration steps of his own, including – most recently – using state funds for two flights taking migrants from Texas to Florida to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts.

    Word that immigrants are now coming to help clean up some of his state’s most storm-ravaged communities hasn’t softened the governor’s stance.

    Several minutes into a news conference Tuesday billed as an update on the state’s hurricane response – before he detailed ongoing rescue efforts – DeSantis made a point of trumpeting that three “illegal aliens” were among four people recently arrested on looting allegations.

    “These are people that are foreigners, they’re illegally in our country, and not only that, they try to loot and ransack in the aftermath of a natural disaster. I mean, they should be prosecuted, but they need to be sent back to their home countries. They should not be here at all,” he told reporters.

    Later in the news conference, CNN’s Boris Sanchez asked DeSantis whether he had any response to reports that Venezuelans in New York were being recruited to work on recovery efforts, and whether the governor would also be trying to send those migrants back north.

    DeSantis doubled down on his earlier message.

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks during a news conference Tuesday in Cape Coral, Florida.

    “First of all, our program that we did is a voluntary relocation program. I don’t have the authority to forcibly relocate people. If I could, I’d take those three looters, I’d drag them out by their collars, and I’d send them back to where they came from,” the governor said, drawing applause from officials surrounding him.

    He went on to describe a funeral he attended this week of a Pinellas County sheriff’s deputy who was killed in a hit and run by a front-end loader that authorities allege was driven by an undocumented Honduran immigrant.

    Then he ended the news conference, making no mention of immigrant workers who were putting tarps on roofs or clearing debris.

    Hurricane Ian is the first major hurricane to hit Florida since DeSantis took office in January 2019.

    Many migrants coming now to help rebuild, Soni says, have responded in the past to numerous major disasters in Florida and across the country.

    “Many are from Venezuela. Many are from Honduras and Mexico. They represent all of the different waves of migrants that have been arriving into the US and into this industry. Many of them who I’ve known since Hurricane Katrina and who have a dozen hurricanes under their belt,” he said. “But there are also newer migrants. I just met a group of Venezuelan asylum-seekers who were arriving to do the work.”

    The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History notes in its description of an artifact in its collection that after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, “Many homeowners undertook their own clean-up, but much was performed by immigrant laborers attracted to the region by the promise of hard work and good wages.”

    This file photo from April 2006 shows immigrant workers performing

    Sergio Chávez, an associate professor of sociology at Rice University who studies Mexican roofers, describes Katrina as a “key moment” that shaped the identities and careers of many of the hundreds of men he’s interviewed.

    A little more than half of the roofers in the group he’s studied are undocumented immigrants, Chávez says. And when he’s spoken with roofers across the United States – based in places like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Ohio and Kentucky – Chávez says a common detail quickly emerges when he asks how they ended up in those locations.

    “They always name a storm,” he says.

    After Hurricane Ian, he says, many of those roofers are poised to head to Florida. Deciding exactly when to go to a disaster zone is a strategic decision, Chávez says, noting that arriving too early can be problematic.

    “There’s no telephone service, gasoline, food, housing,” he says. “They also have to be really careful not to just work for anybody, because otherwise they may not get compensated for the work that they do.”

    But there’s no doubt they’re going to Florida, he says, and that they’ll play a key role in the state’s recovery.

    “DeSantis is not scaring them away,” Chávez says.

    That doesn’t mean they won’t face some hostility once they get there, just like they have in other communities.

    “My guys for the most part do experience ‘the look.’ They do get pulled over, maybe. But for the most part, any time they go to a lot of these different locations, they are there to do work which the local population sees as essential. So they get their work done,” Chávez says.

    On the ground in communities, Chávez says he’s seen contradictions between people’s political beliefs and their actions. Some may support anti-immigrant rhetoric, he says, but then look the other way when they need certain services that immigrant workers provide.

    A bigger problem, Chávez says, is that when these workers face abuses – like wage theft or unsafe housing conditions – there aren’t enough laws to protect them, or local authorities may be hesitant to enforce them.

    On top of that, the work is physically demanding and risky.

    “These guys are helping us to adapt to a new world that we live in and we need their labor,” Chávez says. “But it turns out they actually risk their bodies. (Roofing is) one of the most dangerous occupations in the United States.”

    Damage from Hurricane Ian is seen on Tuesday in San Carlos Island, Fort Myers Beach.

    Chávez says he’s spoken with many roofers about on-the-job injuries.

    “A lot of these guys have fallen and they don’t have access to health insurance. Their bodies are no longer the same. They have bad knees, bad backs,” he says.

    So why do roofers and other disaster recovery workers keep setting out for these destinations, storm after storm?

    Even though wage theft is a major problem some face, there’s the potential to earn good wages, send their earnings to families in their home country and possibly advance to higher-paying jobs over time, Chávez says. So it’s a choice that makes economic sense to many, despite the risks.

    Desperation is also a factor, Soni says.

    “Part of what’s happened is because this is such dirty, dangerous work, and the conditions are so harsh, the most desperate people – those with no other economic avenues, those who are willing to be transient for a year or more – are the ones who join,” he says.

    When it comes to the physical and economic risks, Soni says Resilience Force does what it can to protect workers by helping them negotiate fair wages and payment with contractors, and making sure they have the right safety equipment as they set out to rebuild homes and schools.

    But those aren’t the only construction projects they’ll be working on in Florida, Soni says.

    “We also try to rebuild a society that’s better than it was before the storm,” he says. “And it’s better when there are more relationships and there are more bonds between different people. … Politics can change when the people in a place change their minds.”

    After previous hurricanes, he says, the organization has led workers on service projects rebuilding uninsured homes, then hosted meals where homeowners and workers can talk with the help of interpreters.

    “Those bonds have lasted. People have become friends and people have changed their minds,” he says. “What that often looks like in Florida or Louisiana is for someone who thought immigration was their most important issue, well, after a hurricane, immigration becomes the 35th most important issue. And what’s more important is, how are we going to stay in this place to survive and thrive again? Who will it take? What family will it take to bring this place back? And that family usually includes the immigrants who helped rebuild the place.”

    DeSantis may not take note of this. But as Florida rebuilds, Soni is betting that community leaders and homeowners who need help will.

    [ad_2]

    Source link