Where the jobs are?

Krugman has a good op/ed today in the Times. Link:

The discussion is about Toyota's recent decision to locate a new assembly plant in Ontario Canada, instead of the U.S. It's really quite fascinating.

A couple of points stand out. It appears there were a number of American southern states in contention. It seems part of the problem with attracting new business is that a significant percentage of the workforce in Southern states are not that bright. I know.. shocking, isn't it?

Several Southern states reportedly offered financial incentives worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

But last month Toyota decided to put the new plant, which will produce RAV4 mini-S.U.V.'s, in Ontario. Explaining why it passed up financial incentives to choose a U.S. location, the company cited the quality of Ontario's work force.

What made Toyota so sensitive to labor quality issues? Maybe we should discount remarks from the president of the Toronto-based Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, who claimed that the educational level in the Southern United States was so low that trainers for Japanese plants in Alabama had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech equipment.

Not terribly surprising is it? It must go without saying that the workers in the south are not biologically disadvantaged from competing for high skilled jobs. It's simply the environment and what it values. They are deeply religious, deeply homophobic, and deeply racist.... and there is a great deal of motivation to keep them that way.

Their "family values" don't include such things as education and intellect. It's only going to get worse as they fall further into the creationist abyss.

Krugman points out other reasons for opting to go to Canada:

But education is only one reason Toyota chose Ontario. Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States.

Imagine that. Remember how much flak Hillary Clinton took for trying to move this country towards a national health insurance? Perhaps if she had been successful, we wouldn't be losing large opportunities to the Canadians.

The fact is, Americans pay more for health insurance then any other nation on the planet. We also pay a much larger share of prescription drug costs then the rest of the world.

Most opposed to national health care coverage cite examples of waiting a long time to see a doctor, or poor quality of care. They just need to realize we're already very close to a national program. It's called HMO's.

National health care can be done correctly, and with the reduced administrative costs, everyone will benefit.

Funny, isn't it? Pundits tell us that the welfare state is doomed by globalization, that programs like national health insurance have become unsustainable. But Canada's universal health insurance system is handling international competition just fine. It's our own system, which penalizes companies that treat their workers well, that's in trouble.

For now, let me just point out that treating people decently is sometimes a competitive advantage. In America, basic health insurance is a privilege; in Canada, it's a right. And in the auto industry, at least, the good jobs are heading north.

When I was in Toronto last month, I saw the huge Ford plant, where they build vans and such. It's massive.

Imagine, living in a beautiful city like Toronto, working at a good paying job for Ford or Toyota, and not paying any insurance premiums because you have nationalized health care coverage.

Not a bad gig for your average worker bee.