Over 300,000 Ohioans Are Employed by Foreign Companies. Why Isn't J.D. Vance Outraged?
Companies based outside the United States employ 7.9 million Americans. Foreign investment isn't something to be feared or blocked, but welcomed.

In the eastern Ohio village of McConnelsville, hundreds of workers convene every morning at a pair of factories that manufacture ball bearings and do sintering, a key component in the steelmaking process.
It's the sort of blue-collar work that's stereotypical of that part of the country—and that's lauded by politicians in both major parties as patriotic and essential, not just because it lets workers feed their families, but because it says something fundamental about America.
And all that happens because of a foreign company.
The two factories in McConnelsville are owned by Miba, an Austria-based multinational manufacturing firm. Miba bought an existing ball bearing plant in McConnelsville in 2001 then built the sinter plant next door in 2010.
Why isn't Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio.) outraged by this?
Vance, you may recall, was angered by the announcement last month that Japan-based Nippon Steel had reached a deal to buy U.S. Steel—which, despite its name, is a publicly traded company and not a wholly owned subsidiary of the federal government.
That deal, according to Vance, meant that "a critical piece of America's defense industrial base was auctioned off to foreigners for cash." He vowed to "do everything in my power" to block the transaction between the two private companies.
Vance is not alone in raising objections to the deal. Sens. Bob Casey (D–Pa.), John Fetterman (D–Pa.), Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), and Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) have criticized it as well, and White House National Economic Adviser Lael Brainard has promised to scrutinize to deal and "act if appropriate."
It's either performative outrage or else Vance needs to add a lot more businesses to his personal burn book. Indeed, companies based outside the United States employed 7.9 million Americans in 2021, according to the most recent data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis. That includes over 2.8 million American manufacturing workers.
In Vance's home state of Ohio, over 300,000 workers earn paychecks from companies based overseas—and about half of them (151,300) work in the manufacturing sector. That includes the folks making ball bearings and sintering in McConnelsville.
Across the border in Fetterman and Casey's home state of Pennsylvania, foreign companies employ 333,500 workers, including 114,400 in the manufacturing sector.
Thanks to the BEA's data, we also know that about 69,000 Ohioans, 27,000 Pennsylvanians, and over 963,000 Americans overall are employed by companies based in Japan. In Ohio and across the country as a whole, Japanese companies employ more Americans than companies based in any other country—a reflection of the long and mutually beneficial economic relationship between the two allies.
There's also nothing novel about a foreign-based company operating steel mills in the United States. As Ed Gresser, a former assistant U.S. trade representative, points out in a post for the Progressive Policy Institute: One of the largest steel plants in the country is the Calvert mill in Alabama. It was built by a German company, Thyssen-Krupp, and is currently operated as a joint venture between Luxembourg-based Arcelor-Mittal and, yes, Nippon Steel.
Surely, Vance knows that foreign investment in the United States isn't something to be feared or blocked but welcomed. As I pointed out last month, Vance's best-selling memoir Hillbilly Elegy literally contains a story about how investments by a Japan-based company, Kawasaki, benefitted Vance's hometown of Middletown, Ohio.
Vance's performative populism might be good politics—he's reportedly on former President Donald Trump's shortlist as a possible running mate this year—but it is poor ground for making economic policy.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why isn’t Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio.) outraged by this?
Because that happened in 2001? If it happened before 9/11, there’s your answer.
Why isn't Vance enraged? Because, he only thinks about JD Vance. This has nothing to do with his "I worked myself up by the bootstraps narrative" (despite help from his Ivy League mentor.
Read the following report to learn how a single-mom with 3 kids was able to generate $89,844 of annual Q income working in her spare time online from her home without selling...
For More Visit Here....> http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
I agree, JD Vance is a political chameleon who adapts to his surroundings rather than his beliefs. And like a real chameleon he is looking out for himself.
Because he is channeling his inner hillbilly retard?
No offense Nobartium, I’m going to jump in here and, maybe, save some forum readers the trouble:
Over 300,000 Ohioans Are Employed by Foreign Companies. Why Isn’t J.D. Vance Outraged?
ctrl+f “chin”: 0 results
ctrl+f “russ”: 0 results
ctrl+f “iran”: 0 results
ctrl+f “korea”: 0 results
ctrl+f “mexic”: 0 results
So, without even reading the article, I can fairly confidently surmise that, no matter how retarded or slimy Vance is being, Reason is playing to win the “Who can be the biggest retard?” contest by conflating a business Ikea or BMW (or something even more retarded) and their respective foreign governments with, e.g., opposing business investments from no-shit communist dictatorships and/or violent anti-Western oppressive religious regimes.
To wit, Congrats to Reason, Vance may be a manipulative, lying backstabbing sonofabitch, but he isn’t a stooge obfuscating on behalf of communists and violent ideological zealots. You win the biggest retard award.
So a good thing happens. J.D. Vance doesn't say anything bad about an existing good thing (not a new good thing). Gets criticized for not doing what he'd be even more criticized for doing. I understand the "hypocrisy" angle, but how exactly does this qualify as an article topic? This is kind of journalistic double jeopardy, no?
In any event, there is still the argument that the United States maintains policies that puts foreign companies at advantages when it comes to these sorts of business decisions, and might also further give the governments of said countries the ability to hold US foreign policy hostage, lest that country decides to send several million Americans to the unemployment lines in one day.
I'm very much in favor of free trade. But we don't have that. We have a system where most companies are beholden to the good will of the governments of the countries they're based in (including the USA). And so a companies competitiveness is largely determined by how free a hand each government gives said companies. A bit more complicated than facile "comparative advantage" examples.
Nikki Haley BANS Daily Mail from her campaign events and boots our reporter and photographer from NH meet-and-greet over story about how she cheated on her vet husband with two different men
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12984447/nikki-haley-bans-daily-mail-campaign-events-husband-affair-allegations.html
Seems like an appropriate time to play a tune.
Is that the same husband that she decided was just going to start being called by his middle name because she didn't like his first?
Talk about a lack of respect.
People who live in glass houses should throw stones a lot more reluctantly and strategically, Eric.
Also, it's a bit weird to cry about your perceived ideological enemy not reflexively hating something that you actually find good.
Fuck off Boehm. I haven't seen you condemn White Supremacy today does that mean you don't? I haven't seen you condemn communism today so that must mean you're for the murder of over 100 million civilians.
Wow Reason level journalisming is easy.
I don’t understand it. Capital is global, even an “American” startup has shareholders from around the globe. I can understand terrorism sympathizers and military enemies. Otherwise, who cares who took the risk to provide jobs and careers for Americans?
I understand why we are so lackadaisical about conflict when we’ve largely only experienced it in one part of the world for the last 80 years, but I still can’t fathom how 80 years can completely eradicate any notion of national identity and even memory of conflict.
America boomed because Europe was destroyed in the world wars and so our economy quadrupled because we had infrastructure, manufacturing, and the means to transport goods globally where Europe was rebuilding.
But that was a blip in time. The reason why we succeeded to the level we did was BECAUSE we had foundational structures… not just because of the global need.
As soon as these foreign businesses pull out of America because BRICS tells them to or the American dollar is crap or because of some conflict looming that changes the economic benefit to THEIR country, we will find out just how gutted our country actually is. We should be net exporters with the amount of capital we have, not net importers, which we have been for decades.
And I thought libertarianism was all about getting our shit from the lowest overseas bidder.
Japanese companies make cars in Ohio. I really don’t understand the Japanese steel mill outrage.
Need to look at who's bribing...er...donating to this guys' campaign funds.
The outrage is ---------> WHY <--------- making cars requires a Japanese Company. Ignoring the 'problem' spot doesn't make it magically disappear.
Some time before I was born, State Road 38 in Indiana was designated as *a* Bataan Memorial Highway. Some time after I was born, Subaru Isuzu built an automotive plant just off the same highway in Lafayette, IN. Circa the plant's completion, SIA requested the Bataan Memorial Highway sign be taken down because they felt it generated anti-Japanese sentiment. In true period-specific SJW fashion, they took the sign down... and put up a bigger one.
If your steel mill company is going to pull out because it "makes J.D. Vance angry", they probably weren't buying the plant for the right reasons anyway.
I SUSPECT that Vance's concern about a steel company being taken over by a foreign entity might be due to concerns that this can come back to bite us in wartime situation, where we need steel for rifles, bayonets, and tanks, and the foreign company tells us to fuck off and/or sells to steel to our enemy instead.
I don't consider this a valid reason to interfere with a private company's business decisions, but I wouldn't necessarily label a person with such concerns as a lunatic.
It's amazing how you can miss your own questions by such a large scale.
"because it says something fundamental about America. And all that happens because of a foreign company."
It says America can't compete. And why do you suppose that is? Something, something about wealth distribution (steal the rich blind), licensing, 'save' the planet from evil companies, etc, etc, etc....
Do you honestly think the best course of action is to just give-up and sell the USA to a foreign nation?
If America can't compete, a foreign company wouldn't buy an American company.
Why would America companies be selling off to foreign ownership if they're doing so well?
Perhaps the company was badly managed, nothing to do with the competitiveness of the product? Perhaps it fitted the foreign company's portfolio? Perhaps given the foreign company's cost of funds, an acquisition made financial sense? Perhaps it was a way for the foreign company to reduce its economic risk (in the technical FX sense)? Any number of plausible explanations that don't rely on poor downtrodden American companies being unable to compete.
And if an American company is poorly managed, and finds it difficult to get a needed infusion of funds domestically, why are you so vexed when a foreign company buys it, rather than a domestic company? Are you opposed to the free flowing of investment capital?
Wasn't everything you just said in the 1st paragraph and mostly 2nd examples of not being able to compete? Funny how you can list all the ways a company isn't competing properly and then label it as having nothing to do with being unable to compete.
I am opposed to selling off America's resources to foreign nations. America is for Americans. It's not for anyone else. Selling America out of some "free trade" excuse is just being stupid and it's a pointless crusade. There is no valid excuse on why it needs to happen and the very premise of it is a valid excuse on why it shouldn't happen.
"Wasn’t everything you just said in the 1st paragraph and mostly 2nd examples of not being able to compete?"
No. Lt me break down for you.
Perhaps the company was badly managed
Nothing to do with being unable to compete. Duh.
Perhaps it fitted the foreign company’s portfolio
Many companies like to acquire business so as to diversify their business and reduce their commercial risks. That has nothing to do with whether an acquired company was unable to compete. Duh.
Perhaps given the foreign company’s cost of funds, an acquisition made financial sense?
That's an issue specific to a particular company - and doesn't stop a company from being able to compete. They may not be as profitable owing to the cost of funds issue, but it's not a structural element to US companies. Duh. FWIW what is a greater threat is shareholders like VCs and hedge funds insisting on higher short-term returns - which is typically an American - though not Buffet - approach to stock investing And if shareholders are unhappy with companies who are looking long term, why shouldn't potential shareholders be allowed to buy their shares from them?
Perhaps it was a way for the foreign company to reduce its economic risk (in the technical FX sense)
That puts a higher value on the company from the perspective of the utility to the acquirer than the value to US shareholders and is utterly irrelevant to its ability to compete. DUH.
I am opposed to selling off America’s resources to foreign nations. America is for Americans. It’s not for anyone else. Selling America out of some “free trade” excuse is just being stupid and it’s a pointless crusade. There is no valid excuse on why it needs to happen and the very premise of it is a valid excuse on why it shouldn’t happen.
So you would deprive Americans of the right to do what they want with their own property, and you would deprive American business of their ability to export their products and ultimately you would seal off the US economy from the outside world. You really are aggressively anti-capitalist.
BTW when Trump said that the reason the US ran a trade deficit wa because of bad deals, did you agree? It's the kind of moronic claim consistent with your specific brand of economic illiteracy.
Frankly your first 'break-down' is just repeating the same thing you did in the first. No need to keep beating a dead-dog.
Yes.. When the 'Americans' plan is to sell their nation to foreigners I would "deprive" them of their own property rights (as if that's a property right) just like I'd "deprive" them of their own property rights to quarter enemy soldiers during a war.
I'm not against exports or import (black and white) but also don't believe in subsidizing foreign markets at the expense of our own or trying to compete with slave-owners. The export and import market should be regulated by the Union of States to ensure the USA's very survival (not be sold off) and ensure every citizen Liberty and Justice.
Repeat after me ... A DECLARATION of Independence.
That was to do with sovereignty.
You would pass laws preventing US shareholders from selling their shares to foreigners and US start-ups getting foreign funding (and inevitably you'd put up trade barriers). That has nothing to do with US sovereignty. But it does put the US on a path to a kind of North Korean juche. And is as anti-capitalist as it is possible to be without being an actual Communist.
How do you plan to keep sovereignty when foreigners own everything? Don’t you believe in hard-core property ownership rights?
See… You can’t support property rights and sovereignty when you put them in two different nations.
Exactly the same way you can't maintain a home after you've sold off just your bedroom to someone else. America is not for sale!
Don’t you believe in hard-core property ownership rights?
Those include the right to sell your property to whomever you wish.
Really? How about the North Korean government? Or the Russian government? Or maybe the ChiComs? Maybe the z Iranian regime?
Right… Now explain how you keep sovereignty on those properties having hard-core property rights…
You are literally trying to sell a contradiction. And that contradiction is exactly the same contradiction the left and this magazine is trying to sell about a border-less nation.
This is leftist shit or far right meets far left. So get together with your friends, secure capital and buy and operate a steel mill. See how easy it is.
And why isn't that happening? Why is foreign ownership so attractive?
Can you define far right?
A republican who believes that being born means that, somewhere someone? will provide a six figure salary and another six figures of benefits to small groups of voters who lack ambition, refuse to secure new skills, take risks.
Unions are a job guarantee. The hardest grueling workers and productive propping up those who would otherwise be fired in a free labor market. (This goes for D.C. political class also).
Japanese companies do not have unions- YET. When they do, the U.S. gets another cycle of hyperinflation and interest rates, perhaps our own Argentina type of free fall. But some Republicans are into labor unions now- Horseshoe theory proves itself.
That’s pretty nonsensical.
Go secure your own capital, purchase and manage a steel mill.
Oh that’s right, you just want a six figure union paycheck without risk.
Fuck off leftist union thug.
NOBODY SHOULD TRADE WITH NOBODY!
The Hillbilly Code
Not quite. Foreign countries shouldn't prevent American companies from exporting to them, but Americans must buy home-produced goods from 'Murican-owned companies only.
Most foreign countries DO prevent American companies from exporting to them as well as owning companies there. Enter China's Negative List, a list of industry sectors that prohibit foreign investments.
It's rather stupid to allow my neighbor to buy just the bedroom in my house as-if that kind of 'ownership' isn't begging for problems.
There's a difference between allowing investment and allowing trade, of course. And the US is allowed to trade with a large number of countries, and sizable blocs, that are in turn allowed to trade with the US. The WTO isn't perfect but it's still a good idea, though opposed by left-wingers and the anti-capitalist right, of which you appear to be one.
China's Negative List is being reduced, btw, but your analogy about bedrooms is frankly stupid and even you are smart enough to know better.
"allowing trade" would be equal to renting a bedroom -- not 'owning' it which I see you completely avoided that subject and instead just called it 'stupid'. Which yes indeed ... It is pretty stupid so why would the USA allow it's resources to be 'owned' by foreigners?
A bedroom is not a factory. The analogy makes no sense. That is why your argument is stupid.
How did the focus of the subject go from ownership to just trade?
I was responding to Human Skeptic's point. Take it up with him.
NOBODY SHOULD TRADE WITH NOBODY!
Free trade happens between nations that each have free markets and respect the NAP. Free trade is, by definition, impossible with nations like China or the EU.
Both ways, TANSTAAFL.
The funniest part is seeing the oblivious retards make themselves look even more retarded than the supposed xenophobic hillbillies they're lambasting:
Maximum Elevation - Ohio: 1,549 ft.
Maximum Elevation - Japan: 12,388 ft.
Purity of Predominant Ethnicity/Race/Nationality - Ohio: 71.5%
Purity of Predominant Ethnicity/Race/Nationality - Japan: 97.8%
Bigger hills with more xenophobic inbred natives winner? Japan by a wide margin.
The fact that the sandal-wearing goldfish tenders have Left coast retards so fooled would be funnier if it didn't come along with other domestic implications about human traficking, AAPI, and white, but not white-adjacent, supremacists lurking around every corner.
Not quite. Ohioans are employed by American companies that are subsidiaries of foreign enterprises.
JD Vance (R-Ohio) isn’t complaining about companies employing his constituents?
Do you even understand how representative politics works Billy?
I don't see how foreign ownership makes any difference here, it not like if the US goes to war with Japan again that they would allow anyone to ship the actual steel to Japan. It's at least not completely insane to worry that moving the physical manufacturing overseas would be detrimental to the ability to wage WW3, but it what way does the on-paper ownership matter? (Wanting to be able to wage WW3 on the other hand...)
but in what way does the on-paper ownership matter?
Humorously, I think you answered your own question there. It destroys the concept of ownership while complexing international relationships adding seeds for a WW3.
What did it matter when Britain showed on-paper that they owned the American continent?
but in what way does the on-paper ownership matter?
It gives foreigners political power, access to/ownership of IP, the means to manipulate employees and customers, the ability to move production abroad, etc.
Again, this was literally the second law passed by the first Congress. Before Free Speech, before RTKBA, before immigration and naturalization.
We had just got done kicking England's ass after dumping EIC's tea in the harbor and one of the first things the FF did was to make sure foreign agents couldn't seize control of domestic trade.
Even if all of the above weren't fact, you'd have to be an oxymoronic, anti-libertarian retard to sit around and say "What's the problem if China or Japan controls all the trade/production?"
Really? You don't think Biden would sell a stratigic product to an advasary to make a quick buck for himself?
Meh. In any case, this is now about labor unions with Republicans. Ya know the same unions that are supporting Hamas. Unions are a flow of dues that create riches to the union management, lawyers and pension “fee” grifters. Exactly like taxes and shakedowns are to leftist bureaucrats and narcos in Latin America. Same pile of leftist shit.
We all benefit economically from free trade. More jobs and cheaper stuff.
Although it may be prudent to ensure that some industries (related to national defense) have a domestic backup that remains viable.
We all benefit MORE from domestic “free trade” which seems to be constantly ignored (ignorant) for foreign “free trade”. While also dismissing how UN-reasonable it is to try and compete with a slave-owner/bank-robber who doesn’t have to honor Individual Liberty and Justice for all in their nation.
Never-mind that foreign trade is being subsidized by taxpayers who are picking up the shipping difference costs or that the most proper place to fund a national defense is by international trade markets.
Never-mind, never-mind, never-mind ... Whatever it takes to get my $0.25 cost gadget, shipping included, foreign gadget to my door because paying the $5.00 shipping from the guy next door just demonstrates how UN-subsidized domestic manufacturing is.
We all benefit economically from free trade. More jobs and cheaper stuff.
We do!
But trading with socialist/communist nations, nations that employ slave labor, or dictatorships is, by definition, not "free trade".
Fortunately, Japan is an ally. End of conversation
When you say ally, do you mean they're matching us dollar-for-dollar in the Ukraine or do you mean, if China were to attack, we would and should retaliate on their behalf the way we did for Israel.
I'm interested to hear your libertarian take that explains how free trade is an unfettered good as long as we always give it up at the first sign of aggression... or that free trade is good but comes with burdensome ties to foreign intervention/adventurism.
Because the "Free trade is like Santa Clause" bullshit is between a comedy bit and children's fantasy.
My conversation subject is based on the purchase of steel mills by a Japanese company.
JD Vance is a venture capitalist, I wonder why he is not willing to take the risks on lending the union bureaucracy or laborers seed money to purchase steel mills? Why are the steel workers unions not securing capital? What’s next, the labor union calls for federal government ownership (taxpayers) of steel mills?
JD Vance needs to put up his money where his mouth is. Capitalism: RISK taking in the private enterprise system. Anyone right of chairman Mao understands this.
Take some risk and purchase the steel mills and don’t change the subject to free trade with commies.
So you're saying he's complaining out loud without putting his money where his mouth is and... as an auspicious capitalist in a society founded on free speech... this bothers you how, exactly? Are you commanding him how to spend his money or just voicing an opinion?
Belittle the Japanese, especially without passing any laws, so that there's more pressure on the purchase of the next mill. Let Mexico know that we're full up on immigrants, also without passing any laws, while you're at it.
If "commies" has got nothing to do with it, Japan as an ally is irrelevant. They aren't going to defend us from anyone and sure as shit hate lots of facets of our culture (plenty of it rightfully deserved).
Secure capital and purchase and run a steel mill.
— Otherwise fuck off commie union thug! You should be over at Jacobin at the socialist workers revolution site.
If you don't like America's free speech laws, you're free to adopt Japan's.
For the record, as a *checks prior accusations* Trumpist Christian Nationalist Protectionist Authoritarian Statist who just wants to deport brown people, foreign investment is not something that concerns me particularly. And in fact, I think that it could help America bigly if, for instance, our Labor became incredibly cheap compared to some other industrial power, and they started employing hundreds of thousands of working class, and or low skilled labor at good rates of pay.
If America could reinvigorate its industrial base-- and that process started to turn around decades of de-industrialization and internal rot, who's going to complain about that?
Whether JD Vance or his voters likes it the world is becoming smaller and flatter. America can be a leader in the world, but not isolated from the world. The real issue is not how to keep everyone out but how to remain relevant and on top in a world growing more equal. When you look at the most isolated counties, people in power like Vance do well but not the population as a whole.
Funny how the USA's history shows exactly opposite of what you just said. Try Liberty and Justice for all is what made America a leader and why it's struggling now.
Whether JD Vance or his voters likes it the world is becoming smaller and flatter.
It's idiotic to think that this has just been happening on its own or that this is a natural development. This was deliberate US post-WWII policy, bought and supported at great cost to the US. And unfortunately, while it has made other nations wealthier, it has not made us a lot of friends but it has made us a lot of debt.
The world will get bigger and bumpier again when the US withdraws.
Vance is not alone in raising objections to the deal. Sens. Bob Casey (D–Pa.), John Fetterman (D–Pa.), Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), and Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) have criticized it as well
Noticed this list, and one wonders if Fetterman 'objected' or if he groaned and grunted while pointing in a random direction and this was interpreted as an 'objection'.
I find is curious that Vance is the one being raked over the coals here, while the rest of that list is entirely ignored beyond the vague mention that they are 'against' this.
Vance's performative populism might be good politics—he's reportedly on former President Donald Trump's shortlist as a possible running mate this year
Oh, I guess I see it now. He might be Vice President someday, maybe, and therefore he gets extra scrutiny. Fair, but way to bury the reason for this article literally at the very bottom.
Now lets talk about how our current Vice President literally slept her way up the ranks of politics. A literal case of fucking your way to the top with an extra helping of racial politics. Is that not a reasonable foil for this article?
Vance is Putins best friend in Congress
Companies based outside the United States employ 7.9 million Americans. Foreign investment isn't something to be feared or blocked, but welcomed.
I suppose we can look forward to the next "libertarian" headlines from Reason:
Reason (coming soon): "Hundreds of millions of Soviet citizens were paid and employed by the Soviet state. Communism isn't something to be feared or blocked, but welcomed."
Reason (coming soon): "Millions of Jews were fed and housed by the Nazis between 1940 and 1945. Nazis are not something to be feared."
Idiotic.
Vance is a tool. A nasty chaw for the brainless.