South Korea's latest big export: Jobless college graduates

South Korea's latest big export: Jobless college graduates - Reuters

Left: A jobseeker stands as he gets into the 2018 Japan Job Fair in Seoul, South Korea. Jobseekers attend the 2018 Japan Job Fair in Seoul, South Korea. (Filepics)

SEOUL: Cho Min-kyong boasts an engineering degree from one of South Korea's top universities, a school design award and a near-perfect score in her English proficiency test.

But she had all but given up hope of finding a job when all her 10 applications, including one to Hyundai Motor Co, were rejected in 2016.

Help came unexpectedly from neighboring Japan six months later: Cho got job offers from Nissan Motor Co and two other Japanese companies after a job fair hosted by the South Korean government to match the country's skilled labor with overseas employers.

"It's not that I wasn't good enough. There are just too many job seekers like me, that's why everyone just fails," said the 27-year-old, who now works in Atsugi, an hour southwest of Tokyo, as a car seat engineer for Nissan.

"There are numerous more opportunities outside Korea."

Facing an unprecedented job crunch at home, many young South Koreans are now signing up for government-sponsored programs designed to find overseas positions for a growing number of jobless college graduates in Asia's fourth largest economy.

State-run programs such as K-move, rolled out to connect young Koreans to "quality jobs" in 70 countries, found overseas jobs for 5,783 graduates last year, more than triple the number in 2013, its first year.

(Graphic: Korea's young talents going abroad png - https://tmsnrt.rs/2LwlSUU)

Almost one-third went to Japan, which is undergoing a historic labor shortage with unemployment at a 26-year low, while a quarter went to the United States, where the jobless rate dropped to the lowest in nearly half a century in April.

There are no strings attached. Unlike similar programs in places such as Singapore that come with an obligation to return and work for the government for up to six years, attendees of South Korea's programs are neither required to return, nor work for the state in the future.

"Brain drain isn't the government's immediate worry. Rather, it's more urgent to prevent them from sliding into poverty" even if it means pushing them abroad, said Kim Chul-ju, deputy dean at the Asian Development Bank Institute.

In 2018, South Korea generated the smallest number of jobs since the global financial crisis, only 97,000.

Nearly one in five young Koreans was out of work as of 2013, higher than the average 16 percent among the member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

In March, one in every four Koreans in the 15-29 age group was not employed either by choice or due to the lack of jobs, according to government data.

(Graphic: S.Koreans landing overseas jobs by country 2018 png - https://tmsnrt.rs/2DZCTR9)

LABOR MISMATCH

While India and other countries face similar challenges in creating jobs for skilled labor, the dominance of family-run conglomerates known as chaebol makes South Korea uniquely vulnerable.

The top 10 conglomerates including world-class brands such as Samsung and Hyundai, make up half of South Korea's total market capitalization.

But only 13 percent of the country's workforce is employed by firms with more than 250 employees, the second lowest after Greece in the OECD, and far below the 47 percent in Japan. "The big companies have mastered a business model to survive without boosting hiring," as labor costs rise and firing legacy workers remains difficult, said Kim So-young, an economics professor at Seoul National University.

Yet while increasing numbers of college graduates are moving overseas for work, South Korea is bringing in more foreigners to solve another labor problem – an acute shortage of blue collar workers.

South Korea has the most highly educated youth in the OECD, with three-quarters of high school students going to college, compared with the average of 44.5 percent.

"South Korea is paying the price for its overprotection of top-tier jobs and education fervor that produced a flood of people wanting only that small number of top jobs," said Ban Ga-woon, a labor market researcher at state-run Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education & Training.

Even amid a glut of over-educated and under-employed graduates, most refuse to "get their hands dirty", says Lim Chae-wook, who manages a factory making cable trays that employs 90 people in Ansan, southwest of Seoul. "Locals simply don’t want this job cause they think its degrading, so we're forced to hire a lot of foreign workers," Lim said, pointing to nearly two dozens workers from the Philippines, Vietnam and China working in safety masks behind welding machines.

In the southwestern city of Gwangju, Kim Yong-gu, the chief executive of Kia Motor supplier Hyundai Hitech, says foreign workers are more expensive but he has no choice as he can't find enough locals to fill vacancies.

"We pay for accommodation, meals and other utility costs in order not to lose them to another factory," said Kim. Out of a staff of 70, 13 are Indonesian nationals, who sleep and eat at a building next to his factory.

NO HAPPY ENDING FOR EVERYONE

For those who escaped Korea's tough job market, not all has been rosy.


Several people who found overseas jobs with government help say they ended up taking menial work, such as dishwashing in Taiwan and meat processing in rural Australia, or were misinformed about pay and conditions.

Lee Sun-hyung, a 30-year old athletics major, used K-move to go to Sydney to work as a swim coach in 2017 but earned less than $A600 ($419) a month, one-third what her government handlers told her in Seoul.

"It wasn't what I had hoped for. I could not even afford to pay rent," said Lee, who ended up cleaning windows at a fashion store part-time before she returned home broke less than a year later.

Officials say they are making a "black list" of employers and improving the vetting process to prevent recurrence of such cases. The labor ministry also established a "support and reporting center" to better respond to problems.

Many on the programs lose touch once they go overseas. Almost 90 percent of the graduates who went abroad with the government's help between 2013-2016 didn't respond to the labor ministry's requests about their whereabouts or changed their contact details, a 2017 survey showed.

Still, the grim job market at home is driving more Koreans to the program every year. The government has also increased relevant budget to support rising demand - from 57.4 billion won ($48.9 million) in 2015 to 76.8 billion won in 2018, data released by lawmaker Kim Jung-hoon shows.

"The government isn't scaling up this project to the extent we would worry about brain drain," said Huh Chang, head of the development finance bureau at South Korea's finance ministry, which co-manages state-run vocational training programs with the labor ministry. Rather, the focus was on meeting growing demand for overseas experience given so many graduates are outside the workforce, Huh added.

A hopeful scenario would be for the economy to one day make use of the resources these graduates bring home as experienced returnees, Huh said.

For 28-year-old K-move alumni Lee Jae-young, that feels like a distant prospect.

"The one year abroad added a line in my resume, but that was about it," said Lee, who returned to Korea in February after working as a cook at the JW Marriott hotel in Texas. "I'm back home and still looking for a job." - Reuters

Source link   

Related posts:

5,000 Malaysians are illegals in South Korea, lured by higher pay, living underground !

 

 

In a tough market, young South Koreans vie for the security of government jobs

 

Risky business of overseas ‘jobs’ , Don’t get conned, Malaysians warned !

 Vanishing Jobs Growth Spells Deep Trouble for South Korea

Malaysian GDP grew 4.7% in Q1, 2012

Malaysia's economic growth slowed to 4.7 percent in the first quarter, the government said Wednesday, due to weakening exports sparked by a stuttering global economy and debt woes in Europe.

The slower expansion in the export-dependent Southeast Asian country came after the economy grew at a 5.2 percent clip in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Malaysia is one of the fastest growing developing countries

"Domestic demand remained firm, supported by both private and public sector economic activity, while exports moderated amid weaker external demand," Bank Negara, the central bank, said in a statement.

The bank has projected growth to expand four to five percent this year, slower than the 5.1 percent seen in 2011.

Economists said the slower growth indicated that the economy was "moderating at a better pace than expected" in light of the eurozone crisis.

"One of the headwinds hitting not just Malaysia but also regional economies is the very weak growth in Europe with some countries mired in recession," said Yeah Kim Leng, chief economist with financial research firm RAM Holdings.

"The concern here is of course the slowdown is affecting Asian exports including Malaysia, given its sizeable export sector."

But Yeah said he expected the Malaysian economy to grow at 4.6 percent in 2012, backed by strong domestic demand.

In early May, the central bank kept its key interest rate at 3.0 percent for the sixth time in a row to drive domestic demand.

Inflation was 2.3 percent in the first quarter and is expected to moderate to 2.5-3.0 percent for 2012 amid lower global commodity prices and modest growth in domestic demand.

The central bank said that while the challenging external environment would remain a risk to Malaysia's growth prospects, "domestic demand is expected to remain resilient".

Prime Minister Najib Razak, who must call fresh elections by April 2013 and faces a strengthening opposition, has set a goal of Malaysia becoming a "high-income developed nation" by 2020.

He said last year that annual growth of at least 6.0 percent was needed to achieve that.

Under the plan, Najib aims to double per capita income to 48,000 ringgit ($16,000) by 2020.

The government has promised major infrastructure projects and financial market liberalisation to attract foreign investment and boost growth, but critics say the results have been limited.

Dangers of U.S. Export Control Law & the Cybersecurity Market

Andrew Bigart

This article examines the export controls applicable to the field of cybersecurity, an increasingly global industry in which U.S. companies sell their products and services to multinational companies, U.S. agencies with overseas operations, and even foreign governments, when permitted. The cybersecurity market – both public and private – hit $60 billion in 2011 and is expected to increase steadily over the next several years. Indeed, cybersecurity is one of the few defense “growth” areas to buck recent U.S. budget cuts.

As U.S. companies continue to expand in the market, however, so too does the risk of non-compliance with the confusing web of U.S. laws and regulations that govern export-related activities. U.S. law places the burden of complying with export controls and economic sanctions squarely on U.S. companies and their officers and employees. The cybersecurity industry is no exception, and may be particularly vulnerable to government scrutiny given the strategic need to protect U.S. technological advantages, critical infrastructure, and access to confidential information. In this regard, violating U.S. export laws can result in criminal law enforcement actions, jail time, and significant fines and penalties, including debarment from federal contracting.

U.S. Export Controls

The U.S. government maintains a complex set of regulations that govern the export of goods – including technology, software, and technical data – to foreign countries and specified foreign entities and individuals.

The State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) regulates the export of defense articles, related technical data, and defense services listed on the United States Munitions List (USML) through the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). All manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of defense articles, related technical data and defense services are required to register with DDTC. Registration with DDTC is a prerequisite to applying for export licenses.

The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) regulates anything that is not listed on the USML, including the export of commercial and dual-use commodities, software, and technology through the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Both DDTC and BIS regulate exports depending on an item’s technical characteristics, destination, end-user, and end-use. In this regard, cybersecurity products and services present a challenge because the exports may contain a mixture of different software, encryption functions, and controlled technical information.

Finally, although not the focus of this article, it’s import to note that the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) enforces trade embargoes and economic sanctions against specific countries (Cuba, Iran, North Korea – you get the picture) and individuals and entities (terrorists, narcotics traffickers and other bad guys). OFAC publishes the names of these ne’er-do-wells in the “Specially Designated Nationals” or “SDN” list. (BIS also maintains several lists of prohibited persons). Together, the Commerce and State export controls and OFAC sanctions programs are designed to protect U.S. foreign policy interests and to prevent U.S. persons from doing business with the wrong types of customers.

Classifying Cybersecurity Products and Services for Export Purposes

Whether an export license or other authorization is required for the export of a cybersecurity product is a fact-specific determination that includes a review of the items or services being exported, the destination, end-user and end-use. Given the complexity in classifying cybersecurity-related items, many companies request commodity jurisdiction determinations from the export agencies for guidance on whether their products are properly classified under the DDTC or BIS frameworks. These determinations, which are published, in part, by DDTC and BIS, highlight the breadth of USML and EAR classifications that potentially cover cybersecurity products and software. For example, DDTC has advised that a company’s “Customizable USB thumb drive that conducts targeted searches of digital assets for critical files” is classified under the USML section XI, which covers military electronics, as are certain military-grade GPS and cryptography products.

On the other hand, data manipulation software that uses Security Socket Layer (SSL) encryption usually qualifies for BIS’s “Mass Market Encryption” exception for items classified under Export Control Classification Numbers 5A992 and 5D992. This exception allows certain “publicly available” software to be exported to most countries without a license if the exporter registers with BIS by obtaining an Encryption Registration Number.

Moreover, both DDTC and BIS regulations define an export as including the disclosure (orally or visually) of technical information or software to a foreign person. Thus, a “deemed export” takes place when technology or software is released to foreign a person or national for visual inspection (such as reading technical specifications, plans, blueprints, etc.); when technology is exchanged orally with a foreign person or national; or when technology is made available by practice or application to a foreign person or nationals under the guidance of persons with knowledge of the technology. Depending on the nature of the technology and the country to which the technology is disclosed, releasing technology to a foreign person or national may require an export license (or in the case of ITAR possibly a Technical Assistance Agreement, depending on the individual circumstances).

Why Should The Cybersecurity Industry Care?

As the importance of cybersecurity has grown from a national defense perspective, so too has the U.S. government’s focus on regulating the export of sensitive technology. A number of recent U.S. government enforcement actions involve U.S. persons selling software, encryption products, and other cybersecurity related information abroad:

• In 2010, a resident of China was sentenced by a federal court to serve 96 months in prison for his efforts to obtain sensitive encryption, communications, and global positioning system equipment without a DDTC license.
• In 2009, a U.S. national working for Technical Integration Group was sentenced to six years in prison and paid $1.1 million for exporting mobile telecommunications equipment containing encryption properties to Iraq, in violation of the then U.S. embargo on Iraq.
• In 2008, two companies paid administrative penalties to settle BIS allegations that the companies exported U.S.-origin engineering software to Iran and to companies on the BIS Entity List without the required licenses.
• In 2002, Neopoint Inc. paid a $95,000 civil penalty to settle charges that it unlawfully exported 128-bit encryption software to South Korea.

The consequences for non-compliance with U.S. laws overseas are severe and can include large monetary fines per violation for businesses, and similar monetary fines and imprisonment for individuals. On top of that, in cases of significant violations, the consequences can include a denial of future export privileges and federal contract debarment, which is particular onerous for cybersecurity companies dependent primarily on business from U.S. government contracts.

What Can My Company Do To Minimize Risk When Selling Abroad?

The first step in minimizing export-related risk is to understand the nature of your business and potential customers, including the who, what, and where of every export transaction. The U.S. government expects companies that export to inform themselves of the facts of any export transaction and exercise reasonable care in complying with applicable U.S. export requirements. This process requires companies to determine the appropriate export classifications for their products and services. If any of your products or services falls under the USML, then you must register with DDTC as a manufacturer, exporter, or brokerer.

The next step is to develop a compliance plan that is tailored to your company’s specific export needs. A compliance plan should address, at a minimum, the following:

• Overview of applicable laws;
• A list of prohibited activities and employee responsibilities;
• Regular compliance training for employees;
• Required checking of all business partners and customers against OFAC’s SDN list on a transactional basis;
• Rigorous internal financial and audit controls to monitor export and FCPA compliance; and
• Required due diligence on all agents or independent contractors and required written contracts with export, economic sanctions, and FCPA prohibitions and certifications.

Finally, under U.S. law, exporters that become aware of – or should be aware of – “red flags” are required to resolve them before proceeding with a transaction. Monitoring the activities of your business partners overseas is particularly important because the conscious avoidance of knowledge of wrong doing is not a defense. Typical red flags include:

• Transactions with incomplete information regarding end users, country of origin or destination;
• Exportation of products that do not not fit the buyer’s line of business;
• Unusual contract terms, payments in cash, or requests for high commissions;
• Direct or indirect payments to government officials or their families or payments to persons outside the normal scope of a transaction;
• Payment for travel, lodging, or business expenses or extravagant gifts or entertaining of government officials or their families; and
• Consultants who are connected with a foreign government or political party.

What if a Potential Violation Arises?

Unfortunately, for some companies the legal risks of doing business abroad are not apparent until something goes wrong. If you discover questionable business practices regarding your export-related activities, stop the conduct in question immediately and report the activities to your company’s compliance officer. If your company finds itself in such a position, consider the option of a voluntary disclosure. Each of the agencies discussed above – Commerce, State, and OFAC – maintain procedures that encourage companies to self-report violations under certain circumstances. Although these programs do not allow companies to evade liability completely, they do offer reduced penalties and other incentives.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the export market for cybersecurity products and services remains an attractive and growing market for U.S. exporters. Before taking the leap overseas, however, take the time to review and understand your company’s responsibilities under U.S. export control and economic sanctions. An ounce of prevention in this regard goes a long way in keeping your business profitable and out of trouble.

Eric Savitz, Forbes Staff  -  Guest post written By Andrew Bigart
Andrew Bigart is an associate with Venable LLP, a Washington-based law firm.
Newscribe : get free news in real time   

Related posts:
 Washington seeks to extend hegemony to trade

Companies that combine exports, research outperform competitors

Tweet

Economists recognize that companies that export are more productive. However, a more complex relationship between exporting and investing in research and development may better explain the high productivity of companies in "economic miracle" countries such as China and Taiwan, according to a team of economists.



"The old story is that there's some type of magic that makes your company more productive if it exports," said Bee-Yan Aw, professor of economics, Penn State. "Actually what we found is that really productive firms tend to export in the first place."

The researchers, who released their findings in the current issue of the American Economic Review, said companies that exported and invested in R&D significantly outperformed other companies significantly in productivity, including companies that just began exporting. They examined data on the relationship between R&D investments, exporting practices and productivity for Taiwanese electronic product manufacturing plants from 2000 to 2004.

A company that both invests in R&D and exports is 123 percent more productive than a plant that does neither, said Mark Roberts, professor of economics, Penn State. A plant that exports, but does not invest in R&D, is only 35 percent more productive. A plant that only invests in R&D has productivity that is twice as high.



According to Aw, manufacturers may be tempted to seize higher productivity gains by investing only in R&D and not in exports, but the costs of implementing new technology and updating equipment could be prohibitive.

"There are often higher costs associated with research and development that may make it impractical for companies to implement," said Aw. "Exporting may actually be a more desirable way to improve productivity initially because it is relatively low cost."

The Penn State researchers, who worked with Daniel Yi Xu, assistant professor of economics, New York University, said companies that export gain a competitive edge by learning more from their customers, which are often larger companies in Western countries.

Because companies that export are more productive, they may have a significant advantage over non-exporting firms that are hoping to sell their goods overseas. Government programs can help ease this transition for non-exporting companies that are looking for customers in foreign markets, according to Aw.
"Governments can set up programs that help non-exporting companies connect with customers in other countries," said Aw. "In fact, that's what a lot of countries are already doing."

Provided by Pennsylvania State University (news : web)
Newscribe : get free news in real time