Who can create more jobs for Americans is the theme of the campaign battle for the November presidential election in the United States. With unemployment stuck at more than 8 percent and gloomy forecasts from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Monetary Fund, the challenge of how to create jobs in the US is a key one. Against this background much attention is being directed to the outsourcing of American jobs, especially if one candidate seems to be more directly associated with that activity.

However, is that such a shocking activity? I recall using the case study of one of the most iconic American brands, Levi's, 20 years ago to illustrate the importance of outsourcing used by the Strauss family management to turn that company around. Rising costs necessitated closing production in the US and outsourcing initially to Mexico and later beyond. China did not feature in that case study. But the main message was that the management skills saved and revived an important American brand.

Put more generally, where in a typical American multinational company's mission statement do the words "we strive to protect US jobs at all costs" appear? It is more likely for us to find "we aim to consistently provide a high return to our shareholders" and if that means switching employment between countries to increase profits, so be it. A clue is in the words "American multinational"; such companies have responsibilities toward their global workforce and, let's face it, the world needs jobs.