Global Leadership Awards Dinner 2017

Penny Pritzker, Founder and Chairman, PSP Capital Partners and Pritzker Realty Group; Former US Secretary of Commerce; Michael H. Moskow, Vice Chair & Distinguished Fellow, Chicago Council on Global Affairs; Former President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago



On May 23, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs raised more than $1.8 million and honored Penny Pritzker and Michael H. Moskow at the 2017 Global Leadership Awards Dinner. Penny Pritzker is the founder and chairman of PSP Capital Partners and Pritzker Realty Group. She most recently served as our nation’s secretary of commerce under President Obama. Michael H. Moskow is the vice chair and distinguished fellow on the global economy for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. He served as the CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

We thank the following individuals, companies, and organizations for their top level support to the 2017 Global Leadership Awards Dinner: 

COCHAIRS ($50,000+)
The Crown Family 
Bill Daley and Bernadette Keller, Argentiere Capital
The Duchossois Group
Kenneth C. Griffin
John F. and Mary Manley 
The Moskow Family
Motorola Solutions
The Margot and Thomas Pritzker Family Foundation 
Penny Pritzker and Bryan Traubert
Robert R. McCormick Foundation 
Shirley W. and Patrick G. Ryan
Leah Joy Zell, The Joy Foundation

VICE CHAIRS ($25,000)
BDT & Company
The Boeing Company
Rita and John Canning
Dover Corporation
Mary and Paul Finnegan 
Jim and Karen Frank
GCM Grosvenor
Andrea and Jim Gordon, The Edgewater Funds 
Ambassador Fay Hartog-Levin (Ret.) and Mr. Daniel Levin
The Ludwig Family Foundation
Holly and John Madigan
Joan and Charles Moore, The Banc Funds 
Northern Trust
Cathy and Bill Osborn
Pam and David 'Duke' Reyes
​Dona and Sam Scott
Ambassador Louis and Marjorie Susman
Jackie and Glenn Tilton
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. 

PATRONS ($10,000+)
Allstate Insurance Company
Angelson Family Foundation
Jeffrey and Lisa Aronin
Christine and John Bakalar
BlueSpruce Investments, LP
Jacolyn and John Bucksbaum
CME Group
Francie Comer / The Comer Foundation Fund
John DeBlasio, GPD Charitable Trust
Diamond Family Foundation; Amelia and Alejandro Silva
Zach and Natasha Egan
Gail and Richard Elden
Charles L. Evans, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Finance Department, DePaul University
Leonard Gail and Robin Steans
​Cindy and Chris Galvin
Goldman Sachs & Co.
Marvin & Elaine Gottlieb
J. Douglas Gray, Marshall Street Capital
Caryn & King Harris & The Harris Family Foundation
Mark Hoplamazian & Rachel Kohler
Ingredion Incorporated
Judy and Verne Istock
​Lesnik Family Foundation
Levin Schreder & Carey
The Malkin Family 
Susan and Bob Morrison
Northwestern Medicine
Larry D. Richman, The PrivateBank
John W. and Jeanne M. Rowe
RoundTable Healthcare Partners
Jennifer Scanlon
Dr. Scholl Foundation
Sidley Austin LLP
Lois and Harrison Steans
William Blair & Company
Zell Family Foundation


Speaker Bio

Penny Pritzker's Remarks

Remarks by Penny Pritzker
Former US Secretary of Commerce and Chairman of PSP Capital Partners
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Global Leadership Awards Dinner

Good evening everyone! Thank you very much—for this honor, and for this wonderful welcome. It is quite nice to be here tonight. I have been in Asia for the better part of the last 10 days and just landed a few hours ago. Did I miss anything while I was gone? 

In all seriousness, while it was the privilege of a lifetime to serve as the Secretary of Commerce, it really is great to be back home in Chicago. For the first time in three years, I get to live in the same city as my husband, Bryan. Instead of motorcades, I am now Uber’s best customer. 

I can take long runs along the lakefront. I am reconnecting with friends, many of whom are here tonight. And like many of you, I am looking forward to another Cubs World Series win.

John Manley, thank you for your kind introduction and to you and Mary for serving as our hosts. To Ivo—you served with distinction as our NATO ambassador. And as President of the Council you have been a wonderful addition to our community. I want to thank Glenn Tilton; Lester Crown; members of the board, including my cousin Margot; and tonight’s chairs—Craig Duchossois and my good friends Leah Zell and Bill Daley.

To everyone at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, you are an unwavering voice for active American leadership. You promote civil discourse—and I think we can all agree that our nation needs that civility now more than ever. The Council also helps bring the world to this city that we all love. We thank you for enlightening us and enriching us.

To my fellow honoree and friend, Michael Moskow…you have devoted yourself to creating opportunity for the American people and to strengthening civic life here in Chicago. And as someone who has gone through the confirmation process myself—once—I think we should all admire Michael’s capacity to survive Senate confirmation five times.

It was an honor to serve under President Obama to help advance an economic vision focused on expanding growth and opportunity for all Americans. While in government, I resigned from every one of our businesses and I complied, fully, with the rules of the Office of Government Ethics. Now that I am home, I am doing something I love—building businesses and organizations. Through our foundation, Bryan and I are continuing to invest in our city and its people. And I plan to continue to be a voice on issues that I care about.

Which brings me to this evening. I stand here tonight deeply concerned that the policies being advanced by the current administration will undermine our nation’s economic growth and long-term competitiveness. Think about the transformations taking place across our economy. Automation, globalization and digitization have been a net benefit for our country. But these forces have also cost – and will continue to cost – many Americans their jobs.

When I reflect on these changes, I think of a man named Tom who I met in Ohio. For more than 20 years, he worked at US Steel at a highly automated plant—and he was good at his job. But, in part because of China’s dumping of massive amounts of steel on the world market, the company had to downsize, and Tom lost his job. He found new work at a light-manufacturing plant. But instead of earning $26 an hour, now he is earning less than half of that. Tom and his wife—a bank teller—are now struggling to support their three children and pay their mortgage.

I know that Americans are resilient. At the same time, for too many Americans like Tom, a changing economy has upended their lives. They are right to be angry, afraid and anxious about the future. As a nation, we need a policy agenda that helps all of us – workers, businesses, and communities -- adapt to these larger economic forces.

But “adapting” cannot mean seeing your paycheck cut in half with no bridge to better prospects. Nor can it mean that American businesses are confined to competing only in the United States. That is why I believe that the impact of rapid globalization, digitization, and automation on American workers and American businesses is the defining economic challenge we face as a nation. Simply put, we must both ensure that our businesses are able to access markets around the world and that our people have the training and skills needed to thrive as our economic paradigm shifts.

In this past election, perhaps the one thing that Democratic and Republican voters seemed to agree on was that policymakers either need to address this challenge or prepare for voters to upend the global economic order as we know it. 

Now, I am not a politician. Like many of you here tonight, I am a business person. And I know that to be a good leader you must have a strategic plan to compete and win. You can’t wing it. But when I look at the current administration, I do not see them laying a foundation that opens doors broadly for our businesses, trains our workforce, or sustainably addresses the economic anxieties of our people.

In fact, I am very worried about the real-world costs of these policies for our nation and our people. There’s the cost of the ban on travel from six predominately Muslim nations. It is currently blocked by the courts, but just imagine if it went into effect. According to one study, the ban is estimated to have a cost to our economy of anywhere from $35 billion to $71 billion every year.

More broadly, the Administration seems determined to move ahead with a form of “extreme vetting”—demanding that tens of thousands of applicants for US visas turn over intrusive personal information. What an awful message to send to people around the world. Last year, we welcomed more than one million foreign students to the US—students who help sustain more than 370,000 American jobs and pump more than $30 billion into our economy each year. But this spring, nearly 40 percent of US colleges say they are already seeing a drop in foreign student applications.

Likewise, the roughly 75 million foreign travelers and tourists we welcomed to the US last year spent nearly $250 billion on US goods and services and helped support more than one million American jobs.

But according to one estimate, the Administration’s policies could scare away more than four million visitors this year alone, costing our economy more than $7 billion in lost revenue. I also fear a loss that is harder to quantify but equally profound—the lost opportunity to build greater ties of friendship and to share our values—with people from all over the world, which is something we should be doing more of, not less.

Then there are the potential costs of the Administration’s immigration policies. The Department of Homeland Security has estimated that just building a wall could cost nearly $22 billion. Well, it’s pretty clear that Mexico is not going to pay for a border wall. And if you look at the recent budget deal, Congress doesn’t seem very interested in paying for it either. And as for deporting millions of undocumented immigrants, one study found that, over a decade, it would cost the federal government nearly $900 billion in lost revenue; devastate sectors like agriculture and construction; and reduce Gross Domestic Product by $4.7 trillion.

I believe we need to remember the economic benefits of immigration.  America has thrived in part because we’ve welcomed immigrants. I am all too aware that I am only here because this city welcomed my Russian great-grandfather in 1881. I am sure many of you in this room have a similar story.

And let’s not forget that nearly half of Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or their children. For many cities and communities—like Chicago—refugees have been an economic boon because so many of them are hard-working entrepreneurs who start and succeed in their own businesses. So immigrants and refugees don’t threaten America, they help renew us. 

Or consider the costs of the Administration’s approach to trade. The president and his team are fixated on reversing our trade deficits.  It has become an obsession—one that is fundamentally misplaced. Indeed, any economist will tell you that trade deficits are not a good measure of the strength of an economy, and they are an even worse measure of whether a trade agreement is working.

What really concerns me is the time being wasted trying to fix our trade deficits. Rather than working with partners and allies to open new markets for American businesses and workers, the Administration seems to be spending its time looking for ways to raise new barriers. Remember, 95 percent of the world’s consumers live beyond our borders. If we want access to those consumers—and the American jobs that depend on that access—we need to convince foreign governments to lower barriers, not raise them. That is what trade agreements do. They are the tool we use to shape the forces of globalization. But deals cannot only be “America First.”  They have to benefit our partners, too. When it comes to trade, that is the real art of the deal.

Finally, consider the cost of failing to lead in the fight against climate change. One study from a non-partisan group of American business leaders found that rising seas could lead to more than $500 billion in property losses alone in the US in this century. That does not even include the costs of future losses from crop damage, extreme heat and diseases, like asthma.

Moreover, there is an opportunity cost of not embracing and investing in clean energy. In the United States, the solar and wind industries are now creating jobs 12 times faster than the rest of the economy. Here in Illinois, clean energy helps support around 100,000 jobs. In the world’s emerging markets, between now and 2030, the Paris Agreement is expected to create nearly $23 trillion in investment opportunities in clean energy. So fighting climate change is not only the right thing to do for our planet and for our children, it is good business—and if America wants to be competitive in the 21st Century, we need be competitive in fast-growing clean energy markets. 

Taken together, the policies I have described could potentially cost our nation trillions of dollars – costs that will far exceed any perceived benefits. We risk shooting ourselves in the foot. What is needed, urgently, is a coherent strategy and long-term vision to ensure that we’re prepared to compete and win in the global economy: An education and workforce training system that truly prepares our people—of all ages—with the skills to succeed in a digital world; trade that opens new markets to American companies and workers; a commitment to innovation and to investing in the jobs and industries of the future—especially clean energy; and, perhaps most of all, a vision that sees the world as not just a source of threats, but as a place of enormous opportunities for more partnerships, more cooperation and more growth.

In closing, I simply want to make an appeal to each of you. As citizens—and as leaders in our communities—we have a collective responsibility: to speak out and focus on solutions that actually deliver results for our country over the long term; to convey the costs and consequences of different policy choices; and to advance a vision that creates opportunity and prosperity for all Americans. That will be my work in the days and years ahead. And I look forward to being your partner.

Again, thank you for this honor. I am excited to be home! And go Cubs!

Michael Moskow's Remarks

Remarks by Michael Moskow
Vice Chair and Distinguished Fellow on the Global Economy
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Global Leadership Awards Dinner

Since 1922, the Chicago Council served the important, independent, non-partisan function of helping educate people in the Midwest about the importance of global engagement. It has been a great privilege for me to serve on the Council Board for 23 years because I believe so strongly in this mission.

Tonight, I will speak about international trade – a topic that is frequently in the headlines. Having served as Under Secretary of Labor back in the 1970’s and as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative in the early 1990’s, I approach the topic of international trade with more gray hair and a broader context than most economists.

I have been troubled by the way in which our society is reacting to labor market concerns and turning against trade. My message tonight is that these concerns reflect broader trends in our society that go way beyond imports and outsourcing. Before turning to those concerns, we should note why this matters.

The benefits of international trade are well known. If firms in another country make products like shoes or clothing at lower cost than US firms, then importing those products makes consumers better off. We can and most likely will spend the money that we save. This is just like getting a pay raise except it comes in the form of lower prices. And the extra money we spend elsewhere increases employment in those sectors as it ripples through the economy. So, the benefits of this pay raise are significant and widespread.

Of course, some firms and workers producing clothing and shoes in the United States are hurt because of the competition. Worst case, the companies may be forced out of business and the workers may lose their jobs. Although those hurt are a very small part of our labor force, they are quite easily identified especially compared to the usually unnoticed but very large number of people who get the pay raise from lower prices.

So, society overall benefits from the lower prices and more choice but what about those who are hurt significantly along the way? Interestingly, the American people seem to understand the benefits and costs. Public opinion surveys over many years, including our Chicago Council surveys, repeatedly show that our citizens overwhelmingly agree that trade is beneficial to consumers, business firms, and the U.S. economy. However, Americans express concern when asked about the impact on job security and job creation.

As I mentioned earlier, opposition to international trade relates to a number of broader trends in our society. The most important is the pace of technological change that often reduces the number of workers needed. Manufacturing is the industry where it is most prevalent, but it is not a new phenomenon.

Over the last 50 years employment in manufacturing has declined from about 28% to roughly 8% of total employment in the U.S., while the amount of goods produced has significantly increased. That increased productivity growth in manufacturing is a success story since producing more products per hour worked increases our standard of living.

But those who lose their jobs due to automation are hurt in the same way as those who lose their jobs from import competition. And manufacturing is not the only industry where technological change seems to be accelerating. Stories about increased use of robots and self-driving cars and trucks are common place and no doubt raise concerns about whether there will be “enough work to go around”.

Looking at economy wide data, many more jobs are lost due to technological change than due to trade but trade is blamed much more than technological change. Trade is a convenient whipping boy as evidenced by the recent Presidential election. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton ran anti-trade campaigns. Both opposed the Trans Pacific Partnership, an important trade and geopolitical agreement negotiated by the Obama Administration.  

The anti-trade rhetoric during the campaign was overwhelming. It was much easier to attack imports than technological change. The TPP fell victim to this. My own opinion is that technological change is causing disruptions in a variety of jobs but the jury is still out on whether it is significantly different from past periods of change. Back in 1900, 38% of our work force was employed in farming. Today it is less than 2%.

I am old enough to remember when I had to call an operator to make a long-distance call. What happened to all of those telephone operators? They didn’t just disappear; they found jobs in other occupations or industries. And people moved from working on farms to other industries. Different skills and more education are required in some cases, but this is not an insurmountable problem.

There is also a growing awareness of the mismatch between the skill level of people unemployed and the qualifications required for available jobs. Employers increasingly say that they are looking for workers but cannot find qualified applicants. And the problem is not only the specific job related skills.

For example, in terms of overall readiness for the workplace, it is shocking to me that 70% of our 17-24 year old’s would not qualify for military service because of obesity, drug use, criminal records, or inability to pass the military’s exam for math, literacy, and problem solving.

The problem is much deeper than recruiting for the military. The percentage of prime age males 25-54 years old who are working or looking for work in our country has declined steadily for over 60 years. Back in 1953, 3% of prime age males did not participate in the labor force; today it is almost 12%. This has been offset to some extent by the growing participation rate of females but that trend has now leveled off.

A growing portion of prime age males are now on disability, and we have a widely-publicized increase in drug use, particularly opioid use, and an increase in alcoholism. And the mortality rate for this age group has been increasing as well, in part due to an increase in the suicide rate. So those hurt by trade gets the headlines but the cause of many people not working goes way beyond trade.

We have made some attempts to address dislocations caused by trade and other reasons, but not enough. We have a broad range of government funded programs that provide career counseling, skills upgrading, job training, and income support.

In general, our programs have had mixed results and pale by comparison to assistance programs in other countries such as Germany, France, and Denmark.

If we were really serious about helping those hurt by trade – or the challenges of technological change –

  • We would conduct a serious review of the current programs,
  • Provide funds for experimental programs in different labor markets,
  • Draw on experience in the private sector, conduct objective evaluations, share best practices,
  • And show the American people that we are making a serious effort to address the problem.

Don’t get me wrong. These programs are not a panacea. Training people to work in a new industry after extensive experience in their current job is no small task. It also requires significant hard work and discipline by the individuals. But I believe that we have to do better.

We must start looking at how to prepare our young people for the changing workplace of the 21st century and find ways for them to learn new skills over the course of their working lives. Whether we address these problems is up to all of us. The cost of not doing so is very high. The damaging turn against trade is just one example of this cost. I hope that we will rise to the occasion. Thank you again for this honor.

Dinner Hosts >

John F. and Mary Manley

Dinner Chairs >

William M. Daley
Managing Partner, Argentiere Capital

Craig J. Duchossois
CEO, The Duchossois Group, Inc. 

Dr. Leah Joy Zell
Founder and Portfolio Manager, Lizard Investors LLC