Globalization: Truth Not Spoken
This election cycle there is a lot said and a lot used about free trade and globalization in the campaigns. The region known as the Rust Belt is the area hit the hardest by free trade agreements. This area includes Pennsylvania, Ohio, and any place that has lost manufacturing jobs because of agreements like NAFTA. Each of the candidates has their own little world which they preach from on the benefits of globalization and free trade. The truth is more disastrous that any of them want to admit. And actually, some of them go as far to make each of their proposals sound like the answer to the economic woes of the people.
The Democratic Leadership Council’s economist, Rose has said, “The growth in trade and technology over the past three decades has generated meaningful employment growth for the middle class. As a general rule, middle-class jobs are not disappearing.” Unfortunately not everyone agrees with this analysis. A report by the Economic Policy Institute found the following:
• In 2006, the impact of trade flows increased the inequality of earnings by roughly 7%, with the resulting loss to a representative household (two earners making the median wage and working the average amount of (household) hours each year) reaching more than $2,000. This amount rivals the entire annual federal income tax bill paid by this household.
• Over the next 10-20 years, if some prominent forecasts of the reach of service-sector offshoring hold true, and, if current patterns of trade roughly characterize this offshoring, then globalization could essentially erase all wage gains made since 1979 by workers without a four-year college degree.
An important caveat, however, notes that even as globalization raises national income, it can still reduce the incomes of most workers. Global integration has at least two potential impacts on American wages. First, workers employed in industries directly in competition with low-cost imports from abroad can expect to see immediate job dislocation and/or downward wage pressures. Second, as relative prices change across industries, the return to factors of production, including different kinds of labor inputs, can be expected to change as well.
As the campaigns for the presidency move on, we are constantly bombarded with the benefits of the world economy, in this case globalization. But as with anything when politics is involved facts and figures are used to influence and inspire voters. But there is a basic axiom of economic theory is all too often ignored, or, even actively hidden. For example, Bradford, Greico, and Hufbauer (2005), in what they bill as a comprehensive accounting of the gains and losses attributable to trade liberalization, count only the costs of direct displacement by imports as a debit in the balance sheet of globalization, and do not even acknowledge the possibility of permanent wage losses through a broader labor market. Failing to count the largest cost of globalization is, of course, an excellent way to make the cost/benefit analysis of integration come out well to those favoring the status quo.
If one has a finger in speculation then globalization is a profitable endeavor. But if one is a worker then globalization spells only one thing—unemployment and/or low wages.