In a follow-up to yesterday's entry, I wanted to post this link to an article in the NYT regarding the re-emergence of unions' political clout in the wake of the big Democratic win. It does a nice job of highlighting the dilemma faced by moderate and conservative Democrats in terms of union-backed issues. Obviously unions were important in getting Democrats elected, and I think we're all big fans of that whole 40-hour work week thing, but there are a lot of things about the contemporary union agenda that irritate me.
I'm all for an increase in the minimum wage (textbook economics disagrees with me, but 1. there's evidence that textbook economics is wrong on this issue, 2. our labor market is very flexible in other ways, so any impact on employment is likely to be small, and 3. the national minimum wage is really freakin' low). I'm also all for universal health care, because having health care that is not tied to employment makes the labor market even more flexible by eliminating one of the sources of financial strain that comes from structural unemployment (of the sort caused by technological changes, trade, etc). But I'm going to be pissed as hell when the Democratic congress refuses to extend fast-track trade negotiation status to the President after it expires in 2007. I'm also going to be totally disgusted by the "don't reward companies who send American jobs overseas" rhetoric when it comes from people who want to enjoy the advantages of the global trade system while being shielded from all the parts of it they don't like.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Jenn:
Thanks for taking the time (and blog-space) to answer my question yesterday! I especially agree with your critique of the Dems’ rhetoric: the tenuous association in the platform of free trade with national security (especially since the latter has become something of a rhetorical scare word used to justify virtually any policy on both sides of the aisle). And the creepy reliance on a somewhat buried appeal to xenophobia in much of the rhetoric surrounding the issues of trade and globalization. Also –- am I imagining it, or does the section of the platform you quote slip from “trade defecit” to “defecit spending,” where the two are not the same at all? (Or is there a closer relationship between trade deficit and defecit spending than I am aware of?)
And those last two questions lead to a couple more that I have, again related to my relative unfamiliarity with economic discourse and theory. Only answer them if you don’t mind doing so, and if you have the time of course… (Also, I need to make it clear that I’m not asking these questions in the spirit of antagonism, but because I’m trying to understand the issue.)
1: Does offshoring necessarily cause, as many of its critics would suggest, a shift of employment (in the “onshore” nation) from manufacturing to the service sector?
2: Does free trade necessitate increased unemployment or wage reductions in those nations that have higher minimum wages (since those workers have receive higher pay are thrown into competition with workers in nations without minimum wages)?
3: If either (or both) of the above questions can be answered in the affirmative, is the attendant difference in wages (as experienced by a worker) fully compensated by the increase in purchasing power and “quality of life” associated with trade, which you allude to in your explanation?
4: I like the idea that the development of the middle class in repressive nations will, though perhaps not inevitably, lead to an increase of freedom within those nations; I assume that this notion looks to the development of the bourgeoisie in eighteenth-century France, and suggests that a similar movement would occur (even if in a somewhat different shape) in, say, 21st-century China. But doesn’t this socio-political upheaval simply entail a shift from a repressive authoritarianism to an exploitative economic system?
Ok -– that last question might be a smidge more antagonistic. [Insert typographical smiley icon here.]
n
Oops. Disregard my questions/comments regarding the Dems' "connection of 'trade defecit' to 'defecit spending'." I mis-remembered the passage you discussed when writing my response.
n- i certainly don't mind answering your questions. i love talking about this stuff. i'm not sure how the rest of the blog audience feels about it, but, much like the chinese government, i'm not taking orders from the masses.
anyway, i have to look into a couple of things first, but i'll have answers for you soon.
Post a Comment