The latest buzzword in the globalization debate is outsourcing. Suddenly Americans -- long champions of globalization -- seem concerned about its adverse effects on their economy. Its ardent defenders are, of course, untroubled by the loss of jobs. They stress that outsourcing cuts costs -- just like a technological change that improves productivity, thus increasing profits -- and what is good for profits must be good for the American economy.
The laws of economics, they assert, ensure that in the long run there will be jobs for everyone who wants them, so long as government does not interfere in market processes by setting minimum wages or ensuring job security, or so long as unions don't drive up wages excessively. In competitive markets, the law of demand and supply ensures that eventually, in the long run, the demand for labor will equal the supply -- there will be no unemployment. But as Keynes put it so poignantly, in the long run, we are all dead.
Those who summarily dismiss the loss of jobs miss a key point: the US' economy has not been performing well. In addition to the trade and budget deficits, there is a jobs deficit. Over the past three and a half years, the economy should have created some 4 million to 6 million jobs to provide employment for new entrants into the labor force. In fact, more than 2 million jobs have been destroyed -- the first time since Herbert Hoover's presidency at the beginning of the Great Depression that there has been a net job loss in the US economy over the term of an entire presidential administration.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
At the very least, this shows that markets by themselves do not quickly work to ensure that there is a job for everyone who wishes to work. There is an important role for government in ensuring full employment -- a role that the administration of US President George W. Bush has badly mismanaged. Were unemployment lower, the worries about outsourcing would be less.
But there is, I think, an even deeper reason for concerns about outsourcing of, say, high-tech jobs to India: It destroys the myth -- which has been a central tenet of the globalization debate in the US and other advanced industrial countries -- that workers should not be afraid of globalization.
Yes, apologists of outsourcing say, rich countries will lose low-skilled jobs in areas like textiles to low-wage labor in China and elsewhere. But this is supposedly a good thing, not a bad thing, because the US should be specializing in its areas of comparative advantage, involving skilled labor and advanced technology. What is required is "upskilling," improving the quality of education, especially in science and technology.
But this argument no longer seems convincing. The US is producing fewer engineers than China and India, and, even if engineers from those developing countries are at some disadvantage, either because of training or location, that disadvantage is more than offset by wage differentials. American and rich country engineers and computer specialists will either have to accept a wage cut and/or they will be forced into unemployment and/or to seek other employment -- almost surely at lower wages.?
If the US' highly trained engineers and computer specialists are unable to withstand the onslaught of outsourcing, what about those who are even less trained? Yes, the US may be able to maintain a competitive advantage at the very top, the breakthrough research, the invention of the next laser. But a majority of even highly trained engineers and scientists are involved in what is called "ordinary science," the important, day-to-day improvements in technology that are the basis of long-term increases in productivity -- and it is not clear that the US has a long-term competitive advantage here.
Two lessons emerge from the outsourcing debate. First, as the US grapples with the challenges of adjusting to globalization, it should be more sensitive to the plight of developing countries, which have far fewer resources to cope. After all, if the US, with its relatively low level of unemployment and social safety net, finds it must take action to protect its workers and firms against competition from abroad -- whether in software or steel -- such action by developing countries is all the more justified.
Second, the time for the US to worry is now. Many of globalization's advocates continue to claim that the number of jobs outsourced is relatively small. There is controversy, of course, about the eventual size, with some claiming that as many as one job in two might eventually be outsourced, others contending that the potential is much more limited. Haircuts, like a host of other activities requiring detailed local knowledge, cannot be outsourced.
But even if the eventual numbers are limited, there can be dramatic effects on workers and the distribution of income. Growth will be enhanced, but workers may be worse off -- and not just those who lose their jobs. This has, indeed, already happened in some developed countries: In the 10 years that have passed since the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement, average real wages in the US have actually declined.
Putting one's head in the sand and pretending that everyone will benefit from globalization is foolish. The problem with globalization today is precisely that a few may benefit and a majority may be worse off, unless government takes an active role in managing and shaping it. This is the most important lesson of the ongoing debate over outsourcing.
Joseph Stiglitz is professor of economics at Columbia University and a member of the Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalization. He received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
To The Honorable Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜): We would like to extend our sincerest regards to you for representing Taiwan at the inauguration of US President Donald Trump on Monday. The Taiwanese-American community was delighted to see that Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan speaker not only received an invitation to attend the event, but successfully made the trip to the US. We sincerely hope that you took this rare opportunity to share Taiwan’s achievements in freedom, democracy and economic development with delegations from other countries. In recent years, Taiwan’s economic growth and world-leading technology industry have been a source of pride for Taiwanese-Americans.
Next week, the nation is to celebrate the Lunar New Year break. Unfortunately, cold winds are a-blowing, literally and figuratively. The Central Weather Administration has warned of an approaching cold air mass, while obstinate winds of chaos eddy around the Legislative Yuan. English theologian Thomas Fuller optimistically pointed out in 1650 that “it’s always darkest before the dawn.” We could paraphrase by saying the coldest days are just before the renewed hope of spring. However, one must temper any optimism about the damage being done in the legislature by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), under
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
To our readers: Due to the Lunar New Year holiday, from Sunday, Jan. 26, through Sunday, Feb. 2, the Taipei Times will have a reduced format without our regular editorials and opinion pieces. From Tuesday to Saturday the paper will not be delivered to subscribers, but will be available for purchase at convenience stores. Subscribers will receive the editions they missed once normal distribution resumes on Sunday, Feb. 2. The paper returns to its usual format on Monday, Feb. 3, when our regular editorials and opinion pieces will also be resumed.
RSS