A Bloomberg article last week about the loss of Taiwanese jobs to China has drawn mixed reactions. The article attributed the losses to the nation’s sluggish easing of investment rules and slow development of the service industry, saying these have caused Taiwan to fall behind Singapore and Hong Kong.
Some sources attributed job erosion to the government’s China policies, which they said helped domestic manufacturers relocate to China in the shortest time possible without creating jobs at home. Others said Taiwan was facing a labor shortage, rather than high unemployment, with the nation’s unemployment rate falling to 4.27 percent in May, its lowest level in 33 months, after peaking at 6.13 percent in August 2009.
One thing is clear: It is impossible to say that the nation’s unemployment problems have been solved, because the unemployment rate is still higher than pre-financial crisis levels.
An unemployment rate of 4.27 percent is indeed an improvement over one of 6.13 percent, but the government should not paint a rosy picture based on that number alone.
The public should keep in mind that the government’s definition of “unemployment” refers to people who are out of work, but ready to find jobs any time soon. “Discouraged workers,” who are not currently looking for jobs after having tried for a long time, and “non-typical workers,” such as part-time and temporary workers, however, do not fall into the government’s narrow definition of unemployment.
If the roughly 155,000 “discouraged workers” in May are added to the pool of 476,000 unemployed people for that month, the unemployment rate shoots up to 5.66 percent rather than the 4.27 percent reported by the government. In other words, just because certain people do not appear in the official unemployment statistics does not mean the labor market is improving.
Meanwhile, the nation is facing a serious problem of “structural unemployment,” an issue that Mark Williams, an economist at Capital Economics Ltd in London, rightfully pointed out in the Bloomberg article. Indeed, economists have long said that increasing structural unemployment is the main reason for rising unemployment and wage stagnation in Taiwan.
Over the past two decades, many labor-intensive manufacturers left Taiwan for other countries, causing the nation’s economy to go through structural adjustment as it shifts from traditional, labor-intensive industries to capitalized, technology-intensive industries. However, the labor force that lost jobs as traditional industries left Taiwan has failed to catch up with the nation’s industrial upgrade, with job seekers’ skills falling short of the demands of the new industries. Ironically, this has led to a skilled labor shortage and high unemployment occurring at the same time.
Structural unemployment is dangerous; it becomes more difficult to fix the longer it persists. This is because the longer people are out of work, the harder it is to find employment.
Moreover, structural unemployment not only results in a rising number of discouraged workers and shortage of skilled workers, but also restricts wage growth among salaried employees. This is because new industries lack the work force to sustain growth, while social welfare spending on the unemployed continues to expand, adversely affecting the competitiveness of the nation’s economy as a whole.
No matter what message people take from the Bloomberg article, no one should overlook structural unemployment and its implications for the nation’s economy — the paradox of high unemployment and a serious labor shortage, which we must tackle now.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS