Income
inequality, which is partly a reflection of the growing gap between lower and
higher skilled workers, has risen steadily in the United States since the
1970s. In fact, the economic gap between the rich and poor is higher here than
other advanced economies, according to the Pew Research Center. This has
resulted in a shrinking middle class that no longer represents the majority of
Americans.
What’s
gone wrong?
American
free-market capitalism has generated the greatest economic growth the world has
ever seen, but it has not benefited all of us equally. As I stated in a recent
article, in an effort to improve economic outcomes for all Americans, it’s
essential to continually improve our system of free-market capitalism — not move toward a more socialist-like model that
empowers left-leaning politicians to make decisions that should be made by the
market.
It’s
just as important not to accept oversimplified solutions to complex problems
presented by far right or far left-leaning populist leaders. Unfortunately,
support for the far right and left is growing and has contributed to greater
polarization in the United States. This is further dividing Americans and
making it more difficult for Congress to compromise to pass necessary
legislation.
This
polarization trend isn’t just an American problem. A recent report published by
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a global
policy forum, indicates that over the past 30 years, middle class households
worldwide have experienced dismal or no income growth. This has fueled
perceptions that the current socio-economic system is unfair and has led to
greater support for extreme left and right ideologies and politicians that
embrace them.
But
that’s not all. Stated by the Pew Research Center, across 27 countries
surveyed, 51% are dissatisfied with the way their democracy is functioning,
compared with 45% who are satisfied.
It’s time
to take a deep breath and not buy into emotionally appealing solutions from
populist leaders who often scapegoat trade and immigration as the causes of
America’s problems. In doing so, keep the following points in mind.
First,
problems associated with rising income inequality, a shrinking middle class,
and the inability to find meaningful work has much to do with lower and
middle-skilled jobs being eliminated by automation and the increasing demand
for higher skilled workers.
Moving
forward, 14% of existing jobs could disappear as a result of automation in the
next 15 to 20 years, plus another 32% are likely to change radically as
individual tasks are automated, says a recent report by the OECD. Other
organizations say nearly half of existing jobs could vanish, mostly affecting
lower to middle-skilled workers.
To
adapt, a well educated labor force should be a top national priority equal to
the effort that put a man on the moon. Importantly, students need the ability
to pay for technical or university level educations without incurring
unreasonable debt. And employees of all ages need to engage in life-long
learning.
History
reveals that after fast-emerging technologies destroy jobs, more new ones are
created. Although we don’t know what the new jobs will be, we do know they will
require highly skilled workers.
Secondly,
don’t scapegoat trade.
Automation,
not trade, accounted for more than 85% of U.S. job losses in manufacturing from
2000 through 2010, according to the Center for Business and Economic Research
at Ball State University. Although trade has contributed to some job losses, it
has provided far greater benefits.
Today,
nearly half of all U.S. exports are sold to our 20 free trade agreement
partners — which only represent 6% of world consumers. To boost job-creating
exports to the rest of the world, we need more, not fewer, free trade agreements.
Thirdly,
immigrants don’t steal American jobs, they help fill them.
Immigrants
help fill vacant American jobs at all skill levels. But the worker shortage is
getting worse. According to Korn Ferry, the U.S. skilled worker deficit could
result in $1.75 trillion in lost revenue annually for American companies by
2030. In light of this, legal immigration should be expanded, not reduced.
Furthermore,
American colleges and universities attract the best and brightest students the
world has to offer. However, after graduation we send them home to compete
against us. Allowing more foreign graduates to remain here to support our
companies or start new ones would benefit our economy.
Immigrants
also add to America’s population and consumer base. Germany and Japan, for
example, have negative population growth rates. This puts downward pressure on
their economic prospects.
The
United States has problems. But trade and
immigration aren’t to blame for them. Americans, as well as others
around the world, need to look past the simplified and often
emotionally-charged solutions presented by far right and far left-leaning
populists or our problems will only get worse.
This
article was nationally syndicated by Tribune News Service/Tribune Content
Agency and appeared in the Chicago Tribune and newspapers across the United
States.
I agree. find long term solutions not distractions and scapegoats as we are doing. The workers on the front line know this because they are caught up in a stem where they can see the results. Therefore, despite right and or left wing talk...they know reality and are hostile.
ReplyDeleteObama tried to increase skilled graduates with expensive government loans and permitting the significant increase in for profit colleges with no real degrees that match what is needed....leaving graduates with a worthless degree and huge debt.
Immigration: I assure you that businesses and not for profits are glad to have immigrants that are educated in today's and tomorrow's technology. Especially from Asia.
Fund in house training programs for middle level companies. On the other hand there is a huge population that are not seeking jobs because they are satisfied with welfare.
Supposedly based on a demand supply model, technically trained people are in great demand and their salaries should reflect that unsatisfied demand. On the other hand the 50 or so ...probably illegal ...supposedly Mexicans that take care of my community are working for less than $5 per hour and sending $1 per hour back to Mexico...while they live three and four to a rented house. This applies to agriculture and most low level maintenance jobs.
I have no idea where the pleasant people who used to answer the business phones have gone....and many other services we no about. The good news is that the population of the millennial and younger is significantly smaller than the boomers who are retiring.
James: Thank you for your comments.
DeleteBoth the comments of Mr Manzella and Mr Gibson have much merit. I would add that if we are interested in revamping our democratically based capitalism model, we need to look to the wealth creators for help. For most of my 40+ year career, American corporations recognized a three-legged stool of obligations: The customer, the shareholder and the employee. Somewhere in the late 80's, early 90's it became "smart management" to shift the burden for the employee share of the pie both to the employee his or herself and/or the government, wherever possible. Providing pension lifelines for bankrupt enterprises, shifting the Benefits burden to employees or Medicare/Medicaid, ignoring the pay ratios of the whole employee ladder from CEO to shop floor workers--these and many others served to unnecessarily widen the wealth gap in a way that has not kept in mind the value of the common good. We are at a stage where Government is overextended both in terms of the cost of annual operating programs and increasing debt and individuals can only martial a pittance of resources to address such issues as student cost and follow on debt. So it is time to look to the capitalist wealth creators and challenge them to have the courage to revisit the three-legged stool, perhaps at some permissible expense to the shareholder who has been benefiting from this period of imbalance in beneficiaries. Capital investment needs to be tempered and balanced with labor investment. Corporations on the rise, and those on the downswing both need to plan for the people who were loyal to both trends. Not as a handout, but as an investment in the well being of our society through upgrades in key needed skills both for the upwardly mobile and for those whose time in the workplace is coming to its natural end. It isn't socialist handouts, it is the reasonable and complete cost of doing business.
ReplyDeleteThanks to Hoot and to Sanibel Ed. I like both your approaches. I like the idea of restoring the three-legged stool. My fear is not with the reasonableness of the three parties. But instead, my worry is that this might not diminish the influence of the third parties who see everything from an ideological perspective. And thus, there might not be any end in sight when it comes to ways to redistribute income. It is very possible that over-zealous redistribution will simply shrink the pie and everyone will be left with less. I don't think that is Ed's intention. But it is definitely a worry.
DeleteSanibel Ed: To your point about seeking help from the wealth creators, Ray Dalio, Co-Chairman of Bridgewater Associates, recently said, “I believe that all good things taken to an extreme can be self-destructive and that everything must evolve or die. This is now true for capitalism.” He has stepped up.
DeleteDear John . . . no, I’m not breaking up with you. I like the article. But I infer from the title and commentary regarding far left/right-leading populists you are implying/targeting Trump as he is the primary pol articulating trade and immigration as problems. It’s obvious he twanged a middle-‘merica nerve when he campaigned on trade and immigration and is following up on those promises. But, let’s clarify . . . . it’s not just immigration and trade but ‘illegal’ immigration and ‘unfair/unlawful’ trade. Trade and immigration per se are not responsible for ‘merica’s problems—on the contrary it’s the ‘illegal’ and ‘unfair/unlawful’ elements that are problematic. You don’t distinguish between the benefits of legal immigration/fair-lawful trade and the economic/social/financial harm of illegal immigration and unfair-unlawful trade.
ReplyDeleteAutomation may account for a high percentage of lost jobs 2000-2010 but not for the millions of manufacturing jobs lost from mid-70s when the 1974 Trade Act was enacted to counter cheap imports from Japan and then China and other low-wage countries compelling U.S. manufacturers to off-shore to China, the great sucking sound when NAFTA was enacted in 1994, and later when China entered the WTO in 2001. And you don’t mention jobs lost during the Great Recession in your time period that had nothing to do with automation. I defer to your research to compare the number of jobs lost to automation, to off-shoring and unfair trade, and to the Great Recession.
Yes, ‘merian colleges/universities attract desirable folks. That’s the good newz. You don’t mention the liberal bias therein and the profligate spending and student debt racked up on an edukation that can’t sustain the good paying jobs of the future . . . much less pay off their debt. While you suggest immigration and trade are not to blame for ‘merica’s problems I say the failure of higher edukation is just as problematic as illegal immigration and unfair/unlawful trade. It’s a ticking time bomb . . a good candidate as a root cause of ‘merica’s problems . . . . job vacancies, income inequality, middle-class shrinkage, as per your list. Yes, a well-edukated labor force should be a top national priority but the curricula should be geared toward needs of the future rather than ancient Egyptian poetry and lip-syncing . . . and get govomit out of financing it.
Yes, I like your article and agwee legal immigration and fair/lawful trade are not to blame for ‘merica’s problems. Given the dysfunction in D.C. and the vicious and irrational U.S. House I doubt meaningful/effective solutions to ‘merica’s problems are possible. Trump is a populist but also a pragmatist who identifies and quantifies a problem (including those considered complex) and offers solutions I consider not over-simplified but rational. Unfortunately, there are folks who can’t accept any Trumpian solution no matter how simple.
Tuna: I agree with you on many (not all) of your points. Unfortunately, these op-eds for placement in newspapers are limited in both word count and scope. Thanks for your comments.
Delete