"Why did you come to this country, Dad?"
"There was no work."
"The times, they are a-changin' " -- Bob Dylan
"There was no work."
"The times, they are a-changin' " -- Bob Dylan
By John T. Harding
For all the warnings about jobs being "sent overseas," the reality is that jobs and workers have always traveled and relocated to wherever conditions are better, either for the employer or the worker.
Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics, called it "absolute advantage," and used the example of Spanish wine and British textiles. It's possible for both countries to make both products, but those who have tasted English wine will recognize immediately that Spain has an absolute advantage in climate for growing grapes. Britain, meanwhile, had the advantage of more workers, and later, the advantage of coal reserves to power textile mills.
In 19th Century America, New England had rivers and streams to power the mills, while the South had a better climate to grow cotton. Each region, therefore, had an absolute advantage in one aspect of the overall industry, so by focusing on what it did best and trading with the other region, both would benefit.
By the mid-19th Century, however, British mills were bidding up the price of raw cotton, so Southern planters preferred to ship their product overseas, rather than sell to Northern mill owners. And this may have been one underlying factor precipitating the Civil War. (The slavery issue may have been the publicized excuse, but economics also played a significant role.)
Later, in the early 20th Century, as labor unions brought higher wages to workers in New England, mill owners relocated to the Carolinas, where wages were lower and proximity to rivers and streams as power sources was less important when coal could be used to drive the mills.
And still later in the 20th Century, textile manufacturing moved again, to lower-wage countries in Asia. Meanwhile, American workers were acquiring other skills, which they applied to higher paying jobs than mill work. Moreover, mill workers encouraged their children to get more education, so they would not be "stuck" in lower-skill, lower-paying jobs.
In the mid-19th Century, agriculture accounted for more than half America's economic output. By the mid-20th Century, manufacturing led as the main driver of America's economic engine. But as the rest of the world recovered from World War II and nations built new, more efficient manufacturing facilities with lower wage costs, the American economy changed its focus to the service sector, emphasizing finance, distribution, transportation and other areas of manufacturing requiring higher degrees of knowledge, expertise and skills than were available in the rest of the world.
Even so, there are still jobs available that many young Americans feel are beneath them. Yet, rather than take them, they protest when newcomers "take jobs away from Americans."
Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics, called it "absolute advantage," and used the example of Spanish wine and British textiles. It's possible for both countries to make both products, but those who have tasted English wine will recognize immediately that Spain has an absolute advantage in climate for growing grapes. Britain, meanwhile, had the advantage of more workers, and later, the advantage of coal reserves to power textile mills.
In 19th Century America, New England had rivers and streams to power the mills, while the South had a better climate to grow cotton. Each region, therefore, had an absolute advantage in one aspect of the overall industry, so by focusing on what it did best and trading with the other region, both would benefit.
By the mid-19th Century, however, British mills were bidding up the price of raw cotton, so Southern planters preferred to ship their product overseas, rather than sell to Northern mill owners. And this may have been one underlying factor precipitating the Civil War. (The slavery issue may have been the publicized excuse, but economics also played a significant role.)
Later, in the early 20th Century, as labor unions brought higher wages to workers in New England, mill owners relocated to the Carolinas, where wages were lower and proximity to rivers and streams as power sources was less important when coal could be used to drive the mills.
And still later in the 20th Century, textile manufacturing moved again, to lower-wage countries in Asia. Meanwhile, American workers were acquiring other skills, which they applied to higher paying jobs than mill work. Moreover, mill workers encouraged their children to get more education, so they would not be "stuck" in lower-skill, lower-paying jobs.
In the mid-19th Century, agriculture accounted for more than half America's economic output. By the mid-20th Century, manufacturing led as the main driver of America's economic engine. But as the rest of the world recovered from World War II and nations built new, more efficient manufacturing facilities with lower wage costs, the American economy changed its focus to the service sector, emphasizing finance, distribution, transportation and other areas of manufacturing requiring higher degrees of knowledge, expertise and skills than were available in the rest of the world.
Even so, there are still jobs available that many young Americans feel are beneath them. Yet, rather than take them, they protest when newcomers "take jobs away from Americans."
Adam Smith was a free trade economist. He believed that when two nations focus on what they do best, without import restrictions to interfere with competition, both nations benefit, since each will provide workers with jobs and wages to buy the produce of the other.
It's time for a reality check.
It's time for a reality check.
No comments:
Post a Comment