Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Labor Force: One Foot in the Third World
Chronicles Magazine ^ | Tuesday, June 07, 2005 | Paul Craig Roberts

Posted on 06/07/2005 8:14:42 PM PDT by A. Pole

In May, the Bush economy eked out a paltry 73,000 private sector jobs: 20,000 jobs in construction (primarily for Mexican immigrants), 21,000 jobs in wholesale and retail trade, and 32,500 jobs in health care and social assistance. Local government added 5,000 for a grand total of 78,000.

Not a single one of these jobs produces an exportable good or service. With Americans increasingly divorced from the production of the goods and services that they consume, Americans have no way to pay for their consumption except by handing over to foreigners more of their accumulated stock of wealth. The country continues to eat its seed corn.

Only 10 million Americans are classified as “production workers” in the Bureau of Labor Statistics non-farm payroll tables. Think about that. The United States, with a population approaching 300 million, has only 10 million production workers. That means Americans are consuming the products of other countries’ labor.

In the 21st century, the U.S. economy has been unable to create jobs in export and import-competitive industries. U.S. job growth is confined to nontradable domestic services.

This movement of the American labor force toward Third World occupations in domestic services has dire implications both for U.S. living standards and for America’s status as a superpower.

Economists and policymakers are in denial, while the U.S. economy implodes in front of their noses. The U.S.-China Commission is making a great effort to bring reality to policymakers by holding a series of hearings to explore the depths of American decline.

The commissioners got an earful at the May 19 hearings in New York at the Council on Foreign Relations. Ralph Gomory explained that America’s naive belief that offshore outsourcing and globalism are working for America is based on a 200-year-old trade theory, the premises of which do not reflect the modern world.

Clyde Prestowitz, author of the just published “Three Billion New Capitalists: The Great Shift of Wealth and Power to the East,” explained that America’s prosperity is an illusion. Americans feel prosperous because they are consuming $700 billion annually more than they are producing. Foreigners, principally Asians, are financing U.S. over-consumption, because we are paying them by handing over our markets, our jobs and our wealth.

My former Business Week colleague Bill Wolman explained the consequences for U.S. workers of suddenly facing direct labor market competition from hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indian workers.

Toward the end of the 20th century, three developments came together that are rapidly moving high productivity, high value-added jobs that pay well away from the United States to Asia: the collapse of world socialism, which vastly increased the supply of labor available to U.S. capital; the rise of the high speed Internet; and the extraordinary international mobility of U.S. capital and technology.

First World capital is rapidly deserting First World labor in favor of Third World labor, which is much cheaper because of its abundance and low cost of living. Formerly, America’s high real incomes were protected from cheap foreign labor, because U.S. labor worked with more capital and better technology, which made it more productive. Today, however, U.S. capital and technology move to cheap labor, or cheap labor moves via the Internet to U.S. employment.

The reason economic development in China and some Indian cities is so rapid is because it is fueled by the offshore location of First World corporations. Prestowitz is correct that the form that globalism has taken is shifting income and wealth from the First World to the Third World. The rise of Asia is coming at the expense of the American worker.

Global competition could have developed differently. U.S. capital and technology could have remained at home, protecting U.S. incomes with high productivity. Asia would have had to raise itself up without the inside track of First World offshore producers.

Asia’s economic development would have been slow and laborious and would have been characterized by a gradual rise of Asian incomes toward U.S. incomes, not by a jarring loss of American jobs and incomes to Asians.

Instead, U.S. corporations, driven by the shortsighted and ultimately destructive focus on quarterly profits, chose to drive earnings and managerial bonuses by substituting cheap Asian labor for American labor.

American businesses’ short-run profit maximization plays directly into the hands of thoughtful Asian governments with long-run strategies. As Prestowitz informed the commissioners, China now has more semiconductor plants than the United States. Short-run goals are reducing U.S. corporations to brand names with sales forces marketing foreign made goods and services.

By substituting foreign for American workers, U.S. corporations are destroying their American markets. As American jobs in the higher-paying manufacturing and professional services are given to Asians, and as American schoolteachers and nurses lose their occupations to foreigners imported under work visa programs, American purchasing power dries up, especially once all the home equity is spent, credit cards are maxed out and the dollar loses value to the Asian currencies.

The dollar is receiving a short-term respite as a result of the rejection of the European Union by France and Holland. The fate of the Euro, which rose so rapidly in value against the dollar in recent years, is uncertain, thus possibly cutting off one avenue of escape from the over-produced U.S. dollar.

However, nothing is in the works to halt America’s decline and to put the economy on a path of true prosperity. In January 2004, I told a televised conference of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., that the United States would be a Third World economy in 20 years. I was projecting the economic outcome of the U.S. labor force being denied First World employment and forced into the low productivity occupations of domestic services.

Considering the vast excess supplies of labor in India and China, Asian wages are unlikely to rapidly approach existing U.S. levels. Therefore, the substitution of Asian for U.S. labor in tradable goods and services is likely to continue.

As U.S. students seek employments immune from outsourcing, engineering enrollments are declining. The exit of so much manufacturing is destroying the supply chains that make manufacturing possible. The Asians will not give us back our economy once we have lost it. They will not play the “free trade” game and let their labor force be displaced by cheap American labor.

Offshore outsourcing is dismantling the ladders of America’s fabled upward mobility. The U.S. labor force already has one foot in the Third World. By 2024, the United States will be a has-been country.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: assclown; bitterpaleos; cafta; china; chinawar; debt; deficit; free; india; jobs; market; mexico; nafta; outsourcing; paulcraigroberts; ruin; trade; waaaaaa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 481-491 next last
To: Brilliant

China will be making heavy equipment inside of five years. They'll be making airplanes in ten.

As for shoe and t-shirt manufacturers, I would lump small manufacturers of all kinds in with them, such as small tool and die shops, etc. Many of those have already gone to China.

None of those jobs are coming back. Ever.


61 posted on 06/08/2005 4:52:49 AM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: durasell

China already makes airplanes and heavy equipment. We do it better. And we aren't going to help our airplane and heavy equipment industries by penalizing them to protect shoe makers and t-shirt makers.

Personally, it does not bother me that the shoe makers and t-shirt makers aren't coming back. Keep in mind that China did not drive our shoe makers and t-shirt makers out of business. We haven't had those industries for decades. The Chinese are competing more against the Mexicans and Indonesians than they are against Americans.

If China ever decides to cut off our supply of shoes and t-shirts, I'm sure we will have no difficulty resurrecting those industries.


62 posted on 06/08/2005 5:01:54 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
No matter what, he says, the United States is slipping into Third-World status. It is a done deal; it cannot be stopped.

If not economically then at least socially and culturally.

63 posted on 06/08/2005 5:30:07 AM PDT by varon (Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
China's growth rates have stayed put for nearly two decades. Any slowdown can only happen if there is a drastic worldwide decline in the demand for "Made in China" goods, or if there is political turmoil in China. As there isn't much sign of either of these happening, don't hold your breath till any of these happen.

End even "if there is a drastic worldwide decline in the demand", it will be rather for the MORE expensive goods made OUTSIDE of China.

64 posted on 06/08/2005 5:41:03 AM PDT by A. Pole (M. Boskin: "It doesn't make any difference whether a country makes potato chips or computer chips!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: durasell; ninenot; sittnick; steve50; Hegemony Cricket; Willie Green; Wolfie; ex-snook; FITZ; ...
It's an adult world. America will either compete or perish.

How the American workers can compete in selling their labor, when their living expenses are much higher? Can they work for less than they spend?

How can they lower their living expenses without moving out of USA or without government subsidies?

65 posted on 06/08/2005 5:44:56 AM PDT by A. Pole (M. Boskin: "It doesn't make any difference whether a country makes potato chips or computer chips!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

But then the profits of making small equipment isn't too small. And the Chinese are catching up on making larger and more expensive stuff too. These days, more and more auto majors are setting up shop in China and India, to make cars there and sell them back to their home countries, mostly Europe at present.

I still believe the only way to stop China is internal political turmoil or a drastic cut in Chinese imports by the internatonal community. Our best bet lies with the former option. Hopefully, it'll be a home-grown democratic revolution. But given the way how the world gave a pat on China's wrist for Tianmen, I am not too hopeful of this happening either.


66 posted on 06/08/2005 5:47:43 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Oops, I re-read your comment, and therefore withdraw my earlier post to you.


67 posted on 06/08/2005 5:48:57 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
... it is remarkable that he proposes no solutions. No matter what, he says, the United States is slipping into Third-World status. It is a done deal; it cannot be stopped.

Actually, he does, they just aren't in this article. The Usual Suspects shriek bloody murder of course when they are outlined.

68 posted on 06/08/2005 6:02:51 AM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
Ask yourselves: is underselling your goods or services a sustainable practice?

No, nor is it meant to be. The Chinese will subsidize their currency just long enough to drive the maximum amount of industry from the US.

Manufacturing is unique as it requires immense amounts of patient capital and a deep knowledge base. Neither of which can be assembled quickly to regain a lost market.

Asia has other advantages than price too.

69 posted on 06/08/2005 7:01:38 AM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
Meanwhile, Asia continues to subsidize the US by providing it below-market-value goods and services--and we're supposed to be the losers? Ask yourselves: is underselling your goods or services a sustainable practice?

You do understand that once dumping (that's what it's called) has cleared out the US competitors, prices will rise. Furthermore, if you think we're ever going to get those factories we're busily shipping to China back, you're kidding yourself. That infrastructure is gone. We don't even have the facilities (on a large scale) to make equipment anymore, most of that is in China too.

If we ever reach a crises with China, we either obey or they can crash our economy: flood the market with dollars and nationalize our factories.

70 posted on 06/08/2005 7:05:12 AM PDT by jb6 ( Free Haggai Sophia! Crusade!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
We make lots of stuff. We make construction equipment and airplanes for example. True, we don't make shoes or textiles.

Rather than try to contort certain manufacturing industries as irrelevant, essentially a new buggy-whip excuse for your posture, why don't you defend your first proposition...i.e., we have trade "winners." I.e, "We make construction equipment and airplanes for example." Do you know what the vectors are for trading those items? Do you? It sure doesn't sound like you do.

The author (with all of his political misanthropy aside...basically regarding the Iraq War, which I expect to be brought up ) does study those very issues in economics. His biography frankly indicates that he deserves a lot more respect than those currently shilling for the destruction of U.S. industry.

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Hon. Paul Craig Roberts is the John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. A former editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service, he is a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate in Los Angeles and a columnist for Investor’s Business Daily. In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists.

He was Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996. From 1982 through 1993, he held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. During 1981-82 he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Reagan and Treasury Secretary Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department’s Meritorious Service Award for "his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy." From 1975 to 1978, Dr. Roberts served on the congressional staff where he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy.

In 1987 the French government recognized him as "the artisan of a renewal in economic science and policy after half a century of state interventionism" and inducted him into the Legion of Honor.

Dr. Roberts’ latest books are The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with IPE Fellow Lawrence Stratton, and published by Prima Publishing in May 2000, and Chile: Two Visions—The Allende-Pinochet Era, co-authored with IPE Fellow Karen Araujo, and published in Spanish by Universidad Nacional Andres Bello in Santiago, Chile, in November 2000. The Capitalist Revolution in Latin America, co-authored with IPE Fellow Karen LaFollette Araujo, was published by Oxford University Press in 1997. A Spanish language edition was published by Oxford in 1999. The New Colorline: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, was published by Regnery in 1995. A paperback edition was published in 1997. Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, co-authored with Karen LaFollette, was published by the Cato Institute in 1990. Harvard University Press published his book, The Supply-Side Revolution, in 1984. Widely reviewed and favorably received, the book was praised by Forbes as "a timely masterpiece that will have real impact on economic thinking in the years ahead." Dr. Roberts is the author of Alienation and the Soviet Economy, published in 1971 and republished in 1990. He is the author of Marx’s Theory of Exchange, Alienation and Crisis, published in 1973 and republished in 1983. A Spanish language edition was published in 1974.

Dr. Roberts has held numerous academic appointments. He has contributed chapters to numerous books and has published many articles in journals of scholarship, including the Journal of Political Economy, Oxford Economic Papers, Journal of Law and Economics, Studies in Banking and Finance, Journal of Monetary Economics, Public Finance Quarterly, Public Choice, Classica et Mediaevalia, Ethics, Slavic Review, Soviet Studies, Rivista de Political Economica, and Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafspolitik. He has entries in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Economics and the New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance. He has contributed to Commentary, The Public Interest, The National Interest, Harper’s, the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune, London Times, The Financial Times, TLS, The Spectator, Il Sole 24 Ore, Le Figaro, Liberation, and the Nihon Keizai Shimbun. He has testified before committees of Congress on 30 occasions.

Dr. Roberts was educated at the Georgia Institute of Technology (B.S.), the University of Virginia (Ph.D.), the University of California at Berkeley and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College.

He is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in the World, The Dictionary of International Biography, Outstanding People of the Twentieth Century, and 1000 Leaders of World Influence

71 posted on 06/08/2005 7:07:31 AM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
Neither of which can be assembled quickly to regain a lost market.
Yeahright. That's why we lost world war ii. We simply couldn't build a war time industrial base largely from scratch fast enough. Again, dude, if you're only advantage is price, and they begin to rise again, you lose.
72 posted on 06/08/2005 7:11:22 AM PDT by Asclepius (protectionists would outsource our dignity and prosperity in return for illusory job security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius

Quote: Does anyone remember when everyone thought Japan would bury us economically? Whatever happened to the Japanese juggernaut, anyone?


You cannot compare with what is happening with china/India today as what happened with Japan 15-20 years ago. The primary differnce is we were not shutting down US factories by the thousands and moving them to Japan.


73 posted on 06/08/2005 7:11:29 AM PDT by superiorslots (Free Traitors are communist China's modern day "Useful Idiots")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jb6
You do understand that once dumping (that's what it's called) has cleared out the US competitors, prices will rise. Furthermore, if you think we're ever going to get those factories we're busily shipping to China back, you're kidding yourself. That infrastructure is gone. We don't even have the facilities (on a large scale) to make equipment anymore, most of that is in China too.
Yeahright. That's why we lost world war ii. We simply couldn't build a war time industrial base largely from scratch fast enough. Again, dude, if you're only advantage is price, and they begin to rise again, you lose.
74 posted on 06/08/2005 7:13:06 AM PDT by Asclepius (protectionists would outsource our dignity and prosperity in return for illusory job security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
We had the skilled basis for an industrial machine going into WWII.

As a critical point, WWII required that the machine tool plants of New England be enlarged. These plants and their skilled base of craftsman don't exist anymore.

75 posted on 06/08/2005 7:17:37 AM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: superiorslots
You cannot compare with what is happening with china/India today as what happened with Japan 15-20 years ago. The primary differnce is we were not shutting down US factories by the thousands and moving them to Japan.
Precisely wrong. Japan's re-industrialization was an attempt to capture American manufacturing. What they failed to realize--what you fail to realize, what the Chinese fail to realize--is that the cash value of manufactured goods continues, is continuing, to crash, not because of cheap labour, but because of prodcutivity and efficiency gains and the low cost of freight (at the moment). A strong economy is no longer an industrial economy: it simply isn't 1927 any more, dude, and crying won't bring it back.
76 posted on 06/08/2005 7:17:51 AM PDT by Asclepius (protectionists would outsource our dignity and prosperity in return for illusory job security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Nonstatist
And we're looking at 5 % unemployment rate here. ..

Got you beat, the Soviets had about a 1% unemployment rate.....and where are they now? Lets talk the industry/pay of those jobs not just the job numbers.

77 posted on 06/08/2005 7:19:37 AM PDT by jb6 ( Free Haggai Sophia! Crusade!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
Yeahright. That's why we lost world war ii. We simply couldn't build a war time industrial base largely from scratch fast enough. Again, dude, if you're only advantage is price, and they begin to rise again, you lose.

Your knowledge of history is suspect. We didn't have to build the defense industrial base "from scratch" in World War II. We already had a domestic industrial base...sorely underutilized... that was quite available for conversion.

To repeat: The U.S. industrial base was INTACT going into World War II, as we had protected it to the max with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff so reviled by your side. And that protected industrial base was what made the difference in the war.

Wither now that industrial base?

78 posted on 06/08/2005 7:19:47 AM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan
We had the skilled basis for an industrial machine going into WWII.
As we do now, only far more so. Visit Carnegie Mellon's school of Industrial Administration or any of the successful specialty steel plants outside of Pittsburgh.

So what's your point?
79 posted on 06/08/2005 7:19:51 AM PDT by Asclepius (protectionists would outsource our dignity and prosperity in return for illusory job security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
And that protected industrial base was what made the difference in the war.
Let me change the line of questioning as I appear to have you flummoxed. If an "industrial base" is so horribly vulnerable that it requires the massive subsidy of onerous, consumer-punishing protectionist legislation (as you yourself argue), or the subsidy of slave labour in the third world to even make it profitable at all (as you yourself argue), does that not suggest to you, ahem, a hiccough in your line of reasoning?
80 posted on 06/08/2005 7:23:53 AM PDT by Asclepius (protectionists would outsource our dignity and prosperity in return for illusory job security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 481-491 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson