Stop trading U.S. jobs away

We're in a modest economic recovery, one that is still fragile. And this recovery is not creating jobs. I'm far more concerned about the jobless nature of this recovery than the level of interest rates or market levels.

Government and corporate policies are sending more jobs, capital and American know-how overseas to produce goods and services more cheaply. The proof is in the numbers: The U.S. account deficit, the broadest measure of transactions with other nations, swelled to $503 billion in 2002.

That's not the way it was supposed to work. Increased global trade was supposed to lead to better jobs and higher standards of living by opening markets around the world for U.S. goods. Now some people, myself included, are rethinking the belief that free trade benefits all nations.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, rising trade deficits cost 3 million jobs in the U.S. between 1994 and 2000. And a report by Forrester Research predicts that nearly 500,000 tech jobs will be moved overseas by 2015.

We're also exporting capital. Companies like Motorola have invested billions in China - the country with the largest U.S. trade imbalance with the U.S.

Another problem resulting from America's trade imbalance: Intellectual capital is being shipped overseas - in some cases, raising national security concerns.

So what's gone wrong? Alan Tonelson, author of "Race to the Bottom," says unequivocally that corporate America is largely to blame. "They sold America a bill of goods during the 1990s, because they said that all of these new trade agreements ... were going to boost exports from their American factories. And what they've done is they've used these trade agreements to send production abroad."

Of course, American business needs to look for ways to control their costs. And consumers are often driven in their purchases by prices.

But it's not just corporate America that needs to adjust to the new global marketplace. Federal and local policymakers need to recalibrate as well.

David Huether, chief economist at the National Association of Manufacturers, says policymakers need to ensure that the regulatory environment is conducive to maintaining our competitive edge.

"To make domestic manufacturers more competitive," he says, "we have to make sure that there aren't future increases in regulation that would push up costs here."

He adds that the federal government should promote trade adjustment assistance to help displaced workers find new employment.

"The only way we can get in on this game is to ... make penalties for those who manufacture overseas and benefits for those who manufacture in the United States," Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) told me. "I have a bill to keep the jobs in this country. It's going to be an uphill fight because we've got to really change the culture."

Changing the culture won't be easy: The middle class has little representation in Washington, the multinationals have little incentive to produce here at home, and working men and women in this country are watching their paychecks shrink in response to the competition of lower-paid foreign workers.

"Our tariff rates on industrial goods average less than 2%," he says. "The rest of the world, particularly developing Asia, is a lot higher - in the area of around 10%."

On the corporate side, Huether says businesses need to invest in their employees.

"The way that manufacturers compete is through their very high productivity, and one of the ways to do that is ... by maintaining a very able and trained work force," says Huether.

There's no easy corporate or government policy solution to America's export problem. It's time for corporate leaders and policymakers to heighten their efforts to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Actually the percentage of high school students going into 4 years schools is down from 30 years ago

WRONG.

You cite no source, and you don't even know what the relevant numbers are. You are not merely ignorant of the facts, but dishonest in pretending that you do.

From the U.S. Census Bureau:

Percent of Americans 25 and older who have completed 4 or more years of college
2002......26.7%
1972......12.0%
Now, considering the 26.7 percent of Americans 25 and older who have 4 years or more of college is an all-time high, where do you get off trying to claim that more American kids are going to 2-year trade schools, instead of college?

You know, if I really cared about this, I could find even more decisive data.

Percent of population
enrolled in school

2000
Age...........Pct.
20-21.........44.1
22-24.........24.6
25-29.........11.4

1970
Age...........Pct.
20-21.........31.9
22-24.........14.9
25-29......... 7.5

Given the enormous increase in school enrollment among Americans in their 20s (about 65 percent higher among those ages 22-24), do you still contend that vocational education explains this?

Most of that increase is due to 2 years schools. As hard as tghis is for youy to believe, most students taking programs such as automotive, electronics, HV/AC, nursing, etc., take 3 years to get the AA/AS degrees in these programs. That very much so explains the increase in the 20-21 age backet. As for the increase in the 22-24 age bracket, simpily put, many people take 5 years now, if not 6 to complete their university degree, especially in a technical feild. Again, this is dishonest because it does not break down who is in 4 years schools vs. who is in two years schools. Sorry, but while Limbaugh my be singing the praises of free markets and spouting that American economy doesnt need blue collar jobs, reality is far different.

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.