Thursday, July 19, 2012
It's a familiar story: A manufacturing company finds its
wages too high, looks for ways to cut costs and ends up moving production
overseas where the pastures are greener. It happened when some American jobs
were outsourced to China. Now it's happening again -- with Chinese jobs fleeing
to America.
This trend, known as "reshoring," has created
some 10,000 positions in the United States in the past two years. It's driven
partly -- believe it or not -- by the rising cost of Chinese labor. And it's
only going to expand.
India has the same problem as China. Once the world
capital of English-language call centers, it has been eclipsed by the
Philippines -- where wages are slightly higher but locals speak an American
style of English.
Outsourcing is a fact of life in the modern age, unless
you live in North Korea, which is fortunate in having no private jobs to be
moved. Relentless, unforgiving competition drives companies to locate where
they have the best chance to survive and prosper.
Sensible leaders understand corporate mobility and make
their peace with it. But in the U.S., each of the major party presidential
candidates is pretending that outsourcing is a grotesque abuse that occurs only
because of his opponent's heartless irresponsibility.
Barack Obama blames Mitt Romney because Bain Capital
shipped jobs abroad -- a claim that FactCheck.org found baseless. Romney
accuses Obama of sending stimulus funds to companies that produce overseas -- a
charge dismissed by The Washington Post's Fact Checker.
That's one problem with the war of allegations. The other
is that they reflect and promote an erroneous assumption: that outsourcing to
other countries is something to be opposed at all costs. In fact, it's a vital
part of international trade, which in turn is an immense boon to human
progress.
Many Americans fear that every job moved beyond our
borders constitutes a grievous loss to our economic welfare. But if something
can be made cheaper elsewhere, the relocation will allow us to buy that product
at a lower cost, which is entirely desirable. We don't improve our material
well-being by depriving ourselves of the chance to get more goods for less
money.
We don't actually lose jobs when a company decides to
take its manufacturing elsewhere. A recent study of the U.S. published by the
Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics and Political
Science found, "Offshoring has no effect on native employment in the
aggregate." It destroys some jobs but creates just as many others.
Nor is it exactly optional. If clothing can be made far
cheaper in China than in South Carolina, a company with plants in South
Carolina can do one of two things. It can move its production to China to take
advantage of the lower costs, or it can dig itself a grave and then climb in.
A company that successfully outsources saves jobs --
since a company that goes bust employs no one. If Bain had barred corporations
from shifting factories when it made sense to do so, it would have been guilty
of economic malfeasance.
Outsourcing, contrary to myth, has not led to the
collapse of American manufacturing. In fact, U.S. industrial production has
risen by nearly 50 percent in the past 15 years. The reason manufacturing
employment has declined is that workers have gotten more productive -- meaning
it takes less labor to make more goods.
But outsourcing is a two-way street. Nobody here seems to
think the German government should stop Volkswagen from building cars in
Tennessee. Some 700,000 Americans work for U.S. affiliates of Japanese
companies, which apparently is cool with Japanese politicians.
Dartmouth economist Douglas Irwin points out that the
U.S. has a trade deficit in goods but a trade surplus in services. Chinese
companies, and U.S. companies that operate in China, often need the services of
lawyers, architects and software engineers working on this side of the Pacific.
In the end, both we and the Chinese gain from the process.
But it's the nature of our politics to ignore the vast
benefits generated by international commerce and obsess about every negative
consequence that can be found. Romney and Obama both manage to convey the
impression that they have no clue how trade acts to continually raise our
standard of living.
Luckily for us, they don't have to understand it. But it
would help a lot if they would stay out of the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment