By Nicole Gelinas
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Critics of free-market capitalism often point to the fact
that the average American worker hasn’t gotten a raise in decades as evidence
that free markets have failed. Yet free-market capitalism hasn’t failed. It has
only efficiently responded to signals that government has sent it by opening
our borders to tens of millions of unskilled laborers as well as to products
manufactured in countries that do not respect free-market capitalism.
The average American worker has seen his income stall.
Thirty years ago, a household whose high-school-educated breadwinner managed to
earn 40 percent of the average American income brought home about $41,000.
Today, he still earns $41,000. The phenomenon is global: “across 25 of the
world’s advanced economies, about two-thirds of the population — more than half
a billion people — earn the same or less than their peers did a decade ago,”
the Wall Street Journal reported in
July.
Workers’ stagnant pay is in part a success story: that
the situation not worse is a testament to Western economies’ ability to absorb
nations’ worth of people. As Ed Conard, a founding partner of Bain Capital,
says of the theme of his new book, The
Upside of Inequality: “America has sucked a huge number of workers in. We
have people walking around saying there’s no demand for labor. That’s why I
think the free markets are working. Something is bringing people from
Guatemala” to New York, he says, looking for work.
Conard cites the numbers. “We have absorbed 40 million
foreign-born adults, 20 million [adult] children” of immigrants. “We have a
near-infinite supply of low-wage labor,” so “we’re not going to get an increase
of wages.” The government, not the marketplace, decreed that America would
accept these low-skilled workers — and the marketplace responded by lowering
wages. People may not like this market signal. But the market is responding to
a public-policy decision.
Lower-wage workers in the West have also suffered from
competition from people who have stayed in the developing world to make
products for export. One can hardly call trade with China, for example,
free-market trade. The Chinese government has explicitly supported its
state-owned and state-favored enterprises in its push to increase exports, to
create jobs for hundreds of millions of working-age people at home. As the
country’s economic growth has slowed over the past two decades, China’s
Communist party leaders, panicked about unemployed people fomenting unrest,
have opted to expand the government’s economic footprint rather than let market
forces work. “China is retreating from market-orientated reforms in order to
pursue old-fashioned Soviet-style central economy planning,” Jingzhou Tao,
managing partner of China-based global law firm Dechert, writes in the Financial Times. China now has more
corporate debt, as a percentage of GDP, than any other country — because China
has encouraged state-supported banks to lend to job creators.
To wit: China is coddling firms in the steel industry as
they struggle with over-capacity. Dongbei Special Steel group is a state-owned
steel producer that is producing far more steel than anyone wants to buy, the Wall Street Journal reports. The company
cannot pay its debts. But the Chinese government hasn’t forced it into
bankruptcy or restructuring; the government needs the 10,000 jobs the company
has created. Another state-owned steel firm, Bohai, is restructuring its debt
only with the help of new debt guaranteed by the coastal city of Tianjin, where
local leaders were willing to put up the money rather than face mounting job
losses, the Financial Times reports.
U.S. and European markets — and their mill workers — must absorb steel produced
not under free-market conditions but under central-planning conditions.
Some folks aren’t worried. “If China wishes to subsidize
its exports, good for us who buy them,” says Deirdre McCloskey, a former
University of Illinois professor and author of the new book, Bourgeois Equality. Tyler Cowen of
George Mason University isn’t so sure. “I’m not just sitting back saying, ooh,
cheaper steel,” he says. He notes that China itself will likely bear “98
percent” of the costs of its government distortions, and “it’s not that you
want China to be poor again.” But manufacturing output from the “non-free world
just in total mass has grown a large amount,” and has affected Western
economies, and, in turn, public support of free-market capitalism there. “Once
you lose certain things, it’s hard to buy them back,” he says.
Conard, although a free trader, acknowledges that
laid-off workers and workers earning lower wages are rational to be upset. “A
lot of people are benefiting from the lower cost of goods,” he says, “but not
really paying the cost of the lower wages. I take my factory from Indiana and
we cart it down to Mexico,” he continues, and the classic argument is that
re-trained Hoosier workers can find new jobs created by entrepreneurs. But the
most skilled workers “move to San Francisco, and the guy in Indiana is walking
around,” asking, “when are the entrepreneurs going to show up?”
Trade with a non-free country in small amounts is not a
bad thing. But last year, the U.S. incurred a $367 billion annual trade deficit
with China, part of a $2.6 trillion cumulative deficit built up with that one
country over a decade. A nominally free-market country that takes in nearly
$400 billion worth of imports from a centrally planned economy each year
imports the distortions of that central planning. “I really want free trade,
but what I don’t want are persistent trade deficits that last for decades,”
says Conard. He says it would be one thing if “someone [was] tak[ing] the money
and tak[ing] the risk” to create innovations and new jobs, but the governments
and people who have built up these trade surpluses by selling to American
consumers do not want to take risks with their wealth.
In immigration, the solution is straightforward, if
decades late. Washington can exercise what is clearly a government function —
controlling borders — to shape how the free market sets wages. Conard suggests
limiting immigration of low-wage workers. Curtailing the labor supply would
serve as a tax on higher-income Americans, as they would have to pay more for
the services they receive from gardeners and housekeepers. To create jobs for
working-class and middle-class Americans, he would open the borders to the
world’s top five percent of highly skilled workers – people with the ability and willingness to
take risks — as well as cut the corporate tax rate. Politicians “can make
political trades — say, we’ll give you a truce on the low-skilled people who
are already here” in return for the tax cut, he suggests.
Lastly, an emerging nation that wants to trade on the
world’s markets should not be able to use those markets as a dumping ground for
exports produced by central-planning policies. At the least, if America and the
rest of the West are to continue to allow such trade imbalances and the
distortions they cause, the champions of the current system should stop calling
it free trade. The world cannot have free trade without free markets.
No comments:
Post a Comment