By George Will
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
When the president speaks of closed factories scattered
like “tombstones” across America, has he noticed the shuttered stores in
shopping centers, and entire malls reduced to rubble? He promises “protection”
to prevent foreigners from “destroying” manufacturing jobs by exporting to
America things that Americans want to import. Does he know that one American
company might be “destroying” more American jobs than China is? And that this
supposed destruction is beneficial?
The company is Amazon (market capitalization: $388
billion), created by Jeff Bezos. He owns the Washington Post, which syndicates this column, but it is for
revolutionizing retailing that he ranks in the pantheon of American business.
He belongs there with Richard Warren Sears, Alvah Curtis Roebuck, Aaron
Montgomery Ward, and Sam Walton, all of whom were constructively disruptive
retailers, and were as important in the nation’s commercial history as were
Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates.
In 2016, online buying during the holiday season surged
19 percent over the year before, which is one factor explaining this: Macy’s,
after announcing in August that it would close another 100 of its remaining 730
stores, now says it will shed 10,000 jobs. Sears, which is 13 decades old and
still has 1,600 stores, has lost $9 billion in five years, has closed 500
stores, and is closing another 150 (including some Kmarts).
Sears stores in American downtowns, and the Sears catalogue
that put downtown goods within reach of rural America (3 million catalogues
were distributed in 1907, when the nation’s population was 87 million), caused
difficulties for older retailers. In the second half of the 20th century,
Walmarts at the edge of towns caused difficulties for downtown retailers with
pre-modern — meaning pre-Walmart — global supply chains. Now Amazon is forcing
Walmart to master online retailing.
Although e-commerce was just 8 percent of all 2016 retail
sales, it came disproportionately at the expense of Sears, Macy’s, and other
“anchor tenants” that draw foot traffic from which other mall retailers
benefit. When Amazon recently announced that it is going to create 100,000
warehousing and other jobs in the next 18 months, the New York Times reported that online retailing “has destroyed many
times that number of positions at malls and shopping centers across America.”
The Times
quoted specialists’ calculations that traditional retailers have shed more than
200,000 employees since 2012, and that there are 1.2 million fewer retail
workers than there would be if there were no online retailers. But Henry Ford,
too, “destroyed” lots of jobs — those of blacksmiths, buggy makers, etc. — the
holders of which moved on, and usually up.
Writing at MarketWatch, Rex Nutting argues that as Amazon
revolutionizes consumer behavior, it “is going to destroy more American jobs
than China ever did.” If so, the “problem” is productivity. Nutting says
“Amazon needs about half as many workers to sell $100 worth of merchandise as
Macy’s does.” The Times reports that
“the typical online retailer generates $1,267,000 in sales per employee versus
$279,000 at bricks-and-mortar stores.
All of which raises a question: Why should manufacturing
jobs lost to foreign competition be privileged by protectionist policies in
ways that jobs lost to domestic competition are not? When an Applebee’s or
Olive Garden, powered by a national advertising budget, opens next to, and
causes the closing of, Madge’s Diner, why does Madge not merit protection? Or
the Trade Adjustment Assistance that is available for workers, firms, farmers,
even communities that can plausibly claim to have been otherwise injured by
foreign competition or outsourcing of jobs?
The reason is this: Domestic protection of Madge and
millions of others unsettled by the constant churning of a dynamic domestic
economy would mean slow economic growth — and rapid growth of government as it
regulates consumers’ choices and their consequences. But protection from imports
also means this.
Reactionary liberalism has long held, and today’s faux
conservatism agrees, that existing jobs should be protected by policies that
reduce the economic dynamism that threatens those jobs. Such protection means a
net decrease in jobs but an increase in the self-esteem of blinkered
protectionists who see the jobs “saved” but not those that, as a result of lost
dynamism, are lost or never created.
Macy’s flagship Manhattan store was one reason Gimbels’
nearby flagship closed, after 76 years, in 1986. This, even though in 1945
Gimbels had been America’s first merchant to offer “a fantastic, atomic era,
miraculous pen.” It was a ballpoint.
Will the winner of the once-famous Macy’s-versus-Gimbels
rivalry always be with us? Probably not, which is probably good.
No comments:
Post a Comment