PDA

View Full Version : Commentary: Free trade has sold out the American worker



Daniel
02-09-2009, 10:17 PM
Editor's note: Virg Bernero is the mayor of Lansing, Michigan and chairman of the Mayors and Municipalities Automotive Coalition (MMAC). He is one of the mayors of U.S. cities appearing on "American Morning" this week.
Mayor Virg Bernero says the American worker has been sold out by backers of free trade.

Mayor Virg Bernero says the American worker has been sold out by backers of free trade.

(CNN) -- While America reels from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, it is time that we take a deeper look at the root causes of our current predicament.

The cold, hard truth is that the unholy alliance between Washington and Wall Street has sold out the American worker and exported our standard of living.

Driven by the insatiable greed of Wall Street profiteers and accelerated by the false promise of free trade, our manufacturing base has been chased out of this country and along with it the livelihood of millions of hard-working Americans.

It's fashionable these days among the politicians, pundits and so-called experts to claim that free trade is actually good for us. They say it enables us to buy cheaper goods made with cheap foreign labor and this, in turn, raises our standard of living.

With all due respect, the free traders need to ask themselves a more fundamental question: how will Americans buy those goods when they don't even have a paycheck that covers their mortgage, much less the college tuition for their children? Video Watch Mayor Bernero speak to American Morning's John Roberts »
Mayors on America's economic woes
Hear how cities in the US are coping with the recession all week on "American Morning"
Weekdays 6 a.m. ET
see full schedule »

More than one pundit has told me I need to take a broader view. As the mayor of one of America's countless manufacturing communities, the only view that matters is the one my citizens see every day: Record job losses, home foreclosures and, thanks to the Wall Street wizards, a credit crunch so severe that it is nearly impossible to finance a new car.

This isn't a predicament faced just by Michigan or the Midwest. This is the story of America, told in thousands of desperate households from Connecticut to California.

The pundits claim our manufacturing sector is a relic of the old economy. We're told that we just can't compete anymore. We're told that our future is in the service economy, that jobs in health care and finance and knowledge-based industries will recreate the prosperity our nation once knew.

The truth is that our industrial heritage is an example of everything that was right with our nation's economy. Good jobs with good benefits created the middle class in this country, and now it is being systematically dismantled under the banner of free trade and globalism.
Don't Miss

* Commentary: How to rescue bank bailout
* Commentary: Libertarian ideas to boost economy

Those who continue to espouse free trade ominously warn that protectionism is the wrong path for our nation; that challenging the holy doctrine of free trade invites a global trade war.

Yet we already face rampant protectionism across the globe. Pursuing a free trade agenda in a protectionist world is tantamount to unilateral disarmament.

Our trading partners routinely employ taxes, tariffs and subsidies that underwrite their exports and restrict American products from entering their home markets. They use currency manipulation to reduce the relative cost of their goods here in the USA.

The fact is we're not competing against other companies; we're competing against other countries. I've toured the Hyundai plant in Asan, Korea. The Koreans are wonderful people, but their technology isn't any better and they're not working any harder than Americans.

The difference is that Hyundai doesn't have to pay legacy costs. The Korean government takes care of their retirees. Hyundai doesn't pay health care costs because they have national heath care. If you don't think that's an unfair advantage, you're kidding yourself.

Many Americans are unaware that China sold 10 million cars last year -- more than General Motors or Toyota. I can assure you the Chinese government is part and parcel of that success. They're involved in their industry. The Korean government is involved in their industry.

If we are going to have any chance to compete globally, our government must get involved in our industry and help us rebuild America's industrial might before it is too late.

There's no question that we need this stimulus package. We need the reinvestment in America's infrastructure and in the working people of this country. We need tax cuts delivered directly to the American worker. We need education and retraining for the "green collar" jobs of the future.

But we need more than a short term shot in the arm. We need a long-term strategy to rebuild the American economy that provides jobs and economic security to the millions of hard-working American families who have been sold down the river by unfair trade policies.

We need fair trade agreements so that the most productive workers in the world -- American workers -- can put their skills to work and compete in the global economy.
advertisement

We recently watched our athletes successfully compete in the Olympics against nations of the world. When the playing field is level, Americans can compete against the best from any nation. With fair trade instead of free trade, American workers can once again bring home the gold.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Virg Bernero.


----

Obviously this guy has an agenda, but he does make some interesting points. Some people have been positing recently that China's model of state centric capitalism may become a new model for the developing world, because of it's relative success in China and it's success in other places like Korea etc.

What I find most interesting is that towards the end he tries to frame "Fair trade" as something that is advantageous for the American people. This is probably the first time I've seen that expressed by a major western politician that way. It will be interesting to see if fair trade proponents jump on this as an opportunity to do things like reinvigorate the Doha round of trade talks to press for issues like equal labor standards and quality of living stipulations which, unfortunately, have not been a priority for the US.

TheEschaton
02-09-2009, 10:28 PM
Those labor standards are also a big factor in manufacturing competitiveness. He cites many examples of where American industry has more expenses, but perhaps the biggest expense is having to pay a minimum wage far greater than the rest of the world.

The problem with globalizing standards is the standard used: for example, if we set the minimum wage as universal to, say, the american standard, poor countries and the companies in them are going to go bankrupt paying those wages. If you set a global standard on poor countries, then workers in first world country will become poverty stricken. If you shift a minimum wage per country to a "lower middle class" standard, it still creates disparity in actual expenses for companies, and manufacturing can still race to the bottom in terms of finding the cheapest country to manufacture in.

Daniel
02-09-2009, 10:36 PM
Those labor standards are also a big factor in manufacturing competitiveness. He cites many examples of where American industry has more expenses, but perhaps the biggest expense is having to pay a minimum wage far greater than the rest of the world.

The problem with globalizing standards is the standard used: for example, if we set the minimum wage as universal to, say, the american standard, poor countries and the companies in them are going to go bankrupt paying those wages. If you set a global standard on poor countries, then workers in first world country will become poverty stricken. If you shift a minimum wage per country to a "lower middle class" standard, it still creates disparity in actual expenses for companies, and manufacturing can still race to the bottom in terms of finding the cheapest country to manufacture in.

There are graduated ways to implement increased labor standards that mitigate this conflict in the long term. However, I think we can both agree that *anything* is better than what we currently have.

Drew
02-09-2009, 10:59 PM
Legitimately frightening.

Gan
02-09-2009, 11:02 PM
"The fact is we're not competing against other companies; we're competing against other countries."

Probably the most profound statement in the whole editorial. And one that I agree with.

I like to think the notion of free trade stems from the concept of comparative advantage. However, the assumption of ceteris paribus that is commonly used in basic models can not be used in the real world. And thats where the model breaks down, IMO. On the flip side, Smoot Hawley has taught us that fanatical protectionism is not a good thing either.

Things like TheE mentioned (labor) and legacy costs (mentioned in the editorial) are also part of the playing field, but there was curiously one factor absent from the editorial - that being labor unions.

If one were to create a totally level playing field between international manufacturers then it will have to be a combination of both wall street and pennsylvania aveneue that will require work. All standards of labor will have to be addressed (wage rate, work standards, child labor, etc.), import/export duties, pollution standards, anti-trade regulation (copyright infringement), and currency equilibrium for the purchase of resources not available in the manufacturing nation.

As far as invigorating the DOHA round for 2009, they will have to overcome the agricultural issues before things like labor standards can be addressed, unless labor points are to be a concession (which would be self defeating for this discussion).

Daniel
02-09-2009, 11:08 PM
Legitimately frightening.

Why?

Daniel
02-09-2009, 11:12 PM
"The fact is we're not competing against other companies; we're competing against other countries."

Probably the most profound statement in the whole editorial. And one that I agree with.

I like to think the notion of free trade stems from the concept of comparative advantage. However, the assumption of ceteris paribus that is commonly used in basic models can not be used in the real world. And thats where the model breaks down, IMO. On the flip side, Smoot Hawley has taught us that fanatical protectionism is not a good thing either.

Things like TheE mentioned (labor) and legacy costs (mentioned in the editorial) are also part of the playing field, but there was curiously one factor absent from the editorial - that being labor unions.

If one were to create a totally level playing field between international manufacturers then it will have to be a combination of both wall street and pennsylvania aveneue that will require work. All standards of labor will have to be addressed (wage rate, work standards, child labor, etc.), import/export duties, pollution standards, anti-trade regulation (copyright infringement), and currency equilibrium for the purchase of resources not available in the manufacturing nation.

As far as invigorating the DOHA round for 2009, they will have to overcome the agricultural issues before things like labor standards can be addressed, unless labor points are to be a concession (which would be self defeating for this discussion).


I'd say one of the reasons that unions aren't brought up in labor is because they really aren't that big of a factor across all sectors. Sure, they have a strangle hold on some, but definitely not all. Only 13% of the labor force in America is in a Union, and not all of them are blood sucking entities (quite the opposite in fact).

Meanwhile, there are plenty of people in this country who work at the min wage which has lagged behind purchasing price parity for a long long time.

I agree that some things like agriculture will be a bigger sticking point for the doha round, but it's WTO negotiations have never really been an all or nothing game. But we'll see if the fair trade advocates pick up on this angle in order to promote their agenda, which I've seen no indication of happening.

Stretch
02-09-2009, 11:48 PM
On a slightly related note, the Senate is working a bill through that is going to make it extraordinarily difficult for institutions that take TARP funds to continue hiring H1B workers.

Kind of makes sense, I guess? The part that doesn't make sense is that they want to also make it impossible for those same companies to renew existing H1Bs that are working for them.

Parkbandit
02-10-2009, 12:04 AM
I'd say one of the reasons that unions aren't brought up in labor is because they really aren't that big of a factor across all sectors. Sure, they have a strangle hold on some, but definitely not all. Only 13% of the labor force in America is in a Union, and not all of them are blood sucking entities (quite the opposite in fact).

Meanwhile, there are plenty of people in this country who work at the min wage which has lagged behind purchasing price parity for a long long time.

I agree that some things like agriculture will be a bigger sticking point for the doha round, but it's WTO negotiations have never really been an all or nothing game. But we'll see if the fair trade advocates pick up on this angle in order to promote their agenda, which I've seen no indication of happening.


Obama and a Democratically controlled Congress will ensure that this "only 13%" will be greatly increased over the next 4 years. There is already legislation on the way to make it easier for workers to unionize and for unions to 'persuade' employees to join them.

Think we have issues now.. just you wait.

Rocktar
02-10-2009, 05:24 AM
Yeah, I just love the pending ban on secret ballot in labor relations and negotiations. But hey, Senators and Congressmen sure don't want to admit how they vote when facing the music. That's fair, right?

I have worked in a Union environment and radical anti-union and I have to say, neither is all that great. I hate carrying the load of incompetents either way. Want Free trade, then make it go both ways, if a country doesn't let us import to them without tariffs, then we should tariff their goods. Example:

US rice sold in Japan costs 30% more than native grown rice because of tariffs when a straight sale would make US rice cost something like 1/3 of Japanese grown rice.

On some industries we would take a bath in a 100% open market, world wide, in others, we would stomp the shit out of everyone else. It is only where governments apply protectionism or social engineering that we get into trouble and that is even with high US wages. When not saddled with BS regulations and taxes, the US company can do well nearly everywhere. This is a prime reason we don’t participate in the Kyoto Accords. They are simply a way to punish us, support “developing” nations and try and force wealth redistribution world wide.

Daniel
02-10-2009, 06:50 AM
Obama and a Democratically controlled Congress will ensure that this "only 13%" will be greatly increased over the next 4 years. There is already legislation on the way to make it easier for workers to unionize and for unions to 'persuade' employees to join them.

Think we have issues now.. just you wait.

right. It's all a liberal conspiracy. Amirite?

Gan
02-10-2009, 07:27 AM
I'd say one of the reasons that unions aren't brought up in labor is because they really aren't that big of a factor across all sectors. Sure, they have a strangle hold on some, but definitely not all. Only 13% of the labor force in America is in a Union, and not all of them are blood sucking entities (quite the opposite in fact).

Given where the Editorial author is from and who he's intimately involved with...

Editor's note: Virg Bernero is the mayor of Lansing, Michigan and chairman of the Mayors and Municipalities Automotive Coalition (MMAC). He is one of the mayors of U.S. cities appearing on "American Morning" this week.
I would say that auto unions, which have a given disparity in the cost of production as compared with auto plants in the southern region of the US, were very curiously absent from his 'rant'. Curious enough to raise the bias flag regarding the motivation behind his op-ed.

Daniel
02-10-2009, 07:29 AM
Given where the Editorial author is from and who he's intimately involved with...

I would say that auto unions, which have a given disparity in the cost of production as compared with auto plants in the southern region of the US, were very curiously absent from his 'rant'. Curious enough to raise the bias flag regarding the motivation behind his op-ed.

I prefaced my statement with he has an obvious bias...

Parkbandit
02-10-2009, 08:48 AM
right. It's all a liberal conspiracy. Amirite?

Wait, so Card Check won't do exactly what I said it would do?

Or are you just being Typical Danny? I had hoped that since you initiated the thread that you would actually participate in the thread and we could have an actual debate about the topic.. but I guess that was just wishful thinking on my part.

Daniel
02-10-2009, 09:14 AM
Wait, so Card Check won't do exactly what I said it would do?

Or are you just being Typical Danny? I had hoped that since you initiated the thread that you would actually participate in the thread and we could have an actual debate about the topic.. but I guess that was just wishful thinking on my part.

Wait you were discussing the issue when you added "quotes" to your persuade to suggest that Unions are some malicious entity which serve no useful purpose in this society?

The point still stands that unionized workers still pose a fraction of the workers in America. To hedge our labor problems on them is silly and disingenuous to say the least. When and IF unions expand at a rate that is dangerous to the American economy, you will have a useful gripe. However, you aren't "discussing" anything when you bring it up as a foregone conclusion.

AnticorRifling
02-10-2009, 11:44 AM
On a slightly related note, the Senate is working a bill through that is going to make it extraordinarily difficult for institutions that take TARP funds to continue hiring H1B workers.

Kind of makes sense, I guess? The part that doesn't make sense is that they want to also make it impossible for those same companies to renew existing H1Bs that are working for them. Good. Now I can work in IT without having to smell curry everyday. Wait...what?

TheEschaton
02-10-2009, 12:15 PM
Yeah, I just love the pending ban on secret ballot in labor relations and negotiations. But hey, Senators and Congressmen sure don't want to admit how they vote when facing the music. That's fair, right?

I have worked in a Union environment and radical anti-union and I have to say, neither is all that great. I hate carrying the load of incompetents either way. Want Free trade, then make it go both ways, if a country doesn't let us import to them without tariffs, then we should tariff their goods. Example:

US rice sold in Japan costs 30% more than native grown rice because of tariffs when a straight sale would make US rice cost something like 1/3 of Japanese grown rice.

On some industries we would take a bath in a 100% open market, world wide, in others, we would stomp the shit out of everyone else. It is only where governments apply protectionism or social engineering that we get into trouble and that is even with high US wages. When not saddled with BS regulations and taxes, the US company can do well nearly everywhere. This is a prime reason we don’t participate in the Kyoto Accords. They are simply a way to punish us, support “developing” nations and try and force wealth redistribution world wide.

That's exactly the problem - without some sort of protectionism, with pure free trade, we would bankrupt third world industry. Traditional notions of justice and even capitalism (which assumes an initially level playing field) are offended by such an idea. Thus, it's not there is too much protectionism, but that free trade has failed because we have not taken protectionist measures when other countries have had to, and "fair trade", a protectionist model, is much more necessary.

-TheE-

Kembal
02-10-2009, 12:47 PM
That's exactly the problem - without some sort of protectionism, with pure free trade, we would bankrupt third world industry. Traditional notions of justice and even capitalism (which assumes an initially level playing field) are offended by such an idea. Thus, it's not there is too much protectionism, but that free trade has failed because we have not taken protectionist measures when other countries have had to, and "fair trade", a protectionist model, is much more necessary.

-TheE-

...we would bankrupt third world industry by pure free trade?

what?

My company manufactures overseas (China and India, no less) and imports into the U.S., and even I think your statement sounds nonsensical to me.

I'd say there's been a massive failure to innovate here, along with massive inflexibility. Case in point: We've been looking to start producing a portion of our product line here in the U.S. using our outsourced, joint venture manufacturing model that's been very successful in China. We figured some of the auto parts suppliers that have been made idle due to the downturn might be willing to switch to producing our product. (and they'd have a ton of business from us, because of the stimulus package)

Called 100 of them. None were interested.

Go figure.

TheEschaton
02-10-2009, 12:59 PM
I'm not talking about countries like India and China, which, imo, aren't third world any more, but probably second world.

I'm talking dirt poor countries, mainly in Africa, with import based economies. Without protectionist measures, having their market flooded by foreign products kills their industry. Frankly, countries like India and China have used protectionist measures to their advantage, taking advantage of the fact that: A) they had a means of production for themselves, and B) selective use of tariffs in combination with selective enforcement of international free trade agreements allows them to flood other markets with their goods without having to really accept other country's goods. Do you know who one of the largest auto manufacturers in the world are? TATA, an Indian company formed in India and selling mainly to Asia. It was only through Indian restrictions on foreign autos which allowed TATA to consume the Indian market.

We need similar restrictions here to protect our workers, but we've clung to this idea of free trade for so long - mainly because wherever it's been enforced, we can make lots of money. The truth of it is now, with the shifting power int he world, free trade agreements are harder and harder to be enforced, and a fracturing of agreements has occured (free trade for absolutely necessary imports for a country, restrictions on everything else). We've already seen some protectionist measures taken in the past few decades, the prime example being farm subsidies, as our costs in producing agriculture has long been higher than growing it elsewhere and shipping it in, without tariffs/subsidies.

-TheE-