According to today’s populists, “good jobs” in US manufacturing have been “lost” to competition from imports and preferential trading arrangements, but this narrative does not fit the facts, because imports create jobs, too.
For starters, many jobs are directly connected to trade. Think of the longshoremen who load and unload cargo, the pilots and crews who transport goods by air, the truckers who do so by land and the wholesale and retail workers who stock and sell those goods.
Second, imports often provide cheaper inputs than what is available in the US, which enables US manufacturers to better compete with foreign firms in export markets and to maintain their share of domestic markets.
Illustration: Mountain People
Third, foreign direct investment helps US companies acquire some inputs at less cost, while engaging in more research and development and other activities.
Last, but not least, exporting to the US gives foreigners more income with which to buy imports from the US and other countries. As export industry jobs usually require more valuable skills, and thus pay more than jobs in industries that compete with imports, the additional exports generated by imports create better jobs overall.
Without imports, many jobs that exist today would disappear. According to some estimates, the jobs that service an imported consumer good account for more than half of its retail price. Many imports require local service facilities with US workers. For example, foreign automobiles would not be sold if the parts and mechanics for servicing them were unavailable.
For any manufactured good or line of goods, the production process typically involves several steps. Some steps require considerable engineering and technical skills and others entail relatively low-skilled employment. As the US labor force is highly skilled overall, US companies have an advantage over their foreign competitors.
However, US firms that rely on components produced by unskilled labor must either make those components themselves, or buy them from high-cost domestic sources. This can put them at a cost disadvantage if they are competing with companies in other industrial countries that can import the same inputs for less, or with companies in countries where unskilled labor is cheaper.
On the other hand, when US firms can import low-skill inputs for less than it would cost to produce those inputs themselves, they can reduce the price of their final product. This allows them to fend off foreign competitors at home and compete more effectively abroad. Germany and Japan have expensive skilled labor forces, but their firms are able to compete in world markets precisely because they can outsource high-cost, low-skill production stages.
Low-cost imports, rather than “destroying” US jobs, actually sustain them. In addition, when companies can expand as a result of their improved competitiveness at home and abroad, they create even more jobs. However, if firms must purchase higher-cost domestic inputs, they would have to reduce their profits or raise the price of their products. With reduced profits, they will be less likely to expand and hire more workers; and if they lose money, they might have to shed workers. However, raising prices is likely to mean losing market share, implying fewer employees to meet demand.
Foreign direct investment often also helps save jobs in the US, when firms facing competition from abroad must choose between offshoring their unskilled labor activities and going out of business. Offshoring certain components can increase the overall profitability of the production process, but it can also require companies to release intellectual property rights and know-how. With foreign direct investment, companies can maintain control over proprietary processes and expand employment in their head office or US facilities.
One last consideration is that exporting countries would have to correct their balance of payments if their export earnings drop significantly. For example, if the US decides to curtail imports, many of its trading partners would reduce their imports, too, because they will no longer be able to finance them. Export earnings finance imports for most of the world, so if US imports drop, US exports would fall by approximately the same amount.
If that happens, export industry jobs would be lost, together with the jobs created by imports. Even if some of the longshoremen, truckers, head office employees and others find new jobs in the industries that replace import servicing sectors, they would likely have to take a pay cut.
Given these dynamics, why has manufacturing as a share of overall employment in the US decreased? Import competition and preferential trade arrangements such as the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement share the brunt of the blame these days. However, neither of these became relevant factors until long after manufacturing employment — which peaked in the late 1970s — had already started to decline.
One partial explanation is that companies have subcontracted more services, so the share of direct employment in manufacturing might appear to have fallen, even though the number of jobs associated with a firm’s production might not have changed.
However, most analysts attribute the decline in manufacturing employment to improved productivity. US businesses had no choice but to develop or adopt new techniques, processes and technologies to stay competitive. For manufacturing employment to have kept up with the sector’s increased output and value added, the demand for manufactured goods would have had to rise much faster than it did, or Americans would have had to choke off productivity growth. The latter option is the surest way to make the US poor again.
Anne Krueger, a former World Bank chief economist and former first deputy managing director of the IMF, is a senior research professor of international economics at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Late last month, Beijing introduced changes to school curricula in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, requiring certain subjects to be taught in Mandarin rather than Mongolian. What is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) seeking to gain from sending this message of pernicious intent? It is possible that he is attempting cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia, but does Xi also have the same plan for the democratic, independent nation of Mongolia? The controversy emerged with the announcement by the Inner Mongolia Education Bureau on Aug. 26 that first-grade elementary-school and junior-high students would in certain subjects start learning with Chinese-language textbooks, as
There are worrying signs that China is on the brink of a major food shortage, which might trigger a strategic contest over food security and push Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), already under intense pressure, toward drastic measures, potentially spelling trouble for Taiwan and the rest of the world. China has encountered a perfect storm of disasters this year. On top of disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic, torrential rains have caused catastrophic flooding in the Yangtze River basin, China’s largest agricultural region. Floodwaters are estimated to have already destroyed the crops on 6 million hectares of farmland. The situation has been
In 1955, US general Benjamin Davis Jr, then-commander of the US’ 13th Air Force, drew a maritime demarcation line in the middle of the Taiwan Strait, known as the median line. Under pressure from the US, Taiwan and China entered into a tacit agreement not to cross the line. On July 9, 1999, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) described cross-strait relations as a “special state-to-state” relationship. In response, Beijing dispatched People’s Liberation Army (PLA) aircraft into the Taiwan Strait, crossing the median line for the first time since 1955. The PLA has begun to regularly traverse the line. On Sept. 18 and 19, it
On Sept. 8, at the high-profile Ketagalan security forum, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) urged countries to deal with the China challenge. She said: “It is time for like-minded countries, and democratic friends in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond, to discuss a framework to generate sustained and concerted efforts to maintain a strategic order that deters unilateral aggressive actions.” The “Taiwan model” to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic provides an alternative to China’s authoritarian way of handling it. Taiwan’s response to the health crisis has made it evident that countries across the world have much to learn from Taiwan’s best practices and if