The New York Times (11/29/16) declares that Carrier’s job announcement “signals that Mr. Trump is a different kind of Republican.”
The Carrier company’s announcement that, after exhortations from Donald Trump, it was going to move a thousand jobs overseas—rather than the 2,000 that it had previously planned to move—led New York Times reporter Nelson Schwartz (11/29/16) to declare that “Mr. Trump is a different kind of Republican, willing to take on big business, at least in individual cases”:
Just as only a confirmed anti-Communist like Richard Nixon could go to China, so only a businessman like Mr. Trump could take on corporate America without being called a Bernie Sanders–style socialist. If Barack Obama had tried the same maneuver, he’d probably have drawn criticism for intervening in the free market.
The story went on to say that Trump and Vice President–elect Mike Pence had promised Carrier they would be “friendlier to businesses by easing regulations and overhauling the corporate tax code.” Probably more to the point from Carrier’s point of view, Schwartz noted that the state of Indiana, where Pence is still governor, “also plans to give economic incentives to Carrier as part of the deal to stay.”
So Trump’s job program involves cutting business taxes and regulations, plus a corporate-welfare package whose cost will presumably be declared after media attention wanders. This makes Trump “a different kind of Republican” how, exactly?
If you’re looking for a way to protect factory jobs that doesn’t involve making wealthy corporations even wealthier, you’re out of luck. The Times’ “other side” takes the form of liberal economists saying that there’s really no way to save workers:
- “No one should confuse what Trump is doing here with sustainable economic policy,” says Obama adviser Jared Bernstein, who isn’t quoted on what a sustainable economic policy would look like.
- “Wall Street is breathing down companies’ necks to cut costs, and the labor savings in Mexico is too great,” says Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s Labor secretary.
- “It doesn’t address the loss of manufacturing jobs to technological change, which will continue,” declares Indiana University business professor Mohan Tatikonda.
One might note that there was tremendous technological change from 1939 until 1979, when US manufacturing jobs grew from 9 million to 19 million. And there was a great deal of change over the next 20 years, when manufacturing employment held more or less steady around 17 million. Whatever caused factory jobs to plunge thereafter—from 17 million in 2000 to 11 million in 2010—it wasn’t that American business had suddenly discovered technology.
One might also note that the relative cost of labor in two countries is based on the value of the countries’ currencies; there’s always an exchange rate that would allow imports and exports to balance out. If the US has a $49 billion trade deficit with Mexico, as it did in 2015, that means the dollar is overvalued compared to the peso. It’s not a fact of nature that it’s cheaper to do business in Mexico.
But the debate in this article provides a microcosm of the media debate over jobs in the 2016 election season: On the one hand, sweeping promises to bring jobs back based on pandering to corporations, and on the other hand, fatalistic assurances that there’s no way to bring jobs back. Is there any wonder which side of this debate won the election?
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. You can follow him on Twitter at @JNaureckas.
You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com, or write to public editor Liz Spayd at public@nytimes.com (Twitter:@NYTimes or @SpaydL). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
The real problem is tying the provision of People’s basic needs to a “job” (wage slavery). There’s plenty of WORK that needs to be done to prepare for a lower energy, lower resource, post-AGW world. And there are more humans roiling around than our Finite Planet can sustain.
Until that reality is addressed, you’re just moving deck chairs around on the Titanic…
Both political parties ignored the needs of the American worker for shot term gains. They continue to do this today. They continue to do this because they are never held accountable for their betrayal.
In this age of consolidated media the outsourcing problem is never discussed on TV. Most people remain in the dark on trade deals.
The American people do not know who it is that is responsible for their problems. Democrats blame Republicans and Republicans blame Democrats.
While people remain in the dark at least they know additional trade deals are not in their best interest. Trump knew to distance himself from the TPP. But Hillary was tied to Obama, the chief proponent of TPP.
“No one should confuse what Trump is doing here with sustainable economic policy,”
said the adviser to the President whose entire economic “recovery” plan was based on trillions of dollars in “bailouts” and near zero interest “loans” to the big banks.
The manufacturing technology in the second half of the twentieth century is not the same automation we’re seeing in the 21st century. It is negligent to address Automation indirectly in such an obscure paragraph. In fact, domestic manufacturing and production and GDP have increased reliably over the decades including in the 21st century and throughout the Obama Administration. Meanwhile Factory employment has been falling. How are corporations able to manufacture more with less workers? I’m speaking domestically here. Automation and technological research and development concerning production and Manufacturing are probably the biggest culprit but rarely gets mentioned in political speeches because there’s not an easy political answer for automation.
The ‘technology/automation’ argument for the reduction in US manufacturing jobs is a red-herring diversion. There are minimal amounts of jobs that are affected by that – – – the vast majority of job losses are due to corporate search for lower wages. First it was movement of factories from the northern states of the US to the southern ones back in the 50-60’s because the wage-rate/regulatory environment was better, and then in the 80’s – present it’s overseas where the wage-rate is anywhere from 1/10th to 1/3rd what it is in the US. Companies are NOT moving jobs to the techie-capitals of the world, they’re moving them to the lowest wage centers that have some infrastructure to support manufacturing. The textile and shoe industries didn’t move to China/India because they’re more technological enhanced locations, they moved there for the CHEAP labor. As noted in the article, the biggest loses of jobs came, not incidentally, when the NAFTA type laws took effect in the 80’s/90’s, which isn’t just coincidental.
On a personal anecdotal note, I see this sort of thing happen regularly at the manufacturing facility I currently work for (in a logistics position) – – – cost/piece rules the day in sourcing decisions, (with ‘quality’ a comfortable distance away in 2nd place), and China/India currently offer the lowest cost (~40% of what we’d pay domestically).
As long as the US consumer culture continues to place ultimate value in the lowest price, our politicians will respond with laws like NAFTA/CAFTA/etc and we’ll keep going in that direction. Things like reinstatement of tariffs could provide a more stable, humane employment environment, but that’s an anathema nowadays, so we’ll continue to see our unemployed/underemployed class grow (no matter how the government tries to ‘game’ those statistics).
and still the need to create and invest in Green renewable jobs is left out of the debate.
Regards for all your efforts that you have
put in this. Very interesting information.