By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
In the February 4 edition of First Teachers we featured a letter from a reader named R.J.K. that centered on the attacks against the traditional family in the United States from the media and radical feminists.
R.J.K. added, “The most damaging impact on the family in the United States in recent decades has been the exporting of blue-collar jobs to low-wage Third World countries. The resulting unemployment and underemployment at low-paying jobs of young males has prevented them from earning what is necessary to support a family. This has forced married women to work, rather than stay home with their children. What makes this situation worse is that single mothers and non-traditional families have been exalted by the media.”
We recently received a letter from R.W., a reader who agrees in the main with R.J.K.’s analysis, but who wishes to add some further thoughts for our consideration. “Through recent reading about the loss of American jobs in the so-called fast-fashion industry,” she writes, “I was made aware of a number of its causes and effects, which I believe are applicable to the manufacture of most other products as well.
“1) At some time in the fairly recent past (30 years or so ago), the American consumer decided that he was willing to pay only a certain amount, and no more, for a product.
“2) The American manufacturer could not make a profit bringing the product to market at that price, due to the costs of raw materials and the wages demanded by the American worker.
“3) That American manufacturer found workers in developing countries who would work for low enough wages to allow him to bring the product to market and make a profit.
“4) Then, the price of raw materials went up.
“5) The ‘developing country’ had now become a little more developed, thanks to the work provided by Mr. American Manufacturer.
“6) Mr. Manufacturer now has to find an even less developed country where workers will work for less so that he can continue to bring the product to market for the same price or even less, because Americans demand a bargain and want to pay less for something this year than they did for the same thing last year.
“7) Rinse and repeat.”
R.W. continues, “These are facts in the clothing manufacturing industry; it is conjecture on my part that most other industries that have gone ‘off shore’ are operating under the same circumstances. In the long run, as industry arrives in more countries, those countries develop and economic disparities level out, reducing world poverty. This is a good thing and we already see it happening.”
R.W. cuts to the bottom line. You might not like what she finds there: “In the short run, there is virtually no chance of bringing good-paying manufacturing jobs back to America. Not until we face up to our complicity in their departure. We live in a society of hyper-consumption. Compare what is in the refrigerator, pantry, or clothes closet of any middle-class home with what you would have found there just 30 years ago and you will see the reason for the loss of jobs. We want ever more stuff at lower and lower prices.
“We also want to be paid more and more and have health insurance and pensions for life. These desires are mutually exclusive. Those cheap prices you get on goods made in China let you live better on less money, and they are the reason you don’t have a job that pays better. The jobs will come back when that rising tide has finished lifting all the boats.”
Is R.W.’s analysis conservative or liberal? It strikes that it is neither. She is writing descriptively, not normatively. She is not telling us what to do, merely pointing out that there are consequences to our actions. Is the answer tariffs and quotas on foreign products to protect American jobs? Or restrictions that prevent American manufacturers shipping jobs overseas?
That would result in retaliation from foreign countries, who would do the same thing to us. It would also mean considerably higher prices on the products that we buy.
Steve Jobs, the former head of Apple, was famous for saying that it would cost him $7,000 to manufacture the iMac that he was selling in the United States at the time for a little over $1,000. Was he exaggerating to make a point? How much more would you be willing to pay for your computers and other electronic equipment to protect American manufacturers of those products? Many of us would say we would be willing to pay a few hundred dollars more. But what if Jobs was not exaggerating?
Also, is there a moral requirement that we pay more for manufactured products to protect the jobs of fellow-Americans? Even if that means the loss of jobs in the Third World?
My hunch is that the current Pope would be more likely to speak out against the loss of jobs in the Third World if the United States implemented economic policies to protect American workers, than he would praise us for seeking to protect those workers. Would it be the more moral thing to permit the process that R.W. has described to proceed apace — and wait for “the jobs to come back when the rising tide has finished lifting all the boats”? That is going to take a long time.
It will be interesting to see what the candidates for the presidency will have to say about this issue as the election campaign moves through the summer. Their comments should provide some interesting lessons for high school students. The usual categories of left and right do not apply easily in this matter. The Republican Party has long been considered the party of free trade, but Donald Trump has been talking about applying pressure on the Chinese and Mexican governments to protect American jobs.
The Democrats have traditionally been seen as the party that promotes the interests of the trade unions and the working class, yet Hillary Clinton has long been a supporter (with the qualifiers and caveats that you would expect) of international free-trade agreements such as NAFTA, GATT and the WTO.
We welcome our readers’ reactions on this topic. My hunch is that they will come from many different angles.
+ + +
Readers are invited to submit comments and questions about this and other educational issues. The e-mail address for First Teachers is fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net, and the mailing address is P.O. Box 15, Wallingford, CT 06492.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress