What's the Difference?

by Don Boudreaux on March 21, 2007

in Myths and Fallacies, Trade

Here’s a letter that I sent today to the New York Times, in response to this letter from two politicians.

To the Editor:

Sen.
Charles Schumer and Rep. Jim McDermott want trade agreements that are
"fair" (Letters, March 21) – by which they mean trade agreements that
protect American workers from having to compete very hard against
foreign workers.

I wonder if Messrs. Schumer and McDermott
regard Xerox, IBM, Apple, Dell, and Hewlett-Packard to have been "unfair" traders.
By making copiers, personal computers, and desktop printers so incredibly
inexpensive, these firms destroyed countless jobs for office-pool
typists.  An American worker simply cannot compete with these
machines.  Would we have been well served had government restricted our
ability to purchase these machines?  If not, why suppose that we will
be well served if government restricts our ability to purchase goods
and services produced by workers whose wages are now lower than ours?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • David White

    "The excess liquidity that was then injected into the system after the bursting of the equity bubble set the markets up for a series of other bubbles – especially residential property, emerging markets, high-yield corporate credit, and mortgages. Meanwhile, the yen carry trade added high-octane fuel to the levered play in risky assets, and the income-based saving shortfall of America’s asset-dependent economy resulted in the mother of all current account deficits. No one in their right mind ever though this mess was sustainable..."


    True, though almost no one, including Don Boudreaux, is in his right mind and completely misunderstand the trade issue accordingly:


    http://www.morganstanley.com/views/gef/archive/2007/20070316-Fri.html#anchor4577

  • Don.


    Where's your actual evidence that office IT 'destroyed countless jobs for office-pool typists'?


    Because a lifetime of working in office environments tells me a different story.

  • Mike

    Martin makes a nice point. It is quite possible that the office equipment technological revolution was complementary to office workers - even if the inputs are directly substitutable, scale effects are quite plausibly large enough to offset the direct substitution effect.

  • My favorite example of displaced workers is the Pony Express Riders robbed of their employment by the telegraph. What protection and recompense did they ever recieve. Sadly, it is far too late to do anything about this.

  • triticale,


    That gives me an idea. If I just claim that my great-grandfather was a pony express rider, perhaps I can demand reparations?

  • jp

    I don't know how accurate Don's comments may or may not be with respect to the office typing pool, but personal computers certainly had that effect on typesetters. Desktop publishing has very nearly made that entire field obsolete.

  • The Dirty Mac

    My uncle worked on a horse drawn ice wagon. Lots of jobs destroyed there.

  • Henri Hein

    Seriously, my dad was a clock-and-watch maker who was all but obsoleted by $5 digital watches. He barely survived his last years before retirement by specializing in door-to-door repairs of antique clocks. Although he occasionally sounds the "they don't make 'em like they used to" tune, I don' think you could get him to lament that everyone has access to super-accurate watches.


    Martin, copiers certainly reduced the need for manual labor by office clerks. That these clerks then went on to other tasks is the point Prof. Boudreaux is making.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: