The Strange World of Harold Meyerson

by Russ Roberts on April 10, 2008

in Trade

Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post wants America’s trade policy to help Americans. An interesting idea. And how should it do that? Harold wants to save manufacturing jobs, the key to prosperity in his view. He argues that because of foolish free trade policies such as NAFTA and other increases in trade:

…America has gone from being a nation that manufactured things to a nation that manufactures debt. Manufacturing (as Kevin Phillips
points out in the forthcoming issue of the American Prospect, which I
edit) accounted for 25 percent of America’s gross domestic product in
the 1970s but just 12 percent in 2006. Finance, which amounted to 12
percent of GDP in the ’70s, amounted to 20 percent in 2006.

If you read that quickly, it does sound pretty scary. It looks like our manufacturing output has been cut in half! Actually, manufacturing output since 1970 has roughly tripled. TRIPLED. I feel like writing the word again but I’ll refrain. But "TRIPLED" is a good word to remember when you keep hearing that America’s manufacturing sector is being hollowed out and we don’t make anything anymore and soon we’re going to be sitting around doing each other’s laundry.

Manufacturing
The reason manufacturing has become a smaller proportion of GDP is because other sectors have grown even more. The reason other sectors have grown even more is because we have such high productivity in manufacturing over the last 40 years. That’s freed up people and resources to make other stuff.

In Harold’s world, that’s a bad thing, because that means losing high-paying manufacturing jobs for low-paying service jobs.

After all, doesn’t a steel worker earn more than someone working at the cosmetics counter at the department store at the mall? Well, yes, some service jobs pay less than some manufacturing jobs. But some pay a lot more. Like the jobs in the finance sector that Harold cites. He cites finance, I suppose, because it invokes the image of speculators moving pieces of paper around, doing nothing as real as making a car. But of course finance jobs pay very well.

Unfortunately for Harold, in the same edition of the Washington Post, we find a story with the line:

Median household income increased 41 percent from 1970 to 2006, though it never returned to its 1999 peak.

The story is about a recent survey of Americans’ financial situation. The story has some bizarre interpretations of the survey findings and I hope to blog on it later. But just look at that one number. A 41% increase in median income. It’s corrected for inflation. Because of flaws in how inflation is calculated it probably understates the growth in real income. It may not measure benefits correctly, another reason it may be understating the increase. But just taking it as it is, it sure makes Harold’s argument look pretty silly. And of course, the standard Census Bureau numbers on median income tell the same story.

America’s standard of living has been thriving at the same time that manufacturing is falling as a proportion of GDP.

You can find more on America’s trade deficit and manufacturing jobs here.

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • FreedomLover

    Well a lot of manufacturing jobs were eliminated due to robotic automation. There's not holding back technology. If developing technology eventually leads us to cyberization and virtually immortality isn't that a good thing? Should we just stick our collective heads in the ground and pray for a return of the "good old days"? I remember reading in "Dune" about the Butlerian Jihad:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butlerian_Jihad


    Frank Herbert so anticipated this!

  • Deryl G

    I don't think it's just about Unions. The perception is that people are losing jobs because it's cheaper to have the work done over-seas. They think that if we couldn't buy the products from other countries then they would still have a job. The people with this thought process are not necessarily part of unions.


    It seems like when I was a child I remember people being worried that we wouldn't have any jobs because robots were taking them all.

  • FreedomLover

    Jason:


    It's because old union jobs with pensions/job-banks/super high wages are disappearing. Those holy union jobs are HOLY and must not be threatened any further. There isn't anything more to the anti-free trade then that.

  • FreedomLover

    Randy - honestly I don't get the manufacturing fetish other then a political grubbing for votes or an old aesthetic preference for putting things together with your hands. I'm not against hobbyist work, but if industry is moving to increased automation, you can't stop that.

  • "Toyota/Honda have manufacturing plats in the USA is that the PROFITS head back to Japan!"


    There's an easy way to fix that, NYSE:TM. Anyone can ensure that the profits head back to themselves, buy the stock.


    I think the problem might be describing these as "trade deals" as if they were business M&A deals. They're agreements of access for individuals -- the countries themselves don't trade jobs or capital.


    I just want someone to explain the one-sided benefits of trade. Until I understand that I'm going to be a dogmatic free-trader.


  • Randy

    Jason,


    "Manufacturing fetish" is exactly right.

  • that's so orwellian of you, methinks.


    and, to lighten the mood and continue on the always fun movie mentioned above:


    "His girlfriend gafe up her toe! She sought we'd be getting million dollars! Iss not fair!"

  • Methinks

    you know, Muirgeo, a list of words and phrases separated by dots doesn't an argument make.


    People took on a bigger mortgage than they could afford. Now, they have to find a house they can afford. What is Orwellian about a sign announcing an upcoming even? Do you even know who Orwell was?

  • FreedomLover

    LCJ:


    The usual thing I hear from the protectionists when it's mentioned that Toyota/Honda have manufacturing plats in the USA is that the PROFITS head back to Japan! Who knew that murthaducks cared about padding USA CEO fatcat bank accounts! So all this inconsistency on Murthaducks leads me to believe that they REALLY hate capitalism and REALLY want the Soviet America.

  • muirgeo

    muirgeo,


    It sounds like you just aren't happy with the amount of debt some people choose to live with.


    Posted by: Deryl G




    Deryl,




    This is a great point! I can't deny that if everyone just made smart personal decisions things would be way better for everyone.


    I need to come up with a good explanation of why personal irresponsibility is not the only problem. I don't have time to give a good thought to it and a good reply. But will try later when time permits.

  • FreedomLover

    There will come a time with automation reaching a point that man-involved manufacturing will be eliminated. What then? We already have robots doing so much of the process, final assembly will simply be the last step to be figured out in the next 20-25 years.

  • Eric

    I forgot foreign markets. We need those too.


  • Eric

    muirego --


    The Scarlet Letter isn't exactly Orwellian. (Hawthornian doesn't have the same ring, either.) I think you're mixing allusions.


    David --


    I would argue with the validity of your statement. It simply wouldn't be possible to be terribly prosperous without foreign brains and muscle. Change the first word of your statement to 'open' and I'm on board though.

  • "What's been missing in America's trade policy is a preference for Americans. The object of trade in China is to help the Chinese nation. German trade is designed to help Germany; Scandinavian, to help the Scandinavian nations. This is not the case here." Could someone please explain how anyone could believe this? Americans are altruistic?


    I don't think data is going to do any good in this debate. If someone doesn't believe trade is mutual, if they see the world only in terms of nations in a zero-sum world and if they have a manufacturing fetish they're not going to even look at data honestly.

  • LowcountryJoe

    hyperbole - extravagant exaggeration (as "Their prosperity is an illusion"; "Same the world over.

    ")


    The Scarlet Letter was society's way of shaming Hester Prynne for the adultry she engaged in even though the circumstances tended to favor some compassion for Prynne.


    So, in your analogy, the flaky borrowers -- the ones that since skipped town and left the 'upsidedown' property to the bank -- are worthy of the same kind of compassion because of their circumstances. Do I have this correct, muirschitzo? If so, may I borrow some money from you?





  • Deryl G

    muirgeo,


    It sounds like you just aren't happy with the amount of debt some people choose to live with.

  • muirgeo

    Otherwise, enjoy your mansion and your beemer and stop bitching.


    Just saw 3 more houses with large yellow Orwellian Auction signs on their garages.


    Pray tell, what makes a yellow sign Orwellian? In fact, what is Orwellian about an auction?


    Posted by: Methinks




    A lot more people are not enjoying their McMansions...they have no choice as they have to move out they have big yellow Orwellian looking signs on their garage doors that tell everyone so.... Like a scarlet letter but for a house...Their prosperity is an illusion... debt is their reality... same the country over... same the world over.

  • LowcountryJoe

    Who among you would argue against the validity of this statement?


    Putting the limited government aspect aside -- and I think you would have to in order to enforce this "the rest of the world does not exist" foolishness -- the idea is abhorrent to me. So, to answer your question: I argue the so-called validity of the 'statement'. To me it is not valid. Did you perhaps mean to say vapid instead?


  • Methinks

    David White,


    You may act like the rest of the world doesn't exists but the rest of the world is not likely to act as thought you don't exist. And that doesn't even scratch the surface of all that is wrong with our suggestion.

  • David White

    Afraid of protectionism? Who among you would argue against the validity of this statement?


    Close the US border entirely, allowing anyone to leave who wanted to and otherwise acting as if the rest of the world didn't exist. Then return to constitutional (i.e., limited) government, inclusive of the constitutional money that would render the welfare-warfare state impossible. Result? Three hundred million people working concert (i.e., through the voluntary cooperation that is the essence of the social enterprise) to create most peaceful and prosperous civilization in the history of the world.

  • Bruce

    The lamentations over the decline of American manufacturing tend to drive me up the wall. While Meyerson cites manufacturing as a percentage of GDP, very often loss of manufacturing jobs is used to demonstrate how "America has gone from being a nation that manufactured things to a nation that manufactures debt". This leads me to wonder why no one laments the decline of the American communications industry; as we now have far fewer telephone operators than we did in the late 60's and early 70's. It also leads me to wonder why, if manufacturing jobs are so desirable, we don't see more mothers telling their children to work hard and apply themselves in school so they can grow up to be assembly line workers.

  • I will try and write more on this later, but the chart I used is an attempt to measure real rather than nominal increases in output. Of course it's a very imperfect estimate, but it's also clear that the we're not being hollowed out and that we still make things.


    It's also clear that manufacturing prices are rising much more slowly than prices overall due to competition (foreign and domestic) as technological advances make things cheaper in the full sense of the word.

  • This whole manufacturing job loss issue is one I think I have to cop to. Throughout my entire professional career, I've been responsible for reducing the amount of time, effort and waste that's historically been expended to manufacture the things we make here in the USA.


    That doesn't mean I've ever cost anyone their job. Instead it means that I've reduced the need to hire the additional people that would be needed if we kept making things as badly as we used to make them. You would be amazed at the number of people and the amount of labor it takes to produce low quality products.


    Also, let's not forget that a lot of professions (such as custodians, etc.) that used to be classed as being in manufacturing are now classified as being in service industries.


    To be honest, I have a different perspective on this. When I see products being made in other countries, I can say that I'm happy, because that means they're still being made by people and not on fully automated production lines. If they were made here, the number of Americans working in jobs related to those products would be minimal, and if I had to guess, about the same as the number of Americans who have really solid and good paying jobs related to bringing those products into the U.S.


    Manufacturing is far from dead in the U.S. We actually have an acute shortage of the highly skilled technicians, mechanics and machinists we need to produce the things we do make here! Partly that's due to the fact that we haven't had to hire as many people over the years to do the work from becoming more productive, so we're now being confronted with the prospect of having to replace the old-timers who were hired in such large numbers back in the old days.

  • Methinks

    oh. zo zorry.

  • Methinks

    mmmm....I think that was tongue-in-cheek, Deryl.

  • Deryl G

    For those that are not fans of *The Big Lebowski* I apologize for the above. I just couldn't help myself.

  • Deryl G

    Chinaman.


    Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Apr 10, 2008 12:02:05 PM


    And Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American please.

  • LowcountryJoe

    As if Paul Craig Roberts, at this stage of his protectionist life, is really all that disappointed with government being the largest employer. Besides, it's rather duplicitous on the part of the proctectionists to handwring about the size of government...they're activily advocating that the government do more to protect us from our own actions and those of the evil Chinaman.

  • Deryl G

    Is this a portrait of a super economy?"


    Posted by: David White | Apr 10, 2008 11:52:44


    Nope. Way too much government employment.

  • David White

    "This [http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts04092008.html] is the portrait of the US economy according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is an economy in which government is the largest employer. Manufacturing employment comprises just under 10% of total employment and about 12% of private sector employment. Everything else is services, and not particularly high level services.


    Is this a portrait of a super economy?"

  • Deryl G

    I'm not done.


    This whole "both parents have to work thing" really irritates me.


    I'm sure that in some cases there are families that have to have both parents work, but most do not.


    People today seem to feel entitled to everything. They want big houses and big TVs and SUVs and cheap gas. And they're "barely surviving" with all that stuff.


    They need to got down to Tijuana and tell me who's "barely surviving".

  • Eric

    Rob --


    Your assertion is true only if the manufacturing data that were cited are measured in nominal dollars. It is not very clear what the index is made of.


    So just for fun, let's look at table B-58 from this year's ERP, which shows manufacturing shipments averaging $412 million PER MONTH in 2006 vs. $242 million per month in 1992. That's a 3.9% CAGR. If you get the CPI for all items from table B-60, the CAGR for that 1992-2006 is 2.6%


    Now, that measly 1.3 point gap is important: we had a 43% increase in price levels and a 70% increase in nominal manufacturing sales.


    Note: I use 1992 because it is the beginning of the NAICS classification.


    But at least since 1992 the value of manufacturing product in the U.S. has grown substantially in real terms.


    muirego --


    You only get an answer to your question if you get your their/there and its/it's right. For once.

  • Deryl G

    If you want to live on one income, do what your parents did: live in a small house, close to your job in the city, own one modest car and lobby your state legislators to get rid of insurance mandates.


    I do have a bit of a commute, but this is pretty much what I do. My wife stays home with our child (soon to be children!). Our house is about 1000 square feet. I'm essentially an entry level programmer, so it's not like I'm rolling in the cash. We could survive with even less if we chose to live closer to where I worked and went down to one vehicle.


    One thing we don't have, is a ton of "toys". No big screen TVs. No video game system. We share a fairly inexpensive laptop. We almost never eat out.

  • LowcountryJoe

    Too bad CPI is up 5.4x over the same time. Unfortunately one of the things we are very good at financially engineering is inflation which not only trashes your assertion but confirms the competing hypothesis.


    Posted by: Rob Dawg | Apr 10, 2008 10:59:13 AM


    5.4x! What? Also, on the top of that graph, notice the "2002=100"? I'm pretty sure that has significance to this particular discussion.


  • Methinks

    In short both parents working, greater debt, less saving, greater expenses for transportation, housing, health care , day care...


    Women want to work. They spent the whole of the 60's burning their bras and screeching about it. The "transportation" is more expensive because people want to live further away from cities and drive in to their city jobs in a Mercedes. The houses of today average 2,400 square feet, compared to 900 square feet in the 1950's. Day care is necessary because women decided they'd rather be paid >$0 for the thankless housework and diaper changing they were doing in the '50's. Since large houses, mercedes, daycare and health insurance stuffed full of mandates is expensive, the savings rate suffers.


    If you want to live on one income, do what your parents did: live in a small house, close to your job in the city, own one modest car and lobby your state legislators to get rid of insurance mandates.


    Otherwise, enjoy your mansion and your beemer and stop bitching.


    Just saw 3 more houses with large yellow Orwellian Auction signs on their garages.


    Pray tell, what makes a yellow sign Orwellian? In fact, what is Orwellian about an auction?

  • LowcountryJoe

    She was an amazing woman. I believe she won that argument, somehow.


    Classic! I am still smiling over that one.

  • LowcountryJoe

    When an American company moves all it's capital oveseas and manufactures something their does THAT count in the numerator?


    Posted by: muirgeo | Apr 10, 2008 10:57:38 AM


    The numerator? Why, is the scenario you offer above a bad one?


    If so, then can you explain how come protectionists also complain loudly when...a foreign company moves all its capital to the United States and manufactures something here. This kind of stuff just goes to show that protectionists have no interest in dealing with foreigners -- it's either rooted in xenophobia or a disdain of capitalism (or both).


  • My girlfriend in college had an Econ prof--at Lewis & Clark College--that taught something of a labour theory of value. She would come down--I was at Oregon State--and talk about how unfair it was that different people got paid different wages working at the same company.


    I remember taking her into the kitchen and sitting her down at the table. I took out notebook paper and asked her, if I was in the business of folding notebook paper, and I hired an additional worker, what would happen to output. Sticking completely to the supply side, when we got to sixteen employees it became apparent that productivity increases were no longer possible, simply by adding emloyees.


    Now, I asked, how do we get a larger table? And with the larger table, how much of the increase in production is due to the table and not to the workers? Do we steal the table? (The guys folding paper at the table factory may not like this idea?) So, how much would you be willing to pay for this table?


    Now I buy a paper folding machine, that is faster than all 16 paper folding employees. I only need one employee, this a paper-folding machine supervisor. Is his work worth the same as the previous 16 employees? And, isn't the increase in productivity increase, and subsequent reduction in labour cost, owed to the person who owns the machine?


    Isn't this, in fact, the basis of Capitalism? Owners of capital use those productive capacities in order to earn a profit?


    She regarded me a monster. Didn't I realize people are more important than machines? I attempted to point out that "people" were better off because I was able to produce more folded paper at a lower cost. With higher returns to capital that encouraged further investment in paper folding. She was an amazing woman. I believe she won that argument, somehow.

  • muirgeo

    "America's standard of living has been thriving at the same time that manufacturing is falling as a proportion of GDP."



    I just don't see it that way. We have a trillion dollars of asset over-valuation and an national debt approaching $10 trillion. You need to count those into your balance sheet.


    From Angry Bear;


    The Fed is considering contingency plans for expanding its lending power in the event its recent steps to unfreeze credit markets fail.


    Among the options: Having the Treasury borrow more money than it needs to fund the government and leave the proceeds on deposit at the Fed; issuing debt under the Fed's name rather than the Treasury's; and asking Congress for immediate authority for the Fed to pay interest on commercial-bank reserves instead of waiting until a previously enacted law permits it in 2011."


    WOW isn't THAT great!!




    It appears we're circling the drain but the optimism here would be refreshing except I keep reading the headlines of the WSJ, FT and NYT and reality seems quit uncertain.




    The guys who I read that predicted this current financial disaster years ago are the same ones saying better be prepared to grab your ankles while the optimist of 3 years ago who never seemed to mention any possible downside risk are the same ones telling us how well everything is.



    Just saw 3 more houses with large yellow Orwellian Auction signs on their garages. That make 5 in one week without trying.



    Here This is a link a good lecture by a Harvard professor with a different interpretation of just what is happening to the middle class.


    In short both parents working, greater debt, less saving, greater expenses for transportation, housing, health care , day care...




    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsvie...>

  • MikeB

    The real manufacturing fraction of the economy has not changed since 1950. The numbers cited by Mr. Myerson are for nominal output. All he is reporting is that the prices of manufactured products have declined signficantly relative to nonmanufactured items. This is primarily related to large productivity gains in manufacturing. America has not deindustrialized.


    http://www.nam.org/s_nam/bin.asp?CID=202611&DID=237694&DOC=FILE.PDF

  • ITS/THERE.


    Goodness. Dr?

  • Deryl G

    Too bad CPI is up 5.4x over the same time. Unfortunately one of the things we are very good at financially engineering is inflation which not only trashes your assertion but confirms the competing hypothesis.


    Posted by: Rob Dawg | Apr 10, 2008 10:59:13 AM


    It's still not clear to me why should care if manufacturing output is up or down.

  • Actually, manufacturing output since 1970 has roughly tripled. TRIPLED.


    Too bad CPI is up 5.4x over the same time. Unfortunately one of the things we are very good at financially engineering is inflation which not only trashes your assertion but confirms the competing hypothesis.

  • muirgeo

    When an American company moves all it's capital oveseas and manufactures something their does THAT count in the numerator?

  • Floccina

    I read recently that many manufacturing employers are having difficulty fill jobs because people do not like to do manufacturing work and that they may need to increase pay. It was in an article about the jobs situation.

  • John Dewey

    Professor Roberts,


    Does the measurement of manufacturing output - which shows that it tripled since 1970 - actually understate such output? Doesn't that measurement rely on just the dollars spent by manufacturing in producing those goods?


    If real productivity increases have enabled production costs to drop - as I think they have in most industries - wouldn't the same real dollars buy much mnore output? That increase in goods produced per dollar would be not just an increase in the quantity of goods produced. Some of the increase in goods produced per dollar would be increases in quality.


    I doubt that any measure exists to include those hidden increases in manufacturing output, but I still think such increases exist.

  • LowcountryJoe

    Absolutely, Marcus. When people engage in trade (commerce) they tend to do so to make themselves better off than they were before they made the exchange. Now, sometimes an outsider to a transaction may say, "Gee, that was a stupid thing to buy at that price [or sell, depending on the circumstances]." However, in nearly all cases, these people who are engaged in the exchanging are in the best position to make that decision because they're satisfying their own preference sets, not our own.


    On a separate but related note, our resident chief troll wrote the other day on another thread:


    The bottom line is that when wages become de-linked from productivity that is a bad thing as we are now finding out. And it's usually is a problem with some degree of gamesmanship and not simply a result of true wealth to value ratios.

    I predict that this same sentiment will resurface today on this thread. When/if it does, I'll be sure to ask, again, how we should measure the productivity of the job the troll has outside The Cafe.


  • Gerard D.

    Thanks for setting the record straight Dr. Roberts. "Tripled" is a word I can use to excellent effect during debates with family friends.

  • Marcus

    Protectionists really seem to be getting a foothold around the world.


    In today's WSJ there is an article about building a bridge between Italy and Sicily. A leading candidate is quoted as saying, "Building this bridge entirely with Italian hands is a matter of national pride."


    I've read to many articles with similar sentiments to count.


    I'm wondering, as globalization interconnects the whole world are politicians losing a sense of power? Is protectionism and nationalism a response by politicians to hold on to that power?


  • Marcus

    He wants trade to benefit Americans? Good, he can relax then because that's precisely why Americans trade, to benefit themselves. He's nothing worry about.


    Of course, that's not what he really wants. He wants some Americans to benefit at the expense of other Americans.


blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: