Here’s a letter to Project Syndicate.
Editor:
Arguing that policymakers must choose between putting consumers or workers first, Dani Rodrik posits a false choice (“Consumers or Workers First?” March 12).
While correctly noting that “we derive meaning, social recognition, and life satisfaction” from work, Mr. Rodrik fails to see that we do so only because and insofar as we produce outputs that improve our and other people’s lives. The meaning and value of our work derive from our efforts’ end results and not from that effort itself. Were Mr. Rodrick right, society would be just as well served by someone who spends every morning strenuously digging holes, and every afternoon refilling those holes, as by someone who spends the day producing food, clothing, shelter, or medical care for that person and others to consume.
It is only because we inhabit a world of scarcity that we value human efforts that reduce that scarcity – which is to say, work is a valued means of promoting the end of increasing our ability to consume. And the only reliable way of determining which work efforts contribute most to our ability to consume – that is, which work efforts do most to help humanity loosen the grip of scarcity – is to allow consumers to spend their incomes as they choose. Only by protecting consumers’ freedom to spend their money in whatever peaceful ways they choose can policymakers ensure that work is a legitimate source of satisfaction and dignity.
The trade restrictions that Mr. Rodrik endorses do the opposite. These restrictions force consumers to subsidize workers who don’t contribute as much as possible to satisfying human wants. Far from such work being a legitimate source of satisfaction and dignity, it is – or would be were these workers aware of the full reality of protectionism – a source of dishonor and disgrace.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
