David Brooks' Ignorance Is Showing Again

In his column today David Brooks provided a brief discussion that purports to show that the growing inequality is attributable to a mix of globalization and technology and the moral failings of the working class. A little reflection would lead people to reject both parts of this explanation.

The first claim ignores the way in which deliberate policy shaped globalization. The reason that wages are much lower and the skills expected are much higher for manufacturing workers than in the past is because it has been government policy to place U.S. manufacturing workers in direct competition with their much lower paid counterparts in Mexico, China and elsewhere. The predicted and actual result of this policy is to reduce the pay of manufacturing workers.

The government could have adopted the same approach to doctors, lawyers, economists and other highly paid professionals. There are many millions of smart hard-working people in the developing world who would be delighted to fill these jobs at much lower wages than their counterparts in the U.S. receive. However, the barriers that make it difficult for these people to work in the United States have not been lowered by recent "free trade" agreements and some have even been increased.

In other words, it was not globalization and technology that led to the upward redistribution of income, it was conscious policy. The vast majority of people in the United States who hold high-paying jobs are able to maintain their income because they enjoy far more protection than manufacturing workers.

Moral turpitude side of this story also has an important economic policy aspect. Parents who work long and erratic hours are likely to find it much more difficult to watch over their children than parents with decent paying jobs with predictable hours. Given the large number of workers, especially younger workers who are likely to be parents of young children, who have irregular employment and irregular hours, it would be surprising if many children were not having serious problems staying focused on their education.

Winners Take All Only When There's Few Slots for Winners , Low-rated comment [Show]

Really?
written by Robert W. Mann, January 24, 2012 6:20 AM

You have said this thing about removing the protections from doctors and lawyers and copywrights etc. but I wonder if you really mean it. It seems to me that lowering others down is no solution to raising others up. So i suspect that this is just a threat to wake up the wealthy (some small part of which is the "professional classes") to the overall unfairness of our economy. Those doctors and lawyers actually do some work that has a tangible benefit as opposed to the financial sector manipulators who just suck off growth without adding any thing.

-3

Lowering Doctors Absolutely Raises Everyone Else
written by Dean , January 24, 2012 6:56 AM

Robert,

I am 100 percent serious. The wages of doctors and other professionals are costs to ordinary workers. Lower their wages and you effectively reduce the cost of living for everyone else.
The rich understand this and they have prospered by driving down wages for ordinary workers over the last three decades. If progressives can't understand this basic point, then we should just hand over everything we own to the rich, because they will get it anyhow.

Really?
written by Bart, January 24, 2012 6:57 AM

Yes, how does allowing the millions to come in to work here at Chinese wages help those now looking to better their wages or to get a job in the first place?

...
written by Ron Alley, January 24, 2012 7:15 AM

More foolishness from Brooks. Blame the victims and the bystanders seems to be the formula Brooks uses to pen his columns.

The policies enacted into law by the Corporate Party of America and its crony capitalist political funding machine have created a debacle for the middle class and those, like Maddie Parlier, who aspire to reach the middle class. The only accurate point Brooks make in his discussion is that neither the Left Wing nor the Right Wing of the Corporate Party will address the critical issues.

When Mr. Obama ran in 2008, his rhetoric seemed to indicate that he understood the issue that crony capitalism had created the debacle. He had the advantage of a strong majority in Congress and the bully pulpit of the White House. However, rather than hold hearings and bring out the truth, Mr. Obama chose to advance the interests of the Corporate Party of America and sweep the truth under the rug.

This leaves us in the position of choosing between crony capitalists in the 2012 election. Will we choose to support Mr. Obama and his tepid support for progressive ideas, or will we drink the Kool Aid and support a Romney or a Gingrich?

From the perspective of the Corporate Party of America, the fix is in.

Not Enough Lawyers Is Our Biggest Problem? Really?
written by PAUL, January 24, 2012 8:38 AM

So if a million Chinese lawyers could work in the U.S. legal system, our lives would be better?

Why does this sound like nonsense?

Economists face international competition
written by Joe, January 24, 2012 8:42 AM

While I see the argument that lawyers and doctors still have barriers to entry protecting them from international competition, don't lump economists in with them.

The econ profession is largely internationalized, with most major employers here (schools, gov agencies) sponsoring visas to attract high quality applicants.

Competition to publish or present at conferences is also largely open to economists from around the world.

Not to minimize the costs and difficulties of navigating the visa process, it is still a far cry from the hold the ABA and AMA have on there respective industries.

...
written by skeptonomist, January 24, 2012 8:59 AM

There is no question that physicians in the US earn about twice as much as those in other developed countries for various reasons such as that there is a kind of guild system. Physicians everywhere have effectively prevented information technology from playing the role in the system, in diagnosis and record-keeping.

But other systems which have lower health-care costs do not do so by having more "free-market" competition, they do it by having more central (government) control. Would our police and fire-fighting services be improved by having international competition? Health care is not something which works best in a free-market system - this is clear both empirically and theoretically.

...
written by PeonInChief, January 24, 2012 9:08 AM

First, is there ever a time when The Ignorance of David Brooks isn't showing?

The most important benefit of ending protectionism for highly-paid professionals is not economic, but social and political. We would no longer have to listen to the smug, self-serving, sanctimonious twaddle that so many of them spout to justify their privileges. And as their incomes fall, they'd probably pay more attention to the benefits of unions, public services and the like.

...
written by PeonInChief, January 24, 2012 9:24 AM

And an OECD report on educational equality noted that lower-income parents have less time to spend with their children than lower-income parents in other OECD countries. This was particularly noticeable for single mothers, as mothers here get little public support, and don't have much time left over when they have to cobble together two or three part-time, minimum-wage jobs to make the rent.

economists? elective health care? Joe nails it
written by pet, January 24, 2012 9:25 AM

Indeed, Hong Kong, Singapore, China have universities paying top U.S. salaries, especially in Business schools. And of course, Bangkok and India are picking up tons of elective surgeries or those that have low priority in the single payer places like Canada.

Forcing global workers back to 14 hours a day slogging through the rice fields may appeal to Dr. Baker, but I would think a more enlightened approach is to laud the huge increases in gnp
in Asia, and maybe someday Africa. Meantime we pay our less productive folks 5-10X global gdp per capita to not work. This is a lush society.

-1

...
written by Chris, January 24, 2012 9:33 AM

Poor Brooks. One has to wonder why and how much longer the NYT will use him. Isn't it time to let him go?

...
written by Jane Flemming, January 24, 2012 9:42 AM

I have a question, if wages of American manufacturing workers were protected like those of professionals, would it make American manufacturing uncompetitive? Scandinavian countries and Germany seem to specialize in particular industries. Is it possible to make trade agreements contingent on wage scales that are comparable to US scales. How do you do this and have free trade is my question I suppose. Does it matter if you don't have free trade. Serious people seem to think it matters a lot.

The policy goal was to export union jobs even more than lower salary
written by Blissex, January 24, 2012 2:17 PM

«The reason that wages are much lower and the skills expected are much higher for manufacturing workers than in the past is because it has been government policy to place U.S. manufacturing workers in direct competition with their much lower paid counterparts in Mexico, China and elsewhere. The predicted and actual result of this policy is to reduce the pay of manufacturing workers.»

That's not quite right -- reducing the pay was incidental. The USA government policy for the past 30 years has been to export union jobs (largely manufacturing) to low-productivity but low-cost countries, and to subsidize non-union jobs (largely services). Secondarily to put dark-skinned americans in competition for menial jobs with brown-skinned illegal immigrants.

This was achieved largely as you notice via trade policy, always targeted at more free trade and free capital export in heavily unionized sectors.

While largely non-unionized sectors like finance and software have been very generously funded and protected.

All this with the mass support of most voters, who have been petty rentiers, and anyhow despised the unions for their bullying tactics during the 70s and 80s.

...
written by Blissex, January 24, 2012 2:28 PM

«Is it possible to make trade agreements contingent on wage scales that are comparable to US scales. How do you do this and have free trade is my question I suppose. Does it matter if you don't have free trade. Serious people seem to think it matters a lot.»

Free trade actually does matter a lot, in that it really increases "efficiency" in the long run, and makes poorer nations richer. While USA working class incomes have slightly declined, third world working class incomes have been growing a lot, like 10-20% an year in real terms for many years.

The problem is that free trade has two effects, one on efficiency, and one on distribution of income, and the latter is huge.

Trade essentially means that capital becomes cheaper in countries with a lot of cheap workers like China and salaries become cheaper in countries with a lot of cheap capital like the USA. Good news for Chinese workers and USA investors, bad news for USA workers and Chinese investors.

We don't have free trade
written by Dean, January 24, 2012 2:37 PM

Of course the policy folks are actually scared of free trade because they want to make sure that they and their children can still get high-paying jobs. Therefore, they block the entry of foreign professionals. This screws the workers who are subject to trade even more since the cost of things like health care is not constrained by competition.

...
written by liberal, January 24, 2012 3:16 PM

Blissex wrote,

Trade essentially means that capital becomes cheaper in countries with a lot of cheap workers like China and salaries become cheaper in countries with a lot of cheap capital like the USA.

That can't be true, insofar as China is not a net capital importer, if we use market/financial measures of "capital."

....
written by mel in oregon, January 24, 2012 5:07 PM

physicians in the united states are but one group that are overpaid. allowing competent foreigners in would get more doctors in small towns where they are most needed, & reduce costs to patients which is really needed. now if we can just figure a way to hurt wallstreet hedgefund managers, investment bankers & all the rest of the monsters that steal our life savings, we will be on our way. but don't hold your breath....

Wish I Could Have Coffee With David Brooks...
written by Jerry Jones, January 25, 2012 9:52 AM

...so that I could peacefully ask him why he writes such hypocritical, fact-challenged columns. Moreover, I'd like him to walk a mile in my shoes so that he could get some insight into the very giant problems that the "little people" in America face every day.

Apology
written by PeonInChief, January 25, 2012 11:03 AM

This is what happens when I'm lazy and/or my knees really hurt. The study I mentioned above was not OECD, but UNICEF. You can read it here: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publ...c9_eng.pdf
and the point about low-income single mothers in the US is on page 29.

...
written by Jane Flemming, January 26, 2012 3:53 PM

Thank your for the answers to my questions. You have moved on past this post; however, I am writing from Canada, and it seems that our single payer health care system is a distinct advantage in this kind of economy in that it makes health care affordable for low wage workers. Our Liberal and New Democratic Parties have also been campaigning for a voluntary expanded addition to our Canada Pension Plan programme that would give all Canadians and their employers access to a more generous low cost defined benefit pension plan in addition to Old Age Security. It sounds like this would also be helpful in addressing the problem of reduced wages caused by free trade. I'm not sure if you are saying that it would be better to simply have an open market for professional services or that it's sufficient to have simply have affordable health care. I have relatives who are physicians. They have had the opportunity to work in the US and presumably earn higher wages, and have chosen to remain here in what I believe they find a more civilized environment in which to work. Workplace quality of life is definitely worth something, as I'm sure those poor Fox-Conn workers can attest. Thanks again.

David Brooks' Ignorance Is Showing Again

About Beat the Press