# Democrat congress = protectionist economic policies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 7, 2006, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrat-congress-protectionist-economic-policies/383189 "2006-12-07T06:26:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrat-congress-protectionist-economic-policies/383189/101 "2006-12-14T02:15:18Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Why single out jobs lost to outsourcing? I don’t, personally; I think that excessively high levels of job instability from **any** cause are matter for concern. But this thread is about protectionism and, by extension, job outsourcing, so that’s the area we’ve been discussing. In fact, there’s little doubt that mechanization/automation is responsible for much more job insecurity and decaying job quality than outsourcing is. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrat-congress-protectionist-economic-policies/383189/102 "2006-12-14T04:44:12Z")
You don’t have to advocate ZERO job dislocation. But if you advocate any trade regulations at all with the goal of reducing worker dislocation by some non-zero amount, then to be logically consistent shouldn’t you also apply the same standard to technological innovation that does the same thing? Maybe not oppose all of it, but just a little, in the hardest hit areas, to prevent massive dislocation? If so, how come we never hear about it? The last 20 years have seen the greatest wholesale change to our workforce distribution than we’ve seen maybe since the advent of the auto, and only a small fraction of it was due to outsourcing. The internet decimated entire industries. The personal computer wiped out the typewriter industry, the local print shop, and half the secretaries. Let’s take two very similar examples: Telephone Operators: Between 1960 and 1980, about 250,000 telephone operator jobs were lost due to automated switching. That’s a loss of something like 60% of all the jobs in the industry. And yet, I didn’t see marches in the street protesting the evils of automated telephone switching. And these were workers that were obviously going to have a really hard time finding equivalent work. 98% of them were female, with little education, and at the time, a much smaller job market existed for women. As I understand it, a lot of those operators never found work again - their families just absorbed the loss of income because the husband usually also worked. The loss of the second income might push a middle class family into the lower class, forcing them to sell their homes, move to cheaper places to live, and cut back on living expenses. Call center jobs are the modern equivalent. Estimates are that perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 call center jobs will have been lost to outsourcing in 20 years, which is maybe 20% of the workforce. This is a much smaller dislocation than the one for telephone operators. And these workers have above-average educations and far more opportunities than did the ladies who lost their telephone operator jobs. Yet, we hear gloom and doom about this, how the industry is going to be destroyed and these people need to be protected from the evil foreigners ‘taking their jobs’. What’s the difference between these two cases? Only one: In the one case, it’s another _person_ getting your job. It looks like power is shifting. It’s a slap in the face to see another person in another country doing a job that once was yours. Trade protectionism isn’t based on sound economics. Its appeal is that it is a way to fight back against the ‘others’ we see as threatening us. It’s tribalism. "they’ are coming to take ‘our’ things away. We must protect ourselves. And the reason the fear is there is because people have been fed ignorant stories about the dangers of globalism from people with axes to grind. Trade unions and manufacturer’s groups are both excellent as disseminating this kind of fear, and then paying politicians to capitalize on it. Populism always sells, and there’s nothing more populist than promising to protect you from ‘them’. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrat-congress-protectionist-economic-policies/383189/103 "2006-12-14T05:43:49Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > The last 20 years have seen the greatest wholesale change to our workforce distribution than we’ve seen maybe since the advent of the auto, and only a small fraction of it was due to outsourcing. Yes, I made essentially this same point in my most recent post immediately before yours. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Trade protectionism isn’t based on sound economics. Its appeal is that it is a way to fight back against the ‘others’ we see as threatening us. It’s tribalism. "they’ are coming to take ‘our’ things away. We must protect ourselves. > > And the reason the fear is there is because people have been fed ignorant stories about the dangers of globalism from people with axes to grind. Trade unions and manufacturer’s groups are both excellent as disseminating this kind of fear, and then paying politicians to capitalize on it. While these psychological effects certainly play a role in antagonism towards outsourcing, it’s silly to pretend that that’s all there is to it. Like I said, workers have a **genuine and reasonable preference** for a certain amount of job stability and long-term professional/vocational development and growth within stable jobs. You are trying to shame them into silence about this preference by accusing them of various anti-social attitudes: first selfish disregard for economic efficiency, and now xenophobic “tribalism”. I call bullshit, again. The potential danger of excessive job and career instability, and resulting decline in workers’ quality of life in an ever-more-fluid labor market, is a real one. It can’t be just swept aside by saying nasty things about the attitudes of the people who worry about it. You’re right that outsourcing isn’t the chief source of recent increases in labor market fluidity, but that doesn’t mean it’s negligible or that there’s no valid reason to view it with some concern. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrat-congress-protectionist-economic-policies/383189/104 "2006-12-14T09:03:32Z")
My point is that there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent antagonism to technology, even though it’s responsible for far more job displacement than outsourcing. I’m not accusing anyone of anything. I’m simply saying that there’s a psychological component here: losing a job to a computer is not the same as losing a job to another human who now has the job you had, and you’re unemployed. And if you say the problem is simply the fluid job market, period, then you need to explain why fluidity that comes from globalization is treated by many as evil, while fluidity that comes from obsolescence or technology is ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrat-congress-protectionist-economic-policies/383189/105 "2006-12-14T15:58:30Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I’m simply saying that there’s a psychological component here: losing a job to a computer is not the same as losing a job to another human who now has the job you had, and you’re unemployed. This doesn’t always translate to lack of antagonism, though. According to my history books, the mill workers who lost their jobs to technology in the early Industrial Revolution were not exactly acquiescent just because they weren’t losing out to another human. Present-day organized labor has also been active against proposals to shrink workforces with automation, as in recent transit workers strikes. That said, I’d still agree that sure, there’s a strong PR/political component to much of the current vocal opposition to outsourcing. But that doesn’t mean, as I said, that the issue isn’t genuinely important. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrat-congress-protectionist-economic-policies/383189/106 "2006-12-14T16:43:03Z")
You will not see any concerted outrage (against outsourcing) untill we start to outsource professional jobs in a big way. For example, when lawyers get outsourced (I can see binding arbitration taking away a lot of the lawsuit business), and having litigation conducted in India (think of the savings!). When we see government employees outsourced (say the MA Registry of Motor Vehicles oursources automobile registrations to India). We can save a bundle! Now, if we could only “outsource” politicians! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrat-congress-protectionist-economic-policies/383189/107 "2006-12-14T17:01:10Z")
[QUOTE=spazattak] Who the hell said anything about taking over their country. The only thing I mentioned was encouraging better working conditions by taxing imports proportionally to their human rights/workers rights. [/quote] It’s too early to think this conceptually. How does one measure this? To the price level of an equivalent maker of goods in an western industrialized country? Where such country has had generations to devote to a properly capitalized infrastructure? Seriously, what is the measurement? > [@](#): > > When they get it up to a certain level, its free trade. I’m not suggesting interfering with economies or nations - I’m encouraging dangling a carrot to countries to encourage them to give their workers basic protections. Lets cool it with the straw men and hyperbole. Which are you more concerned about: a) making better conditions for those workers in third world countries; or, b) artificially propping up prices so that the price component is taken out of the equation when a consumer chooses a product? If it’s a) taxing the crap out of their goods (and no, this isn’t a strawman, because the cost of good reflects the capital investment to make that good) isn’t going to help. They will never be able to afford the tax base to provide decent infrastructure and social aid for their populace. The only way they can afford it is if someone gives it to them. If, for example, the US were to give them that much cash, then they might as well be a protectorate or another state, otherwise the return on investment is too intangiable to justify. If it’s b), then it’s pure protectionism plain and simple. In the long run it’s bad for economy and it continues to put downward pressures on third world economies, keeping them that way. Of course, I’m totally ignoring those states that force their workers into labor. I’m all for imposing North Korea type sanctions against those hellholes. But, this isn’t relevant to this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrat-congress-protectionist-economic-policies/383189/108 "2006-12-14T17:20:44Z")
[QUOTE=mazinger\_z] It’s too early to think this conceptually. How does one measure this? To the price level of an equivalent maker of goods in an western industrialized country? Where such country has had generations to devote to a properly capitalized infrastructure? Seriously, what is the measurement? Which are you more concerned about: a) making better conditions for those workers in third world countries; or, b) artificially propping up prices so that the price component is taken out of the equation when a consumer chooses a product? [/quote] You tell me its too early to think about it conceptually, and then proceed to ask me questions on specifics? I don’t care about the specifics - I was just advocating a starting point. I haven’t fleshed it out completely as I’m not really qualified to do so (though something like having a UN recommendation on minimums would be a good start, such as 8 or 10 hr work days, 5 day work weeks, oshaa safety standards perhaps?) . It is an idea that I have heard brought up before, and I think it’s a good one that needs to be considered, and as of yet, have not heard a well-reasoned, non-hyperbolic argument against it. > [@](#): > > If it’s a) taxing the crap out of their goods (and no, this isn’t a strawman, because the cost of good reflects the capital investment to make that good) isn’t going to help. They will never be able to afford the tax base to provide decent infrastructure and social aid for their populace. The only way they can afford it is if someone gives it to them. If, for example, the US were to give them that much cash, then they might as well be a protectorate or another state, otherwise the return on investment is too intangiable to justify. How are you coming to this conclusion? Placing marginal tax rates on imports (not ‘taxing the crap’ out of said imports) won’t bankrupt a developing country. Especially when you consider that that cost gets passed on to consumers. Especially when the tax can be avoided all together by having a reasonable work week and worker protections. Lets also not forget that the multinational companies will be footing the bills for these protections, not the government. All the government needs to do is enforce them. > [@](#): > > If it’s b), then it’s pure protectionism plain and simple. In the long run it’s bad for economy and it continues to put downward pressures on third world economies, keeping them that way. Now this is pure hyperbole - stating for a fact that protectionism in any way shape or form is bad and leaving it at that - ignoring the fact that these ‘protectionist’ taxes on imports can be avoided all-together in this scheme and that the intention isn’t to cripple developing countries, but to encourage them to embrace protecting their workers. ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrat-congress-protectionist-economic-policies/383189/109 "2006-12-14T19:26:58Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] No, and no. This is a strawman argument, since I never suggested that we should have a full-employment economic policy or that we should all make $50/hour. [/quote] No, but any type of protectionism is a slippery slope to the point where everyone who is not in the protected class is going to scream for equal protection. What happens when everyone wants to unionize? At the very least you have high unemployment and low efficiency. At worse, you have crumbling economies with stagnant innovation and technological advancement. > [@](#): > > Right. My point is that **especially** in a perfect capitalistic system, there will be constant change and transition that will significantly increase career and job instability. Not exactly. In truly competitive markets, specialization will occur to take advantage of [comparative advantage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage). Therefore (and please bear with me in this simplicity), if management decisions cause a layoff, the better-off companies will asorb the displaced workers (or the worker will take his skill and go to another opportunity in a different market). > [@](#): > > Face it, the conditions of actual, real-life work, especially skilled work, do not conform very well to the theoretical demands of perfect capitalistic labor markets. Many people invest lots of time in specialized training, skills and experience in the particular kind of work they do. They build up relationships with co-workers and in their shared communities. All these things make workers less readily mobile and adaptable in response to sudden changes in the labor market. But on the other hand, they also tend to foster positive results like stability, security, deep expertise, and pride and enjoyment in skills developed over long periods of time. If the worker is so specialized that he has no other skill, then he is limiting his value when technological (or any other type of) change comes around which renders his skill as a commodity. The worker should secure himself by being more well-rounded. There are other solutions to his dilemma than by making everyone suffer from propagating his industry. > [@](#): > > It’s easy to say airily “oh, just give the workers more tax-supported retraining and unemployment benefits to cope with more job instability”, but I don’t think that’s a complete solution. Job stability is not just an economic issue, but also a quality-of-life one. No, people shouldn’t be guaranteed permanent jobs— **some** adaptability and flexibility is always necessary—but neither should people be expected to change careers every five years and rack up years of unemployment over the whole course of their working life. Ok, then what is your solution? You’re arguing, then, that people deserve to have their jobs protected to some degree, just not to the point where there is an active managed economy/protectionist policy at play? > [@](#): > > Do you have a cite for this? After all, there are lots of economies where job stability is somewhat more protected than in the US (due to labor regulation, stronger unions, etc.), which are not collapsing. Well, my googlefu only came up with subscriber articles (of some publications of which I am a subscriber). The only free cite that I could find on point woefully describes protectionism in [Latin America](http://ipn.lexi.net/images/uploaded/12-4029341a6ec68--pegurier_salgado_chapter5.pdf). > [@from the article](#): > > In most cases, the the narrow goal of helping industries to become more self-sufficient and self-sustaining turned into a distant hope. Tarrifs were increased, as more and more sectors needed som form of government support to protect them from foreign competition Hmm…there’s that slippery slope again. Regardless, a vast number of google cites (even with the search terms “protectionism” “good”) relate to the perils of protectionism. However, the point I was trying to make was that the more protectionist a government is with its economy, the more it causes unemployment, higher costs, and inefficiencies. These effects eventually will no doubt lead to a collapse of the economy. > [@](#): > > Could you please answer my question before getting into further rhetorical questions of your own? What is it that you were referring to as “Communism” in my earlier post? Here’s your original quote: > [@](#): > > Now, I think it’s well worth thinking about how we might try to create a society where meaningful work does actually integrate well with a minimally-regulated capitalist (what you call “fluid”) economy, with high levels of career instability and job insecurity. (emphasis added) You put in the word “meaningful.” What do you mean by that? Focusing on this line, it looks an awful lot like communism. Your focus on “minimally-regulated,” notwithstanding, is obvious relative. While I can tolerate forms of government intervention, I wonder how much is actually needed to make one’s work meaningful. ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrat-congress-protectionist-economic-policies/383189/110 "2006-12-14T19:54:04Z")
[QUOTE=spazattak] You tell me its too early to think about it conceptually, and then proceed to ask me questions on specifics? I don’t care about the specifics - I was just advocating a starting point. I haven’t fleshed it out completely as I’m not really qualified to do so (though something like having a UN recommendation on minimums would be a good start, such as 8 or 10 hr work days, 5 day work weeks, oshaa safety standards perhaps?) . It is an idea that I have heard brought up before, and I think it’s a good one that needs to be considered, and as of yet, have not heard a well-reasoned, non-hyperbolic argument against it. [/quote] This is what I meant. So, you want other countries to enforce a 40 hr work week for manufacturing. That’s fine, but what if it’s the country’s culture to work more than 40hrs/week? Early Indian immigrants worked 19 hrs/day. They were used to working long grueling agriculture. My dad worked like that on his farm until he moved to America. He was glad to be able to work in a warehouse out of the hot sun (still cooled, to this day mind you, by slowly rotating ceiling fans, i.e. not cool at all). Working at the factory is going to provide more for the worker than working at the farm. While $1/hr is terrible for us, it’s great for them. Why would you want to limit their hours? > [@](#): > > How are you coming to this conclusion? Placing marginal tax rates on imports (not ‘taxing the crap’ out of said imports) won’t bankrupt a developing country. Marginal tax of what? Compared to a US worker where the average wage is $15/hr. Adding this tax to a good where the labor cost is $1/hr will crush the demand for that good. It might as well be made in America once one factors in the transportation costs and the costs associated to the logistics. These costs are all bourne by the consumer. > [@](#): > > Now this is pure hyperbole - stating for a fact that protectionism in any way shape or form is bad and leaving it at that - ignoring the fact that these ‘protectionist’ taxes on imports can be avoided all-together in this scheme and that the intention isn’t to cripple developing countries, but to encourage them to embrace protecting their workers. Are you arguing that protectionism isn’t bad? If so, please open another thread. Better work conditions are a result of producers wanting to attract a better labor force. If the social conditions in the underdeveloped country do not improve, neither will its working conditions. Placing too many conditions on corporations that use third world labor will cause them to eventually pull out of that country, making that country revert back to non-industrial agricultural conditions. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrat-congress-protectionist-economic-policies/383189/111 "2006-12-14T20:40:05Z")
[QUOTE=mazinger\_z] This is what I meant. So, you want other countries to enforce a 40 hr work week for manufacturing. That’s fine, but what if it’s the country’s culture to work more than 40hrs/week? Early Indian immigrants worked 19 hrs/day. They were used to working long grueling agriculture. My dad worked like that on his farm until he moved to America. He was glad to be able to work in a warehouse out of the hot sun (still cooled, to this day mind you, by slowly rotating ceiling fans, i.e. not cool at all). Working at the factory is going to provide more for the worker than working at the farm. While $1/hr is terrible for us, it’s great for them. Why would you want to limit their hours? [/quote] So that employers don’t abuse their workers? so that employers don’t REQUIRE them to work more than 8 hrs? Just because someone was working under slave conditions before does not mean that slightly improving those slave conditions is OK. If it is acceptable to exploit someone for 20hr days now, it’ll require huge grass roots worker protests and riots to ever get it changed in the future. > [@](#): > > Marginal tax of what? Compared to a US worker where the average wage is $15/hr. Adding this tax to a good where the labor cost is $1/hr will crush the demand for that good. It might as well be made in America once one factors in the transportation costs and the costs associated to the logistics. These costs are all bourne by the consumer. Thats not how taxes work. Taxes generally work on a percentage. so you charge a 30% tax on the goods coming from a country that has no protections. The $1 good is now $1.30 - which will only get passed on to the consumer in an additional 30 cents and/or affect the business’ bottom line - both of which are the intended outcomes. > [@](#): > > Are you arguing that protectionism isn’t bad? If so, please open another thread. Better work conditions are a result of producers wanting to attract a better labor force. If the social conditions in the underdeveloped country do not improve, neither will its working conditions. Placing too many conditions on corporations that use third world labor will cause them to eventually pull out of that country, making that country revert back to non-industrial agricultural conditions. I’m saying that maybe a little bit of protectionism isn’t bad. Like I said, I’m not talking about full fledged flag waving tax-the-crap-out-of-all-imports-protectionism. I’m talking about protectionism that can be avoided by simply adhering to a few workers rights rules. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2006, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrat-congress-protectionist-economic-policies/383189/112 "2006-12-14T20:41:43Z")
I’d just like to add the question again: Why is this either or? Why can’t there be reasonable middle ground here? Everyone arguing against these ideas, why are you so convinced that small, carrot & stick type taxes/tariffs are the tool of the devil? Especially when they’ve never even been tried before? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrat-congress-protectionist-economic-policies/383189.md?page=5)