Is globalization good for America? Short term? Long term?

[XT]

One of my favorite articles on the subject because of it’s simplicity.

Over past decade it seems that globalization has resulted in a steadying decrease in the standard of living for the average American worker

You would have to demonstrate that in fact the standard of living is going down ‘for the average American worker’ AND that this is due solely to ‘globalization’. Those are pretty daunting (individually), so you should probably get right on that.

Our lives are less stable.

Less stable than what, exactly? Than some supposed golden age during the 50’s?? Look at how unstable things were during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution some time, or the Great Depression. Stability, be it here in the US or world wide is the exception, not the rule, unless one is talking about a pre-industrial agrarian peasant worker type society.

Our benefits are less secure.

Depends on what benefits you are talking about. If you mean things like insurance or retirement type benefits, then that’s probably true, as far as it goes. But if you are talking about benefits such as cheaper goods and services available to more people than ever before based on our rather unique and perhaps transitory place in the global market, then you are absolutely wrong. I assume by your tone, however, that you are talking about the former.

We are losing our manufacturing base and even our actual manufacturing facilities are being dismantled and sold for scrap.

Do you have a cite for this? From what I recall, American manufacturing is actually rising, and we are producing more goods and services from our manufacturing component than ever before. The problem is that we have highly automated the manufacturing process, so there are less JOBS in the manufacturing sector, while productivity per worker has gone up a lot.

However, if you have data to backup your claim that we are losing our manufacturing base (and further that this has to do with ‘globalization’) then feel free to provide it. I’m all ears…well, perhaps all eyes, considering the medium…
As for the rest of the OP, I urge you to read through John’s link, as it might prove enlightening.

-XT

[Acsenray]

I appreciate the responses here, but for the purposes of discussion it might be more useful to summarize the points of these references rather than just giving links.

And XT and others, I come here with the full expectation that every word in my OP might be wrong, but I don’t really see how just saying “prove it” or “untrue” to each point really goes so far to persuade anyone that I am wrong.

The OP reflects conclusions I have considered according to things I’ve heard people saying. If they’re wrong, persuade me that they’re wrong.

In fact, several years ago I read the James Fallows book that Krugman criticizes in that link. I found Fallows quite persuasive on his point that Japan’s economic rise was in fact created by the Japanese government’s protection of certain key sectors. Why shouldn’t I believe that to be true and why shouldn’t I believe that we should protect our high tech and critical manufacturing sectors in the same way? I’d much more like to engaged my esteemed compatriots at the SDMB to give me their takes on what Krugman’s point is rather than just be referred to a link.

I understand that our agricultural sectors are subject to extensive protection, and at least part of the reason is that we consider it critical to our national security not to depend completely on foreign producers for our food. Just in case things turn bad, we want to make sure that we can feed ourselves. Why isn’t this kind of policy transferable to other sectors that we consider critical?

[XT]

Well, as I’m still sober enough to do at least nominal searcher, I found this cite (warning it’s a .PDF) that talks about US manufacturing and points out that, far from dying on the vine, our manufacturing output continues to rise (and, in fact, we are still the worlds largest manufacturing, across the board…obviously, we aren’t the largest in every vertical category).

There was a thread on this subject not long ago (ok…ironic understatement of massive proportions) where one of the posters pretty conclusively demonstrated this as well…I’ll see if I can dig it up, if I’m feeling froggy later this evening.

I found Fallows quite persuasive on his point that Japan’s economic rise was in fact created by the Japanese government’s protection of certain key sectors.

How has that worked out for them lately? All other things aside, if you put in protectionist measures to try and artificially protect your industries then what’s going to happen is that other countries are going to mirror those protections…and then set about undercutting your market share by being more open. That’s pretty much what happened. The Japanese have gotten around this (somewhat) by (ironically) outsourcing their manufacturing to…the US. They build manufacturing plants right here.

Why shouldn’t I believe that to be true and why shouldn’t I believe that we should protect our high tech and critical manufacturing sectors in the same way?

Because over all it’s demonstrably false? By imposing artificial tariffs, and restricting imports, Japan basically put itself in a box from which they will probably never recapture their old glory days. Instead, other countries moved past them (and, of course, the 800 lb gorilla…namely us…with it’s free(er) and more open (somewhat) trade outlook) continues to outstrip them in terms of manufacturing across the board, even if they do out compete us in several vertical sectors (which is exactly as it should be, since they are, frankly, better than us in those sectors).

I’d much more like to engaged my esteemed compatriots at the SDMB to give me their takes on what Krugman’s point is rather than just be referred to a link.

Er…well, his point is pretty much self evident there. I guess my response is, what are your specific issues with his position there (aside from the one you made which I probably inexpertly answered…for a better answer, hopefully a more sober and knowledgeable 'doper will wander in).

I understand that our agricultural sectors are subject to extensive protection, and at least part of the reason is that we consider it critical to our national security not to depend completely on foreign producers for our food. Just in case things turn bad, we want to make sure that we can feed ourselves. Why isn’t this kind of policy transferable to other sectors that we consider critical?

My short answer to this has to do with the US’s more unique position in the global agricultural market, which has allowed us to get away with this for decades (much to the annoyance of other countries, including our friends to the North). Since we have so much land and such a huge capacity, and since our import needs food wise has been so small in the past (and even then were dominated by what were essentially US controlled agricultural concerns operating in foreign countries but dominated by the US), we COULD impose these kinds of things with more minimal consequences (but not NO consequences) to us, trade wise. This isn’t really an option on the manufacturing front, at least not since the 50’s or early 60’s.

-XT

[John_Mace]

@acsenray

I appreciate the responses here, but for the purposes of discussion it might be more useful to summarize the points of these references rather than just giving links.

Two points.

1. I posted that link in response to your very specific question: “Is the administration or any prominent economist publicly stating (post-financial crisis) that we must continue on the globalization path?” Now, Krugman didn’t write that “post-financial crisis”, but there is nothing about this crisis that argues against what he was talking about in that essay. So, although it was “just” a link, you were asking for people who support free trade. I gave you an important one.

2. I actually wanted to quote a snippet, but that essay doesn’t lend itself to sound bytes, and you really do have to read the whole thing.