Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: Weekend Economists Deck the Halls Christmas Day 2013 [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)3. Inequality: Government Is a Perp, Not a Bystander By Dean Baker
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/20803-inequality-government-is-a-perp-not-a-bystander
In his speech on inequality earlier this month President Obama proclaimed that the government could not be a bystander in the effort to reduce inequality, which he described as the defining moral issue of our time. This left millions convinced that Obama would do nothing to lessen inequality. The problem is that President Obama wants the public to believe that inequality is something that just happened. It turns out that the forces of technology, globalization, and whatever else simply made some people very rich and left others working for low wages or out of work altogether. The president and other like-minded people feel a moral compulsion to reverse the resulting inequality. This story is 180 degrees at odds with the reality. Inequality did not just happen, it was deliberately engineered through a whole range of policies intended to redistribute income upward.
Trade is probably the best place to start just because it is so obvious. Trade deals like NAFTA were quite explicitly designed to place our manufacturing workers in direct competition with the lowest paid workers in the world. The text was written after consulting with top executives at major companies like General Electric. Our negotiators asked these executives what changes in Mexico's law would make it easier for them to set up factories in Mexico. The text was written accordingly. When we saw factory workers losing their jobs to imports from Mexico and other developing countries, this was not an accident. In economic theory, the gains from these trade deals are the result of getting lower priced products due to lower cost labor. The loss of jobs in the United States and the downward pressure on the jobs that remain is a predicted outcome of the deal.
There is nothing about the globalization process that necessitated this result. Doctors work for much less money in Mexico and elsewhere in the developing world than in the United States. In fact, they work for much less money in Europe and Canada than in the United States. If we had structured the trade deals to facilitate the entry of qualified foreign doctors into the country it would have placed downward pressure on the wages of doctors (many of whom are in the top one percent of the income distribution), while saving consumers tens of billions a year in health care costs. In other words, the government quite deliberately structured our trade to put downward pressure on the wages of much of the labor force, while protecting doctors and other highly paid professionals from similar competition. Trade is just one of the many ways in which the government has redistributed income upward over the last three decades.
MORE
In his speech on inequality earlier this month President Obama proclaimed that the government could not be a bystander in the effort to reduce inequality, which he described as the defining moral issue of our time. This left millions convinced that Obama would do nothing to lessen inequality. The problem is that President Obama wants the public to believe that inequality is something that just happened. It turns out that the forces of technology, globalization, and whatever else simply made some people very rich and left others working for low wages or out of work altogether. The president and other like-minded people feel a moral compulsion to reverse the resulting inequality. This story is 180 degrees at odds with the reality. Inequality did not just happen, it was deliberately engineered through a whole range of policies intended to redistribute income upward.
Trade is probably the best place to start just because it is so obvious. Trade deals like NAFTA were quite explicitly designed to place our manufacturing workers in direct competition with the lowest paid workers in the world. The text was written after consulting with top executives at major companies like General Electric. Our negotiators asked these executives what changes in Mexico's law would make it easier for them to set up factories in Mexico. The text was written accordingly. When we saw factory workers losing their jobs to imports from Mexico and other developing countries, this was not an accident. In economic theory, the gains from these trade deals are the result of getting lower priced products due to lower cost labor. The loss of jobs in the United States and the downward pressure on the jobs that remain is a predicted outcome of the deal.
There is nothing about the globalization process that necessitated this result. Doctors work for much less money in Mexico and elsewhere in the developing world than in the United States. In fact, they work for much less money in Europe and Canada than in the United States. If we had structured the trade deals to facilitate the entry of qualified foreign doctors into the country it would have placed downward pressure on the wages of doctors (many of whom are in the top one percent of the income distribution), while saving consumers tens of billions a year in health care costs. In other words, the government quite deliberately structured our trade to put downward pressure on the wages of much of the labor force, while protecting doctors and other highly paid professionals from similar competition. Trade is just one of the many ways in which the government has redistributed income upward over the last three decades.
MORE
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
68 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Retired cops, activist pensioners, and the economic blowback over Snowden By David Sirota
Demeter
Dec 2013
#4
America’s Shopper-in-Chief Has His Staff Sign Him Up for ObamaCare (But Not His Family)
Demeter
Dec 2013
#14
Market Participation, aka Shopping, as a Toll of Neoliberalism: Obamacare as Case Study
Demeter
Dec 2013
#26
Sen. Elizabeth Warren Introduces Bill To Stop Credit Reports For Job Applications
Demeter
Dec 2013
#9
Susan Rice: NSA Officials Didn’t Lie, They ‘Inadvertently Made False Representations’ 60 MIN
Demeter
Dec 2013
#13
American Express to pay $75 million in deceptive practices case FINALLY! By Stuart Pfeifer
Demeter
Dec 2013
#15
The Government Is Quietly Giving Way More Housing Aid To Rich People Than Poor People
Demeter
Dec 2013
#25
US Government Pays Contractors Twice as Much as Civil Servants for the Same Work
Demeter
Dec 2013
#30
“Violent And Terrifying Criminal Stunt” At JP Morgan More Of A “Musical Presentation”
Demeter
Dec 2013
#40
The Church of "Stop Shopping": Meet the Man Leading An Uprising Against The World’s Biggest Banks
Demeter
Dec 2013
#45
The Real Reason Healthcare Insurance Companies Are Now Encouraging Obamacare Enrollment
Demeter
Dec 2013
#50
The 7 Most Important Things Congress Did in 2013 (and the Top 25 Things It Didn’t)
Demeter
Dec 2013
#51
A New Twist in International Relations: The Corporate Keep-My-Data-Out-of-the-U.S. Clause
Demeter
Dec 2013
#53
Jimmy Fallon And Cecily Strong's Adorable 'Baby It's Cold Outside' Parody Will Make You Smile
Demeter
Dec 2013
#58
Ghost Ship Sinking: US To Sink Abandoned Boat From Japan Tsunami With Explosives
Demeter
Dec 2013
#59