News
 International
   Global Views
   Asia-Pacific
   America
   Europe
   Middle East & Africa
 National
 Embassy News
 Arts & Living
 Business
 Travel & Hotel
 Medical Tourism New
 Taekwondo
 Media
 Letters to Editor
 Photo Gallery
 Cartoons/Comics/Humor
 News Media Link
 TV Schedule Link
 News English
 Life
 Hospitals & Clinics
 Flea Market
 Moving & Packaging
 Religious Service
 Korean Classes
 Korean Weather
 Housing
 Real Estate
 Home Stay
 Room Mate
 Job
 English Teaching
 Translation/Writing
 Job Offered/Wanted
 Business
 Hotel Lounge
 Foreign Exchanges
 Korean Stock
 Business Center
 PR & Ads
 Entertainment
 Arts & Performances
 Restaurants & Bars
 Tour & Travel
 Shopping Guide
 Community
 Foreign Missions
 Community Groups
 PenPal/Friendship
 Volunteers
 Foreign Workers
 Useful Services
 ST Banner Exchange
  Global Views
Trade and Wages
Special Contribution
By William Reinsch
US & China's Trade War: US President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping shake hands at the meeting held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Nov. 9, 2017.

One eternal element of the debate on trade policy is blame. Bad things are happening in our economy. Is trade responsible for them? Trade skeptics say “yes”—trade promotes a race to the bottom. Free traders say “no”—trade is a scapegoat for a lot of other things that are going on. Of course, where you place blame begins with what you think is wrong. It is probably not correct to blame trade for climate change, though no doubt some have tried. Likewise, it is safe to conclude that trade did not cause our problems with Iran, nor will trade cure them.

Instead of blaming trade for big things like that, let’s spend a few minutes looking at something a bit simpler but which is directly related to the growing skepticism about trade—wages. The argument is that trade depresses wages by facilitating ferocious global competition for market share that forces companies to reduce costs ruthlessly in order to survive, including by sending jobs offshore. The victim in that scenario is the average worker whose wages are kept low to keep costs down. Conveniently, thanks to the Pew Research Center, there is recent data that addresses this issue. It shows that over more than 50 years, while paychecks have risen in nominal terms, in constant 2018 dollars they have changed very little. By that measure, the average hourly wage in 1964 was $20.27, and in 2018 it is $22.65. This is an increase of less than 12% over 54 years, which works out to 0.2% per year—not an impressive performance.

And there is more. Data also shows what others have reported—that higher-income workers have benefited more than lower-income workers. As Pew reports:

Since 2000, usual weekly wages have risen 3% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution… But among people in the top tenth of the distribution, real wages have risen a cumulative 15.7%… nearly five times the usual weekly earnings of the bottom tenth…”

This data, of course, tells what is happening. It does not tell us why it is happening. We are left to figure that out for ourselves. Currently, with the unemployment rate hovering around 4 percent and with manufacturers complaining about growing difficulty in finding workers, one would think wage increases would start to kick in. Instead there appears so far to be only a modest bump. Experts (and non-experts) have offered a variety of explanations for wage stagnation in addition to trade:
◾Compensation is in more than cash, and, in fact, other benefit costs (health insurance, retirement account contributions, transit subsidies, etc.) have been rising faster than wages, which may be constraining employers’ willingness to raise wages.
◾The decline in the number of workers represented by labor unions means fewer gains from collective bargaining.
◾Worker educational attainment has not kept up with the demands of more technologically sophisticated jobs.
◾Increases in the number of noncompete clauses limit job-switching, and licensing requirements restrict entry into certain occupations.
◾Well-documented declines in manufacturing employment have led to a shift to work in lower-wage sectors.
◾Low productivity growth is the economists’ general answer to what we are currently experiencing.
◾My personal favorite is that today’s CEO’s are too focused on stock prices and returns to shareholders rather than the long-term health of their company and its workers to the detriment of both.

There will never be consensus on the causes of wage stagnation, except possibly in the history books 100 years from now, when it won’t do us any good. The correct answer is probably all of the above, along with trade, which cannot be absolved of all blame for the pressures of competing in the global marketplace.

The lesson for policy makers is to remember the Serenity Prayer and figure out the things we can change and focus on them rather than beating our heads against the wall over things we cannot change. Clearly, globalization is in the latter category. We may not like it—the president clearly does not—but it’s here, and it’s not going to go away. (We can discuss the good things it has brought, like out-of-season fruits and vegetables and cool new technologies, another time.) Trying to return to a world where everything is made domestically is unrealistic at best and disastrous at worst, and it will not produce the wage increases the president would like. We would be far better off looking at the items on the list above that we can change and doing something about those.

The above writer, William Reinsch, holds the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).



Related Articles
    Japan and Korea: Rising Above the Fray
    Only US Can Pull Japan, Korea Back from Brink
    China Risks Flare-Up over Malaysian, ...
    Fear Won’t Stop China’s Digital Silk Road
    Japan, N. Korea: Summit, Missiles, Abductions
    “Chinese, Russian Influence in the Middle ...
    Tracking China’s 3rd Aircraft Carrier
    CSIS Scholars Discuss Trump-Abe Summit
    Still Under Pressure: Manila Vs. the Militia
    Is North Korea Preparing for a Military Parade?
    Slow and Steady: Vietnam's Spratly Upgrades
    Sanctions against North Korea: An Unintended ...
    More Is Possible Now to Address North Korea’s ...
    North Korea Reportedly Renews Commitment to ...
    Settling Kurdish Self-Determination in ...
    The Trump Administration’s Trade Objectives ...
    How Is China Securing Its LNG Needs?
    Responding to the Xinjiang Surveillance State ...
    Rethinking U.S. Strategy in the Pacific Islands
    Will the Election Results Turn the Tide on ...
    China, US Choose Between 4 “Cs” Conflict, ...
    Shinzo Abe Rolls On
    Necessary Counterterrorism Conversations
    North Korea Begins Dismantling Key Facilities ...
    Negotiating the Right Agreement: Looking ...
    The Korean Civil-Military Balance
    Will Trump-Kim Summit Be Cancelled?
    The Chinese Are Coming! The Chinese Are Coming!
    How Much Have the Chinese Actually Taken?
    The Other Side of N. Korean Threat: Looking ...
    The Other Side of the North Korean, Iranian, ...
    CSIS & Syracuse's Maxwell School Offer ...
    Dr. Sue Mi Terry Joins CSIS as Senior Fellow ...
    EU to Social Media: Regulate or Be Regulated
    Japan’s Lower House Election: Abe Prevails ...
    China and Technology: Tortoise and Hare Again
    "Countering Coercion in Maritime Asia"


 

back

 

 

 

The Seoul Times Shinheungro 25-gil 2-6 Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Korea 04337 (ZC)
Office: 82-10-6606-6188 Email:seoultimes@gmail.com
Copyrights 2000 The Seoul Times Company  ST Banner Exchange