OPINION & EDITORIAL
Free trade stagnates upward mobility
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Guest Columnist:
- Stop America's 'green scare' (December 10, 2007)
- Greek sexuality misconceptions unfair (December 6, 2007)
- Security fee shows UWPD's prejudice (December 6, 2007)
- Vote Democrat, vote equal LGBT rights (December 6, 2007)
- Free trade stagnates upward mobility (December 6, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Readers keep it real (September 14, 2007)
- Sheahan's anaylsis ignores capitalism's flaws (September 12, 2007)
- Fair trade ideals noble (March 7, 2007)
- Free trade our best chance (December 3, 2007)
- "Fair" trade favors large corporations (February 27, 2007)
by Guest Columnist
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Corey Sheahan's column in The Badger Herald ("Free trade our best chance," Dec. 3) struck me as remarkably short on both data and logic, especially coming from someone with a background in social science. In the article he advances two primary arguments, both of which fail to support his conclusion that free trade represents the "best chance" for anyone.
First, he argues that despite the precipitous decline in manufacturing jobs brought on by globalization, Americans' livelihoods are secure due to the new information-based jobs, which Mr. Sheahan asserts, "provide better wages." If it were truly the case that manufacturing jobs are being replaced by higher paying and more productive jobs, then we would expect Americans' wages to be rising. Sadly, this is not the case.
In fact, according to the Labor Research Association, when you adjust wages for inflation, Americans are actually taking home less money today than they were through the '60s and '70s. All in all, wages have fallen about 10 percent since their high point in the early '70s.
It's worth pointing out that this fall has taken place while CEO pay has skyrocketed from about 50 times the average worker's wage to about 800 times the average wage today. This trend should give pause to Mr. Sheahan's naive assumption that the rising productivity of the American economy has benefited everyone.
The costs of this massively regressive transfer of wealth go beyond those that can be measured in simple wage terms. For instance, the percentage of Americans without health insurance has been steadily rising since the 1980s — all throughout the period of "free trade" Mr. Sheahan celebrates. For these Americans, higher productivity in industries like health care serves only as a reminder of what they are denied.
In the face of these bitter facts, Mr. Sheahan blithely asserts that we should still be happy with our current lot because, after all, "we're better off today than we were yesterday." This is, to put it gently, a pathetic argument. A citizen of the Soviet Union in the 1960s could have made the same assertion. After all, citizens no longer lived in fear of Stalin's purges, and the standard of living was considerably higher than say, 40 years earlier. Yet would anyone like to tell a Soviet citizen of the 1960s he or she should be happy with his or her life because of these improvements? Perhaps Mr. Sheahan would possess that courage, but I certainly do not.
In short, Mr. Sheahan fails to make even the most elementary case for free trade. While I agree with him that the Democratic candidates are far from offering any kind of amelioration for the economic ills facing the country, it's clear that more of what we've been getting for the past 30 years is not the answer.
Paul Heideman
Graduate student, Afro-American studies
pmheideman@wisc.edu
Stephen Collins (December 6, 2007 @ 3:58am):
Your article serves as a strong rebuttal of the FACTS presented in Corey Sheahan's pro- free trade article.
However, you fail to clarify the causality of your argument. Although I can think of some reasons why free trade has increased inequality, it would've been nice if you had actually explained why "free trade stagnates upward mobility."
So, I find the your article's title rather misleading. By just spouting out correlating facts, you fail to articulate your argument. Confusing causation with correlation is somewhat "elementary" flaw.
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 8:45am):
The Badger Herald editors are the ones who give articles their titles, not writers. Same goes for letters.
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 1:04pm):
I concur with 3:58am and want to further the point that Thomas Friedman made in the NYT yesterday, that our closing of borders to immigration, closing our markets, and closing our minds to scientific innovation (at least being on the cutting edge of scientific innovaction) is severely harming the United States. A book could be written about each of these points, but the basic premise is that free trade and openness is the solution to our ills. Indeed, with proper instiutions and policies, the negative externalities caused by free markets can be softened or eliminated. There is not a strict dichotomy between free market and the closed market ... we must reach a fine balance between the two.
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 2:44pm):
3:58am: "Confusing causation with correlation is somewhat "elementary" flaw."
I defy you to establish a causal relationship in any context without said relationship being reducible to correlative regularities. As Hume established long ago, causation just *is* a certain sort of correlation ("constant conjunction"). This "causation!=correlation" sentiment has become something of a canard. In fact, the burden of proof is upon you, in the face of this correlation, to proffer up a different correlation that better describes the data. Then your causality argument would have some scientific credence.
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 5:41pm):
Closing of borders to immigration and closing our markets won't cause anybody in the USA to starve.
Corey Sheahan (December 6, 2007 @ 6:48pm):
Thank you, 1:04 pm, I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I didn't.
I don't have time to post a complete response right now, but you can be sure that I will later.
I can confidently assert, without a doubt, that the average standard of living in America has increased over the past 40 years. Economic growth (a result of free trade) is the reason for the increase in the standard of living.
Stephen (December 11, 2007 @ 10:25pm):
Dear 2:44pm,
Amid your pseudo-intellectual tone and esoteric references, I think I garnered what your message: guilty until provent innocent. Right on, brother.
And to the badger herald editors: come up with better titles, now... or else.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
