If there were a choice, it would be interesting to test that assertion.
I think it has already been tested, although indirectly.
We used to have consumer goods that weren't from China. People shopped price, not country of origin, assuming tolerable quality. That's how we ended up with no choice, only Chinese goods in the stores, because the stores offer what people want. Sure, you can say that if, at checkout, customers were asked directly whether they wanted the Chinese product or the American equivalent at twice the price, that would be a clearer test, but you can't believe there are many people who would choose to pay more. Even the most idealistic and liberal of my friends clip coupons and shop sales even as they donate bunches to charities. You'd have to use a starving American child to administer the test before you'd get them to pay more. It's human nature. If there were a law outlawing Chinese goods, they would vote for it and be happy to pay extra for a good cause just as they're happy to pay their taxes, but they would never pay up at checkout. Remember the ads for "look for the union label?" No one bothered about that, either. Same reason.
Each of those forced micro decisions leads to incremental reduction in wages and lifestyle of working Americans.
So it's not a "forced decision," not really, except for the few outliers. It's something we as a people chose via the marketplace over time. If we didn't allow the Chinese goods in, that would be forced. What we have now is the marketplace at work.
Americans care more about the US middle class than other countries' wages
You talk about caring. I don't think that's the appropriate metric, at least as you interpret it. A better metric, IMO, is what provides the most vibrant economy. Managed economies are not vibrant. The natural marketplace is. Yes, the marketplace is chaotic and, yes, disruption damages some of the participants some of the time. A decent society will assist those who are struggling with the disruption. Forcing stasis is not helpful. I would argue which is more "caring," stifling the economy so we all go down together or recognizing that disruption will occur and some will suffer temporarily as they work through it but they will come out the other side if they don't fight the tide. The former is more directly and conspicuously caring, but in the final analysis, destructive. What looks uncaring produces the best result. That's not to say that all those who advocate the marketplace are caring. Some are most likely as mean spirited as they appear. But there is no inherent incompatibility between marketplace advocacy and caring. Just as tough love may seem uncaring but is quite the opposite.
Wealth sucked from increasingly impoverished Americans are sent to offshore corps and foreign countries, incrementally hollowing out the economy.
When major change occurs, things don't move in a straight line. Over time, as the foreigners become as spoiled and affluent as we are, they will demand our goods and services. I suppose that takes a little faith. But it takes less faith than the notion that we should still be protecting the buggy whip industry or each putting up our own jelly. Even if it doesn't play out for the best, it has a better chance that ossifying a whip and jelly economy.
If we want to ease and expedite the transition, we need to work on education and disabuse folks of the notion of a gold watch at the end of a linear work-life. It is not helpful to encourage them to think of themselves as victims.
P.S. A few days ago I bought two VCR's to replace my relics. Got the pair of them for 120 bucks. The last one I bought cost twice that for one. Was I tickled! Yes, when I got them home I noticed that they were made in China. |
