RE: "...may be more beneficial to low wage nations than harmful to high wage nations..."
This is probably true both economically and, to a lesser extent, politically. Still, this doesn't make the harmful effects on the US acceptable.
RE: "...second order effects..."
Both "increased demand" and lower priced imports fall in this category. Unfortunately, your characterization of "second order" is correct and these don't compensate for negative "first order" effects.
RE: "...explicitly demonstrate...not much future for America in standard blue collar assembly line operations."
There is not much present or recent past for "standard blue collar". You ask for a demonstration and then give one. Jobs move to areas with lower labor costs when the logistical infrastructure exists to support the move. The higher the salary gradient and the stronger the logistics, the faster the jobs move. The salary gradient also spurs the development of the necessary logistics. The manufacturing jobs and the good "blue collar" lifestyle they supported are gone. A large segment of our population has never been able to replace the lost jobs with ones that pay comparable salaries and benefits. With regard to the "better" jobs, we can both understand the mechanism for job mobility and view the mechanics of actual job transfer taking place daily. We know that an "inordinate" share of good blue collar jobs left. While some of our "better" jobs demand local presence, many don't, and those are subject to the forces that will move them.
RE: "...motivate more Americans to study engineering?"
From my personal experience, I believe that motivation depends on the treatment of engineers by US industry. For a long time, industry actions reflected its belief that jobs could be filled by lower cost recent graduates and, more recently, by lower cost visa imports and overseas transfers.
RE: "...production moving closer to the ultimate market."
I have no problem with US companies producing abroad for foreign markets. It is necessary and there are no alternatives. We have no control there. My focus is on domestic production and consumption. As I have said, they need to be balanced. Also, the US can control the domestic economy and regulate imports. There is no doubt that product costs in the US would rise. These rising costs need to be measured against rising domestic productivity and living standards caused by "protected" jobs and production.
RE: "...importance of fab location to national economic welfare."
In order to maintain our national security edge, we must have the most advanced scientific and engineering capability. We must maintain our edge. There is no room for compromise here. This is the motivation that will get the country to seriously consider the need to produce what we consume. If we continue the current trend and export jobs to low cost labor markets, we will not be able to maintain our edge.
RE: "If we do not remain flexible, upgrade our skills and heed the message of the market we may starve."
The American story is one of an isolated haven. The US is rich in resources and has attracted the best and brightest from around the world for almost 400 years. This combination along with the special genius of our founding fathers has made the US the most successful nation. We must understand that we don't need to sacrifice the American experience on the altar of global trade. This country must realize that theoretical economists and international businesses measure value too narrowly. There is no future for this country if there is no opportunity for its people and there will be no opportunity if jobs are allowed to flow freely to the lowest cost markets. |
