Stagnant Wages: Americans Can’t Or Won’t Compete?
For most Americans, wages simply aren’t rising quickly enough and that’s blamed for holding back consumer spending and economic growth.
Jobs growth has hardly been robust, and that limits workers’ bargaining power. Since the recession ended, employment has increased 187,000 a month, whereas for the Reagan recovery the pace was 251,000 in a much smaller economy.
President Reagan cut taxes, deregulated business and engineered the 1985 Plaza Accord, which resulted in a 50 percent reduction in the exchange rate for dollar against the yen and other major currencies. In those days, Japanese, not Chinese, imports aided by a cheap currency were waxing the ears of American workers.
The Obama Administration admits the trade deficit is holding back jobs creation and growth and has chided China and others about currency manipulation and other aggressive trade practices, but Americans have a lot of bucking up to do if they are to compete effectively and reverse a $4000 decline in family incomes in this century.
International supply chain companies, like Li and Fung in apparel and household items and Wipro in electronics and IT, specialize in outsourcing products designed and services managed by American companies.
Asian workers often do not enjoy the kinds of health care and income guarantees federal and state programs provide Americans. They are simply more willing to accept alternating periods of unemployment and intense overtime work—for example, churning out millions of garments and computer games for the holiday rush.
American trade diplomats can’t force all of Asia to replicate the U.S. social safety net. That makes essential reforming qualifications for Medicaid, Obamacare subsidies and income support programs to encourage seasonal employment and re-entry into the job market.
Moving up the jobs market, many Americans often don’t have the skills to do the jobs that are left.
In factories, robots have been able to lift and weld fenders onto autos for quite some time now, but machines are now moving into tasks that require far more complex thinking and subtle dexterity—for example the handling of fabrics to sew button holes and attach sleeves to shirts.
Large commercial bakeries, for example, are becoming “closed looped.” Soon the only humans will be those programming the machines, keeping the books and delivering the bread. And new artificial intelligence programs, driverless vehicles and robots will soon replace many of those positions.
Within a few decades, machines potentially will perform surgery, learn and aggressively improve their own performance from what they see and read, and possess the emotions that drive the creative process unique to humans.
Once we have engineered a machine with the reasoning and learning abilities of a human with an IQ of 100 it will be a quick leap to IQs of 500 or 5000. Think about your child competing in a college classroom with a robot with that intellectual capacity!
Of course, the future is never as promising or menacing as we imagine, but some of this will come to pass. Right now Americans are ill equipped to exploit or profit from it.
In factories and across supply chains, for example, thousands of jobs are available but go unfilled for programming and managing computer controlled machines and repairing sophisticated machinery, which require an advanced understanding of mechanics and electronics and specialized welding.
Those jobs require several years of training beyond high school but fewer than half of graduates have the reading and math skills to enter such training. And 40 percent of college diplomates lack the critical thinking and reasoning skills to be trained to manage it all.
Whether it’s workers in Asia or ever smarter machines, Americans must up their game—in terms of employment we are willing to accept and what we expect from schools and students—if we are going to compete in this new age.
Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and widely published columnist. He is the five time winner of the MarketWatch best forecaster ...
more
Nice article.
So the irony is that as productivity is predicted to soar--so much so that it will take much less labor to create more goods--we will claim that we have to cut benefits for much of the population in the face of increased abundance? Of course, we seem to be talking mostly about the private goods, at a time when we have major issues with infrastructure, education, health care, and the like. Maintaining or expanding those programs would provide a significant number of jobs, and maintaining income levels for the retired population would facilitate a significant transfer of wealth to the younger generation in the form of jobs. We should stand back from this and ask ourselves why it is that somehow we have decided to ignore the extent to which these kinds of changes are also a function of network externalities and infrastructure. (The military started the internet and government groups had major roles: there's that d**ned government again, right? The same government that built the interstates and established public health standards?) Why would we assume that all the rents from those private productivity gains should be captured by an ever-smaller group? Time for more fiscal stimulus. Our problem is not a lack of saving. It's a lack of broad-based purchasing power. And the very forecasts that predict rapid cheapening via machines of a variety of goods and services tell us why this should not lead to inflation: our problem has been too much deflationary pressure.
Well said.