"In his recent Times column, Paul Krugman writes:
Rising inequality has obvious economic costs: stagnant wages despite rising productivity, rising debt that makes us more vulnerable to financial crisis. It also has big social and human costs. There is, for example, strong evidence that high inequality leads to worse health and higher mortality.The links are from the online version of Paul's column. I followed the second link to an interesting article by Angus Deaton. Angus writes the following (emphasis added):
Darren Lubotsky and I 7 have investigated the relationship between income inequality, race, and mortality at both the state and metropolitan statistical area level. In both the state and the city data, mortality is positively and significantly correlated with almost any measure of income inequality. Because whites have higher incomes and lower mortality rates than blacks, places where the population has a large fraction of blacks are also places where both mortality and income inequality are relatively high. However, the relationship is robust to controlling for average income (or poverty rates) and also holds, albeit less strongly, for black and white mortality separately. Nevertheless, it turns out that race is indeed the crucial omitted variable. In states, cities, and counties with a higher fraction of African-Americans, white incomes are higher and black incomes are lower, so that income inequality (through its interracial component) is higher in places with a high fraction black. It is also true that both white and black mortality rates are higher in places with a higher fraction black and that, once we control for the fraction black, income inequality has no effect on mortality rates, a result that has been replicated by Victor Fuchs, Mark McClellan, and Jonathan Skinner9 using the Medicare records data. This result is consistent with the lack of any relationship between income inequality and mortality across Canadian or Australian provinces, where race does not have the same salience. Our finding is robust; it holds for a wide range of inequality measures; it holds for men and women separately; it holds when we control for average education; and it holds once we abandon age-adjusted mortality and look at mortality at specific ages. None of this tells us why the correlation exists, and what it is about cities with substantial black populations that causes both whites and blacks to die sooner.In a review of the literature on inequality and health, I note that Wilkinson's original evidence, which was (and in many quarters is still) widely accepted showed a negative cross-country relationship between life expectancy and income inequality, not only in levels but also, and more impressively, in changes. But subsequent work has shown that these findings were the result of the use of unreliable and outdated information on income inequality, and that they do not appear if recent, high quality data are used. There are now also a large number of individual level studies exploring the health consequences of ambient income inequality and none of these provide any convincing evidence that inequality is a health hazard. Indeed, the only robust correlations appear to be those among U.S. cities and states (discussed above) which, as we have seen, vanish once we control for racial composition. I suggest that inequality may indeed be important for health, but that income inequality is less important than other dimensions, such as political or gender inequality.10Is Angus's article really support for Paul's claim? It seems to me that it is more the opposite."
But back in reality, none of those conditions is equal. And what do we see? We see investment flowing (sometimes in the form of “firms mov[ing],” but more often in the form of firms supplementing domestic activities) to rich countries, not poor. In this recent study, I reported statistics from the Bureau of Economic Analysis revealing that:
Nearly three quarters of the $5.2 trillion stock of U.S.-owned direct investment abroad is concentrated in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and Singapore. Contrary to persistent rumors, only 1.3 percent of the value of U.S.-outward FDI [foreign direct investment] was in China at the end of 2011.
Meanwhile, the United States (not China or Mexico) is the world’s #1 destination for FDI:
With a stock valued at $3.9 trillion, the United States is the top single-country destination for the world’s FDI outflows. There are plenty of reasons for that being the case, including the facts that the United States is the world’s largest market and has a sound legal system and a relatively transparent business environment. More than $4 out of every $5 of that stock (84.2%) is owned by Europeans, Canadians, and Japanese, with the U.S. manufacturing sector accounting for a full third of its value, making it the primary destination for inward FDI.Are BASF, Michelin, BMW, Siemens, Airbus, InBev, Honda, Kia, Ikea, Shuanghui (recent Chinese purchaser of Smithfield Hams) and thousands of other foreign-headquartered companies invested here because labor is cheapest in the United States? They are here because firms conduct value-added activities wherever it makes the most sense to do so, given all of the considerations and restrictions that affect costs. For so many reasons, the United States is still the top destination for investment in manufacturing and most services industries.
So stop. Just stop.
The editorial also indulges the most persistent myth of all, that increasing exports while minimizing imports is the purpose of trade agreements. As I’ve written on countless occasions in numerous different ways, increased imports are the real benefits of trade. Our exports are what we use to pay for our imports. If you prefer paying less for your products at the grocery store, you should prefer exporting less for the products you import. And for those concerned about income inequality—the editorial’s presumed audience—it is worth understanding that import competition increases choices and reduces prices, which means imports increase real incomes.
The editorial concedes that imports from Vietnam may increase under the TPP (“suppose [the bilateral deficit] were to double”), but that the deficit “would still be tiny relative to the overall U.S. trade balance.” Instead of apologizing and rationalizing, as though this development were a cost, why not point out how lower-income Americans, in particular, would experience a lower cost of living because trade would reduce the cost of their clothing and footwear?
We need to do better a job explaining how trade does not lend itself to sports metaphors. Exports are not our “points.” Imports are not “their” points. The trade account is not a scoreboard. It is not Team America against the world. Trade is about mutually beneficial exchange between individuals in different political jurisdictions, and to the extent that those kinds of transactions are subject to the whims of politicians, more and more resources will be diverted from economic to political ends.
Though it may have had good intentions, the Washington Post should know better than to perpetuate simplistic myths spun by well-compensated K Street consultants on behalf of the business, labor, and environmental interests that benefit financially from restrictions on trade and investment."