It's a long, well-written piece and I can't completely summarize it
in a few sentences, but here goes. David argues that the usual way we
show that free trade is good for a country (as opposed to the world,
which he does not address) is by showing that the gains to domestic
gainers, consumers, outweigh the losses to the domestic losers. David
challenges the idea that this is a good way. He focuses on a subset of
domestic losers, namely workers who lose their jobs. He argues that
consumption is just not that important to most people compared to having
a job. He hastens to add that he is not making a case for
protectionism, but, rather, arguing that we economists have failed to
confront the way non-economists typically think about trade. He says
that there are some professional economists who are exceptions, that is,
who do talk to the public in ways that show a connection with the
concerns of the public, but he doesn't name any of them.
One slice of his argument:
What people do is a far more important
determinant of their overall estimation of how well-off they are than
what they consume. When you meet someone, you are likely, if you are at
all interested in finding out about the person, to ask him or her about
what he or she does, not about what he or she consumes. Most of
the waking hours of an adult person are spent in work-related
activities. If people are miserable in their jobs, their estimation of
their well-being is likely to be low and if they are happy or fulfilled
or challenged in their jobs, their estimation of their well-being is
likely to be high.
And maybe I'm clueless, but I find it hard to believe that what makes
people happy or unhappy with their lives depends in a really
significant way on how much they consume. It seems to me that what
matters to most people is the nature of their relationships with their
family and friends and the people they work with, and whether they get
satisfaction from their jobs or from a sense that they are accomplishing
or are on their way to accomplish some important life goals. Compared
to the satisfaction derived from their close personal relationships and
from a sense of personal accomplishment, levels of consumption don't
seem to matter all that much. (italics in original)
What is one to say?
A few things.
First, the argument that David Glasner makes applies to any change
that causes people to lose jobs. Think of the introduction of the car.
That spelled the end of many jobs for blacksmiths and buggy whip makers.
Would David say "I find it hard to believe that what makes people happy
or unhappy with their lives depends in a really significant way on
whether they have access to a car?" I don't know, but I think, for his
argument about free trade to make sense, he would have to say that.
Second, in the very next sentence after the two I quoted above, David contradicts himself. He writes:
Moreover, insofar as people depend on being employed in
order to finance their routine consumption purchases, they know that
being employed is a necessary condition for maintaining their current
standard of living.
But if peoples' happiness doesn't depend much on how much they consume, why worry?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.