As clever as globalization champions like Tom Friedman think they are when preaching to manufacturing workers that they need to get out of the way of lawless global market forces working their magic and get on board with the low-paying service economy of the future, consequences of the post-globalization economy for America and the rest of the industrialized West extend beyond the working class apocalypse which they consistently shrug off. Here are just a couple of examples: How can a deindustrialized economy dependent on imports have the self-sufficiency to defend itself against its foes? And how can an economy restricted to professional careers and low-level service/retail jobs meet the needs of a population with a diverse level of skills, ambition and intelligence?
Throughout the late 1990's, globalization champions crowed about the success of the post-NAFTA/GATT economy...and at the time it was hard to argue with them. But their calculus turned out to be premature. As soon as the good times ended and profits plunged, suddenly alot more companies seized upon the new options created for them by free trade agreements and headed overseas. Now the same globalization cheerleaders who in the 90's insisted an imminent net gain in manufacturing employment are twisting in the wind and trying to reconfigure their arguments, hoping we'll forget their previous false prophecies of grandeur. Whether it be smug columnist Tom Friedman or otherwise honorable former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, the new condescending talking point is that what's left of the working class needs to accept the bullseye painted on their forehead and either transition into the professional economy or start making slurpees at the local 7-11.
But for all their cleverness, it rarely if ever seems to occur to globalization hacks that an economy of paper-shufflers and paper-or-plastic grocery baggers is wholly dependent upon other economies to provide us with the raw goods we used to manufacture domestically. Aside from the long-term effects on skyrocketing trade deficits, the more ominous long-term consequence of a dependent service economy is national security.
A future war with China is a frighteningly credible scenario. What happens, say 20 years from now, when a deindustrialized America, is on the cusp of a battle with China? Do you think they will hold off on their own offensive long enough to send us the steel shipments necessary for Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas to manufacture our weapons that we plan to use to kill them? And will the Chinese government allow their garment industry to export the U.S. military uniforms to our soldiers? And even if we assume China is never allowed to monopolize the global manufacturing sector, do we want to count on the fact that Central America, India, or the Middle East will be on our side and ready, willing and able to equip us with the goods we need to defend ourselves from harm?
It seems to me that with a history of foreign policy arrogance and making enemies around the world, a few rounds of trade sanctions imposed against a deindustrialized post-globalization America could bring us to our knees.
And there's an undeniable human toll that has and will continue to be incurred by the impending demise of the domestic manufacturing sector. Most of us know the kind of people who traditionally work in manufacturing. We all remember the students in our high schools who had little interest in academics, often lacked the intelligence or discipline to further their education beyond high school, and generally filled their schedule with as many shop classes as possible to cobble together enough credits to graduate. At that point, they traditionally followed in their father's footsteps to the factory where they could usually count on a modest if unfulfilling life with a small-frame house on acre lot. I think most of us, no matter where we are in life now, can remember those kinds of people in our high school. Is it reasonable to expect them to effectively transition to professional careers, even if we are to assume that the demand for such careers will grow at a rate high enough to absorb them? And on the other hand, is it reasonable to allow the millions of Americans currently employed in manufacturing to lapse into the low-pay, no-benefit, part-time world of the service/retail sector without serious repercussions to the social order?
A frightening window to the next generation of would-be working people can be found in thousands of hollowed-out factory towns across America, where in many cases one out of three young people is addicted to meth. This is not likely a coincidence. The kind of young people who used to be able to graduate high school and get a decent factory job with benefits are increasingly finding that option out-of-reach, and the fewer options that are available to the kid who graduates high school by way of multiple shop classes, the more likely he/she is to seek an artifical high in the form of drugs.
It'd be nice if Tom Friedman and other globalization shills could broaden their argument to offer some solutions beyond advocating higher funding for retraining programs.