|
Many economic historians are concerned about the possibility of large-scale
offshoring of jobs from the United States and Europe to China, India, and other
countries. They speak of another Industrial Revolution, the third since the
18th century, that will transform commerce and industry and require painful
adjustments. The first revolution brought drastic changes to England from the
middle of the 18th century to the middle of the 19th century. A few inventions
and technological innovations gave rise to the factory system and the working
population formerly laboring in agriculture found better employment in industrial
production. The revolution spread to Western Europe and the United States a
generation or two later. It has moved to some other countries ever since.
In their vivid descriptions of the industrial beginning, most historians rarely
allude to the ideological and political changes that actually paved the way
for the revolution. They admire the early development of the cotton industry
and view with approval the iron and steel industry which sought to meet a growing
demand for all kinds of construction. But they may not even mention the writings
of the Classical economists, of Adam Smith and his numerous teachers and forerunners,
such as Frances Hutcheson, David Hume, Josiah Tucker, and many others. They
wrote numerous essays on commerce and taxation, and developed new insight into
basic principles of a market order. They succeeded in persuading their government
to remove age-old restrictions and allow the people to pursue their economic
interests.
Economic historians also speak of a second Industrial Revolution that left
its mark on the 20th century and is spreading to other parts of the industrial
world. They are referring to the powerful shift from manufacturing toward services.
Throughout the old industrial world the number of industrial jobs has declined
slowly while the number of service positions has risen continuously. By now,
only one-sixth of U.S. non-farming jobs are in goods-producing industries while
five-sixths render services.
Many historians rarely ever mention the market order that impelled and facilitated
the change. It built on the protection of private property in production; it
emboldened entrepreneurship and facilitated large capital investments that
raised labor productivity. Wage rates rose and standards of living soared,
which enabled workers to use ever larger shares of their incomes for services
such as healthcare, entertainment, and education. Moreover, the New Deal and
Fair Deal introduced labor legislation that hastened the expansion of the service
industry. It enabled and encouraged industrial labor unions to raise the cost
of labor above its productivity, which has given rise to an unnatural economic
phenomenon: mass unemployment. Unemployed factory labor has been seeking productive
employment in the service industry ever since; it functions like a large net,
legal and illegal, that can put all willing labor to productive use.
A third Industrial Revolution is now making its appearance in the United States
and other industrial countries. And just like the first two, it is bound to
introduce many changes and force millions of people to make painful adjustments.
It is an "information revolution" that greatly expands the scope of tradable
services and tends to move many service jobs offshore to India, China, and
other industrial newcomers where labor is much cheaper. Defined by its consequences,
it may also be called the "offshoring revolution."
The term "offshore" was first used in the United States for any financial
organization with its headquarters outside the country. A mutual fund with
its domicile in the Bahamas is an offshore fund. The term then broadened to
cover the movement of industrial jobs from high-cost countries to places where
costs are lower. By now, in the "third revolution," ever more service jobs
are likely to go offshore. Surely, jobs that render personal services cannot
go ashore; my barber shop cannot go to China. But new technology has made many
jobs marketable which therefore may go where labor costs are lower. The services
of accountants and computer programmers are suitable for electronic delivery
and, therefore, may go offshore. According to a recent McKinsey study, 11 percent
of U.S. jobs are at risk of being sent offshore which is likely to become a
major political concern in the future.
An unhampered market system would readily facilitate the needed readjustments.
Under the pressure of foreign low-cost competition, American wages for many
impersonal offshorable services undoubtedly would stagnate or even decline,
which would cause some workers to move into the personal-service market and
depress its wage rates. The computer programmer may have to become a computer
repairman or barber. Yet his income may not decline as long as the amount of
capital invested per head of population in the country continues to rise; personal
services may expand as fast or even faster than impersonal services contract.
Economists are ever fearful that politicians are likely to interfere with
needed economic adjustments. In the United States the forces of old-fashioned
protectionism not only may find ways to limit imports but also hamper American
capital working abroad. The forces of political intervention, in order to shield
and benefit labor, are likely to increase labor costs, which invariably causes
unemployment. After all, every penny of labor cost that exceeds labor productivity
is bound to create unemployment. The countries with the most fervent labor-protection
laws, such as France, Germany, and Italy, already suffer official unemployment
rates of 10 percent and higher. In years to come, the third Industrial Revolution
will require many painful adjustments. The rates of national unemployment and
economic stagnation are likely to be proportional to the political powers of
defiance and control.
The process of industrial change and labor adjustment is made ever more complex
and painful by yet another political factor: the propensity of welfare governments
to suffer huge budget deficits that consume the lion's share of the people's
savings. All the governments mentioned above are busily consuming savings that
otherwise would become capital investments creating jobs and paying wages.
Surely, the American labor market is more flexible and vibrant than European
markets, which is rendering it more adaptable to the changes to come. On the
other hand, the U.S. government budget deficit is the largest by far in volume
and relative size. Debt always is the worst kind of poverty. The third Industrial
Revolution may confirm it in years and decades to come.
|