Made in America, Again(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Made in America, Again
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/made-in-america-again/379343/?single_page=true
48 comments
Exporting manufacturing jobs is only cost-effective if the labor is about 4x cheaper. The coastal provinces of China are now at that level relative to the US. Manufacturing is mostly capital cost; labor cost isn't that big a fraction of product cost. Offshoring adds costs; air freight is expensive, sea freight takes forever, and long-distance less-than-container-load land shipping within China works surprisingly badly. Coordination is worse, and quality control is hard.
[deleted]
> New middle-class jobs might not be an oxymoron after all ... I have seen $17–$20 starting hourly wages at new factories in Mississippi and South Carolina.
That's $40K per year at best. Hardly a middle-class salary in contemporary United States. In fact, it's barely above minimum wages in many other countries.
That's $40K per year at best. Hardly a middle-class salary in contemporary United States. In fact, it's barely above minimum wages in many other countries.
Tech workers have no sense of what it means to earn a middle-class wage. I earn more than most tech workers but I have a frame of reference for that income having lived in many parts of the US that are generally disparaged as "flyover country".
With all due respect, you are ignorant of the economics of many parts of the US. You can live quite well in South Carolina (briefly lived there) and Mississippi on $40k per year. In many regions, you aren't struggling for money unless you make less than $20k. The United States is a diverse country and I have lived in much of it.
In many parts of the US, the cost of living is extremely low and a dollar goes quite far. Believe it or not, there are large swaths of the US where you can buy a house for much less than $100k (cheapest house in a town I've seen in the last decade was something like $12k, out in flyover country, for an actual house, albeit small). You might not want to live there, and I certainly do not, but many people do. If you like the environment, you can live a satisfactory middle-class life on $40k in those parts of the country. Housing is cheap, food is cheap, fuel is cheap, entertainment is cheap, and if your tastes are simple it is easy to save enough money to comfortably retire in those communities.
$40k would definitely be on the low side if you live in a place like Silicon Valley or New York City. And I've lived there too. But the article specified South Carolina and Mississippi. And I've actually lived on less than $40k in Silicon Valley. Down in Mississippi, no one is going to be complaining about a $20/hour manufacturing job. That's a good living for modest effort.
With all due respect, you are ignorant of the economics of many parts of the US. You can live quite well in South Carolina (briefly lived there) and Mississippi on $40k per year. In many regions, you aren't struggling for money unless you make less than $20k. The United States is a diverse country and I have lived in much of it.
In many parts of the US, the cost of living is extremely low and a dollar goes quite far. Believe it or not, there are large swaths of the US where you can buy a house for much less than $100k (cheapest house in a town I've seen in the last decade was something like $12k, out in flyover country, for an actual house, albeit small). You might not want to live there, and I certainly do not, but many people do. If you like the environment, you can live a satisfactory middle-class life on $40k in those parts of the country. Housing is cheap, food is cheap, fuel is cheap, entertainment is cheap, and if your tastes are simple it is easy to save enough money to comfortably retire in those communities.
$40k would definitely be on the low side if you live in a place like Silicon Valley or New York City. And I've lived there too. But the article specified South Carolina and Mississippi. And I've actually lived on less than $40k in Silicon Valley. Down in Mississippi, no one is going to be complaining about a $20/hour manufacturing job. That's a good living for modest effort.
Two decades previously, the textile industry was the major employer in the upstate SC area. The Palmetto Exposition Center in Greenville used to be called "Textile Hall" and hosted several trade-shows for the industry where people came from around the world to see the new thread and cloth making machinery. All those jobs went to Central America, China, Malaysia, etc. Not just those of the people running the machinery, but also the jobs that made the machinery too.
Unemployment was a big problem. While the textile jobs weren't all that well-paying (often it was piece-work), at least it was something that put food on the table.
When BMW Manufacturing arrived it was a tremendous boon to the regional economy. Not only were there new jobs at BMW, but new jobs at both local suppliers and newly arrived "feeder" firms. And these were good-paying jobs, even if they weren't always union. A production associate there starts around $15.50/hr, which is $33k a year. More if there's overtime. This is good money for the area. And then there's the benefits - the employees can buy a BMW at cost every few years. That's like a dream come true for them - being able to drive a European luxury car that's brand new.
Unemployment was a big problem. While the textile jobs weren't all that well-paying (often it was piece-work), at least it was something that put food on the table.
When BMW Manufacturing arrived it was a tremendous boon to the regional economy. Not only were there new jobs at BMW, but new jobs at both local suppliers and newly arrived "feeder" firms. And these were good-paying jobs, even if they weren't always union. A production associate there starts around $15.50/hr, which is $33k a year. More if there's overtime. This is good money for the area. And then there's the benefits - the employees can buy a BMW at cost every few years. That's like a dream come true for them - being able to drive a European luxury car that's brand new.
When half of all working Americans make less than $30,000 per year[1], I'm sure $40,000 looks pretty amazing. I wouldn't want to go anywhere near SF on that kind of income, but is a lot to work with where costs of living are far more reasonable.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_S...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_S...
That's $40K per year at best. Hardly a middle-class salary in contemporary United States
- There's a huge range to "middle-class". Consider whether your idea of "middle-class salaries" is in fact upper-middle-class. Remember that most of the middle class cannot afford to drive Priuses and BMWs.
- In a lot of the United States, cost of living is a hell of a lot lower than the Bay. When your rent is $350/month for a two-bedroom flat and your car cost $5k, $40k might not be so bad after all.
- The figure quoted is starting wage. It goes up from there, and twenty-year-olds don't yet need quite as much to live comfortably as they will later.
- There's a huge range to "middle-class". Consider whether your idea of "middle-class salaries" is in fact upper-middle-class. Remember that most of the middle class cannot afford to drive Priuses and BMWs.
- In a lot of the United States, cost of living is a hell of a lot lower than the Bay. When your rent is $350/month for a two-bedroom flat and your car cost $5k, $40k might not be so bad after all.
- The figure quoted is starting wage. It goes up from there, and twenty-year-olds don't yet need quite as much to live comfortably as they will later.
Where is rent $350/month?
I live in the heart of the "cheap, low cost" Midwest and there is nothing within 200 miles of me that rents below $650/month -- and even at $650, your talking about old, poorly maintained, single bedroom or studio flats.
Yes, there are lots of cheap 50k-100k houses. But what everyone forgets is the upkeep on those houses is enormous. You might have a $800/month mortgage payment on a 3 bedroom house, but also have to pay another $500-$1,000/month upkeep on that house.
My "cheap" Midwest home in Michigan (2br, 1350sqft) costs $1700/month in mortgage+upkeep. An luxury apartment in a downtown Seattle (2br, 850sqft) can be had for $1800/month. 40% higher wages on the coast, and only an extra $100/month in housing costs. (Zillow: http://bit.ly/1sx9LH2)
You won't save a lot of money on rent/living expense in the Midwest, you'll just get a lot more empty house space "for free". That's great if you need lots of empty space (for kids and such). But otherwise, the cost of living difference is not nearly as large as people pretend it is.
Yes, the literal dirt a building sits on is cheaper away from the coasts (land value). But that's literally the only difference in cost -- nearly everything else is more-or-less the same price (including home and building expenses, professional services, food, clothing, electronics, etc).
Some are even more expensive in the Midwest (home repairs and maintenance, nearly all utilities, etc)
I live in the heart of the "cheap, low cost" Midwest and there is nothing within 200 miles of me that rents below $650/month -- and even at $650, your talking about old, poorly maintained, single bedroom or studio flats.
Yes, there are lots of cheap 50k-100k houses. But what everyone forgets is the upkeep on those houses is enormous. You might have a $800/month mortgage payment on a 3 bedroom house, but also have to pay another $500-$1,000/month upkeep on that house.
My "cheap" Midwest home in Michigan (2br, 1350sqft) costs $1700/month in mortgage+upkeep. An luxury apartment in a downtown Seattle (2br, 850sqft) can be had for $1800/month. 40% higher wages on the coast, and only an extra $100/month in housing costs. (Zillow: http://bit.ly/1sx9LH2)
You won't save a lot of money on rent/living expense in the Midwest, you'll just get a lot more empty house space "for free". That's great if you need lots of empty space (for kids and such). But otherwise, the cost of living difference is not nearly as large as people pretend it is.
Yes, the literal dirt a building sits on is cheaper away from the coasts (land value). But that's literally the only difference in cost -- nearly everything else is more-or-less the same price (including home and building expenses, professional services, food, clothing, electronics, etc).
Some are even more expensive in the Midwest (home repairs and maintenance, nearly all utilities, etc)
I suppose I don't know exactly, but I live in the mountain region. It's about $1,000 for a 800sqft 1br apartment. Many people complain how housing is at least twice as expensive here as where they are from.
(I was elated, because housing here is half as expensive as where I was from!)
(I was elated, because housing here is half as expensive as where I was from!)
[deleted]
By definition (of the OCDE) the middle class is the middle 3 quintiles, e.g. people who make more than the bottom 20% and less than the top 20%.
In US in 2011, that meant a household making between about 20k and 100k. So yes the middle class is huge (60% of the population by definition), and 40k is right in the middle quintile (between 38k and 62k). Not upper-middle-class, but not "minimum wage working class" either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_...
In US in 2011, that meant a household making between about 20k and 100k. So yes the middle class is huge (60% of the population by definition), and 40k is right in the middle quintile (between 38k and 62k). Not upper-middle-class, but not "minimum wage working class" either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_...
Unfortunately this is a terrifically bad definition of middle class, and may not match what people think of as "middle class" life. By this logic, 13th century feudal society had an ample middle class.
The problem with "what people think of middle class" is that everyone has a different idea of what it is, depending on where they are on the revenue scale. That leads to discussions like this thread.
Absolutely correct. But we also know that the OCDE definition is a strict percentage which is so absurd it creates large middle classes in cultures which have absolutely no middle class. And events may unfold such that the definition may be absurd even in our own culture in 20? 50? years.
Rents are above 33% of median wages in most cities in the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/business/more-renters-find...
You can surely get by on $40k a year. With my Master's Degree in Social Work from one of the best schools in the country, my best paying jobs were about $33k, but 2 bedroom apartments for $350 are gonna be hard to come by.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/business/more-renters-find...
You can surely get by on $40k a year. With my Master's Degree in Social Work from one of the best schools in the country, my best paying jobs were about $33k, but 2 bedroom apartments for $350 are gonna be hard to come by.
In Mississippi and South Carolina, you can buy a house in many areas for sub-$100k, for a 1:2.5 salary-price ratio. Compare to Silicon Valley, where good tech salaries of $200k and 2 bdrm homes for $800k give a 1:4 ratio.
$40k is middle class for that part of the country.
$40k is middle class for that part of the country.
The difference in costs for everything else is similar or worse in rural areas though. For instance, a 32" TV costs the same on Amazon no matter where you live, but when the water company only has 900 customers instead of a few hundred thousand the cost-per-gallon sky rockets.
As a counterpoint, there are some places (like this one) where more water than you can want just falls from the sky.
The water here is cheap no matter how many people are connected. If it weren't, you'd just dig a modest hole in the ground and suck out what you need.
The water here is cheap no matter how many people are connected. If it weren't, you'd just dig a modest hole in the ground and suck out what you need.
Plus with progressive tax rates and high taxes in CA that ratio realistically goes more towards 1:6 or higher
But is $40k on offer in these more affordable parts?
South Carolina is not large. If you were willing to commute for an hour, if you lived in the center you could work almost anywhere in the state.
A one hour commute could easily cost ~ 5k/yr in fuel alone (50 weeks * 5 days * $3/gal fuel * (60miles / 20mpg)), instantly cutting that increase from 30k to 40k in half.
Median household income in the US is $50,054
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_...
So having two household members earning $40k puts the household in upper-middle-class category.
So having two household members earning $40k puts the household in upper-middle-class category.
We used to have only one person working per household, plus maybe a part-time job. Can't we go back to that, preferably without the sexism this time?
> Can't we go back to that, preferably without the sexism this time?
No. The sexism is what made it work. If society permits both spouses to work then couples where both spouses work can afford to pay more for a house which increases the price of housing (and likewise for everything else). As more two income families come to exist it thereby becomes more difficult to sustain a family on a single income, which further exacerbates the problem by increasing the incentive to become a two income family (and thus the number of two income families inducing price inflation).
The only way to prevent that is for society to somehow discourage couples from both working full time jobs. And since employers have no way to tell what an employee's spouse is doing all day, the most effective social enforcement method is sexism. (Obviously the math doesn't care which sex is inhibited from working but existing culture is a different matter.)
Probably the closest you could get to it without the sexism is to provide everyone with a basic income.[1] A spouse who didn't work full time would still receive the basic income which would significantly reduce the income inequality between single income and dual income families, thereby reducing the pressure for both spouses to work and making single income families more practical.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
No. The sexism is what made it work. If society permits both spouses to work then couples where both spouses work can afford to pay more for a house which increases the price of housing (and likewise for everything else). As more two income families come to exist it thereby becomes more difficult to sustain a family on a single income, which further exacerbates the problem by increasing the incentive to become a two income family (and thus the number of two income families inducing price inflation).
The only way to prevent that is for society to somehow discourage couples from both working full time jobs. And since employers have no way to tell what an employee's spouse is doing all day, the most effective social enforcement method is sexism. (Obviously the math doesn't care which sex is inhibited from working but existing culture is a different matter.)
Probably the closest you could get to it without the sexism is to provide everyone with a basic income.[1] A spouse who didn't work full time would still receive the basic income which would significantly reduce the income inequality between single income and dual income families, thereby reducing the pressure for both spouses to work and making single income families more practical.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
> The sexism is what made it work.
Recent innovations in medicine and fertility control such as condoms have -- to a certain extent -- made obsolete (some of) these sex-based social expectations. However, social expectations evolve slowly, more slowly than technological progress. Moreover, it is entirely unclear if the new orthodoxy, that it is unanimously better completely to abolish sex-based divisions of labour, and modern society is currently in a fierce struggle over this question.
Marx, in "Preface to the Critique of Political Economy" (1859) claimed that revolutions occur when technological development has moved so far ahead of (and hence made obsolete) the social expectations that govern propery relations, that revolution must occur:
At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces
of society come into conflict with the existing relations of
production or - this merely expresses the same thing in legal
terms - with the property relations within the framework of which
they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the
productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then
begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic
foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole
immense superstructure.
At a certain stage of development of the contracteption technology,
the division of labour between the sexes come into conflict with
the existing relations between the sexes or - this merely expresses
the same thing in legal terms - with the property and entitlement
relations within the framework of which they have operated
hitherto. From forms of development of the reproductive forces
these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of
sexual revolution. The changes in the socio-sexual foundation lead
sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense
superstructure.
It's interesting to see how this will play out in the long run.
You're explaining the reasons for the traditional division of labor. But what we want is (one of) the consequences, not the causes.
Somewhere in your argument is the notion that sex, unlike e.g. race, is actually based on a biological difference that matters in practice, and is therefore a legitimate criterion on which to base socioeconomic behavior. But that doesn't make it not sexism, it just calls into question the legitimacy of "sexism" as a pejorative.
Somewhere in your argument is the notion that sex, unlike e.g. race, is actually based on a biological difference that matters in practice, and is therefore a legitimate criterion on which to base socioeconomic behavior. But that doesn't make it not sexism, it just calls into question the legitimacy of "sexism" as a pejorative.
I'm not sure what you mean by "what we want is (one of) the
consequences, not the causes".
As to "it just calls into question the legitimacy of "sexism" as a pejorative", sure, that's right. But in day-to-day English, "sexism" is pejorative, and that is not going to change any time soon. Therefore it is confusing to use the term when describing the biologically-based division of labour that was for 99.9999% of human history the only game in town. Calling this division sexist is therefore misleading to casual readers.
As to "it just calls into question the legitimacy of "sexism" as a pejorative", sure, that's right. But in day-to-day English, "sexism" is pejorative, and that is not going to change any time soon. Therefore it is confusing to use the term when describing the biologically-based division of labour that was for 99.9999% of human history the only game in town. Calling this division sexist is therefore misleading to casual readers.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "what we want is (one of) the consequences, not the causes".
OP wanted a society in which only one member of a couple is expected to work a full time job. That type of society was historically a consequence of sexism and would be difficult to achieve otherwise for the reasons I explained above. The causes of that sexism have nothing to do with it.
> As to "it just calls into question the legitimacy of "sexism" as a pejorative", sure, that's right. But in day-to-day English, "sexism" is pejorative, and that is not going to change any time soon. Therefore it is confusing to use the term when describing the biologically-based division of labour that was for 99.9999% of human history the only game in town.
Statements that are accurate but confusing are inherently necessary as a precondition to identifying and eliminating the confusion.
OP wanted a society in which only one member of a couple is expected to work a full time job. That type of society was historically a consequence of sexism and would be difficult to achieve otherwise for the reasons I explained above. The causes of that sexism have nothing to do with it.
> As to "it just calls into question the legitimacy of "sexism" as a pejorative", sure, that's right. But in day-to-day English, "sexism" is pejorative, and that is not going to change any time soon. Therefore it is confusing to use the term when describing the biologically-based division of labour that was for 99.9999% of human history the only game in town.
Statements that are accurate but confusing are inherently necessary as a precondition to identifying and eliminating the confusion.
Or to put it differently:
AnthonyMouse: 2+2 = 17
mafribe: saying 2+2 = 17 is confusing
AnthonyMouse: we need to keep saying 2+2 = 17 so point out that a world where 2+2 = 17 holds is problematic.
AnthonyMouse: 2+2 = 17
mafribe: saying 2+2 = 17 is confusing
AnthonyMouse: we need to keep saying 2+2 = 17 so point out that a world where 2+2 = 17 holds is problematic.
There is nothing confusing about the biological basis of the historical division of labour. You are deliberately introducing this confusion so as to avoid confronting the relevant issues. One has one's opinions as to why you would do this ...
> The reason for the traditional division of labour between the sexes is rooted in biology
In other words, sexism.
In other words, sexism.
You didn't intend saying this, but what your flippant remark amounts to is that sexism has been the rational answer to the facts of human biology for almost all of human history, and that even today, given the advances in reproductive technology sketched in my post above, it's far from clear whether 'sexism' isn't still a good or at least reasonable division of labour.
This sits uncomfortably with the everyday meaning of the term.
This sits uncomfortably with the everyday meaning of the term.
Actually, enforcing sexism or providing basic income are not the only solutions. For example, in the Netherlands, 40% of women work only part-time (and only 4% of those say they want to work full-time, so it's not because of discrimination). It seems that it's possible to shift back towards single-income families simply by becoming a highly-developed, socially-safe country.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/du...
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/11/going...
http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-feminismhappiness-axis...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/du...
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/11/going...
http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-feminismhappiness-axis...
> It seems that it's possible to shift back towards single-income families simply by becoming a highly-developed, socially-safe country.
In other words, do something sufficiently similar to providing a basic income.
In other words, do something sufficiently similar to providing a basic income.
The point of a basic guaranteed income is that you get the income unconditionally, even without working. So what tomp is alluding out is emphatically not a basic income
When women primarily work part time and (by implication) men full
time, you still have a sex-based division of labour. It's just less
extreme than in the olden days, where men did all the work and women
sat around and raise children.
Two earners is a strategy to pick up slack, but it drives down pay over time.
The only way to sustain a "one worker per household" system is to have some kind of force preventing more than one worker per household- be it social, legal, or otherwise. Without that, some folks will try to get ahead, and we will wind up right back where we are.
In short, it just doesn't seem to be something we can have a mix of. Either everyone has one worker per household, or everyone has two (or more).
The only way to sustain a "one worker per household" system is to have some kind of force preventing more than one worker per household- be it social, legal, or otherwise. Without that, some folks will try to get ahead, and we will wind up right back where we are.
In short, it just doesn't seem to be something we can have a mix of. Either everyone has one worker per household, or everyone has two (or more).
I also suspect one worker per household might well be the best long term choice! However I don't really know how to implement that effectively without sexism or some other discrimination.
One of the upsides to the old gender roles is it enabled heavy specialization. Men studied business, women studied domestic work. Without those roles, you either have to gamble on one of the two studies, or learn both and in the process sacrifice specialization.
One of the upsides to the old gender roles is it enabled heavy specialization. Men studied business, women studied domestic work. Without those roles, you either have to gamble on one of the two studies, or learn both and in the process sacrifice specialization.
[deleted]
In Mississippi and South Carolina, $40k per year is an extremely solid living.
Yeah, and those entry level jobs require training and certification that the company doesn't provide. Guess who pay for you to learn how to operate a CNC lathe?
I have met a handful of craftsmen willing to provide training for the right workers (as in, the ones that seem promising and likely to stay a while)
Also community college costs have stayed pretty darn reasonable amidst the inflating costs of four-year degrees.
Also community college costs have stayed pretty darn reasonable amidst the inflating costs of four-year degrees.
Yeah, that's true but with caveats: one being "a handful of craftsmen," the other being limited access to those community colleges. This is especially true in states that are slashing public spending on education. My point was that these types of jobs offered on site training 20 years ago, and now they don't, shifting the costs to prospective employees.
[deleted]
Um, in much of the south 40k is decent money. I moved into my first house and got by fine on 35k just a few years back.