The Great Retraining Lie
Right now, there is a bill moving through Congress to expand the so-called Trade Adjustment Assistant program (TAA), a program that I have found distasteful from its inception. Basically, the concept is this: if you lose your job because of trade, the government will spend money to retrain you. Rep. Charles Rangel is pushing a bill (approved last week by the House Ways and Means Committee) that would expand TAA to cover workers in services industries and allow the government to certify entire industries as eligible for TAA money (right now, the certification is done company by company); Sen. Max Baucus is working on a companion Senate version of Rangel’s proposal.
I am going to give both Rangel (my very own congressman) and Baucus the benefit of the doubt—I’m going to believe that they sincerely think that what they are doing is a good thing. On its face, the idea of being trained can seem like a wonderful thing. But, Rangle and Baucus are sadly misguided and they are, intentionally or not, reinforcing a brutal economic model.
When we accept the idea of retraining workers, we accept the framework of discussion about the economic system that is being imposed on workers here and abroad. Boiled down to its basics, it goes something like this: "globalization" is inevitable so just get over it. There will be pain for some because that is the cost of progress. To ease that pain, we will throw some money at the "problem" of displaced workers.
Typically, I find that the people most in favor of the concept of retraining are those people who think they are never going to lose a job to so-called "free trade." That would be our elected officials, pundits, and a whole lot of economists. A whole lot of other folks buy the idea that this is a fair deal—without understanding both the realities for the people who are losing jobs and, frankly, that so-called "free trade" is driving down wages even for those people whose jobs are not directly tied to international trade.
The first task is to paint a real picture of life after losing a job. Louis Uchitelle recently observed this:
Across America, more than 30 million people have been forced out of jobs since the early 1980s, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports, and regaining lost incomes has not been easy. Nearly 50 million new jobs have been created over that same period, according to the bureau, so there are always new opportunities but more often than not at lower pay. Among those who have lost work, only a third held new jobs two years later that paid as well as those that were lost, according to the bureau’s surveys of displaced workers. Another third of those displaced were in jobs that paid, on average, 15 to 20 percent less than their previous employment — while the final third had dropped out of the labor force entirely.
So, the truth is the vast majority of people who lose jobs never get the same income back—retraining or not.
The retraining scam, which has irked me for many years, fits very nicely into the larger frame that I’ve ranted about for way too long (here is one example): the idea that we can accept the great economic model represented by so-called "free trade" because if we just get educated, we will also fit quite nicely into the brave new world.
The problem with education, and the subset called "retraining," is that the global economy is based not on competition over skills but competition based on wages. No matter how smart you think you are—and, by the way, those people who say we have the smartest workers in the world should pay attention to the racist sentiments inherent in that idea—there will always be someone who will do your work for less if there is no minimum standard. So, education, which in the abstract is nice, is the wrong answer to the question of how people will have any kind of economic stability.
The second task is to ask: Why is this push for expanded TAA happening now? The people who have been pushing so-called "free trade" understand that their economic model is on the ropes. The pending so-called "free trade" deals with Colombia and South Korea are going nowhere, and the proposed agreements with Peru and Panama are also encountering opposition. Even the majority of Republican are opposed to so-called "free trade." In an October 15th piece on Rangel’s proposal, The Wall Street Journal wrote that:
The lawmaker’s approach is based on the idea that the best way to bolster support for free trade is by dealing head-on with some of the anxieties it creates among American workers and industries.
Indeed, the deal on TAA was expected to be a trade-off with the Bush Administration—Democrats would support so-called "free trade" agreements and, in exchange, the TAA would be expanded. By the way, the OMB is now recommending that the president veto the House TAA bill because the Administration opposes expanding the program’s reach.
The third task, I believe, is to ask: why should we accept this frame? Why should we accede to the notion that we accept a brutal economic system that requires millions of people to be "retrained"—which is, at the very least, given the circumstances of the retraining, a humiliating and degrading experience. The very words of the program mask its implications: people are being "assisted" so that they can "adjust" to the new, brave world.
This is not inevitable. The entire debate over trade is simply about setting the rules, the terms of engagement over how trade should take place. These rules are not like the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Workers should not have to accept the notion that massive job losses and a hammering down of wages is a natural consequence of "globalization."
And Democrats should stop enabling the imposition of an economic system by throwing a few bones to workers. Rather than try to ease workers’ "anxieties" (as if this is some condition that should be treated with some Prozac) and retrain them like zoo animals, we need Democrats to put a halt to a vicious economic model that is doing grave harm to workers here and abroad.
Comments
I've lost a job and was eligible for TAA
Re: I've lost a job and was eligible for TAA
The issue is not trade versus no trade. It is what kind of trade we will have, which is simply a subset of what kind of world we want. The current system allows, actually encourages multinationals to move their operations to where ever the lowest wages, envrionmental standards and working conditions are. They lower production costs and then sell the "cheaper" goods through Wal Mart and other mass marketers in this country. You can not seriously think that Guatamalan or rural Chinese laborers working for $1.50 per day can but the products that will be sold in the newly opened markets.
Mexican workers are strugglilng to keep up with the price of tortillas. (Subsidized US corn from Archer Daniels Midland et al has driven Mexican peasants off the land, and now the price is up.) Are they going to buy whatever new products Americans create to selll?
The solution is to make trade agreements that have what NAFTA was supposed to and does not: protections for workers to get a living wage and decent working conditions, and envrionmental standards. This is still possible if one has the desire.
Re: I've lost a job and was eligible for TAA
Brian, I can not believe you have bought into the lie that Americans are making products to sell to the newly enriched day laborers in foreign countries, that these laborers actually have sufficient capital to buy American made products, and that this was not a set up to make it very easy for multinational corporations to exploit labor outside the US, while selling poorly made and cheap products back to America.
I have suggested on this site in the past that anyone wishing to discuss America's trade record with other countries (excluding Europe), should, as a prerequisite read: Confessions of an Economic Hitman. This book will give you a fabulous insight into the unscrupulous world of US trade policy in Africa, the Middle East and Central and South America. Once read, no one ever look at trade again from a naive, pie-in-the-sky position.
The key to all trade agreements is not only the language in the agreement, but the ability and willingness to enforce standards on the employers (US or otherwise) in the foreigh country. Some of the trade agreements have nice flowery language about labor standards and environmental standards, much like the highly touted and much ballyhooed EFCA, but unless there is an independent body with the skill, willingness and authority to enforce those provisions, it will continue to be exploitation 101.
In response to Jonathan's post about retraining, I think it is another case that clearly defines the hubris of this administration, in particular, and all the people inisde the beltline in general, that they will concoct ways to remove your job from underneath you, and then tell you it was your fault in that you just didn't have the right skills and knowledge to keep that job here in the US. Once employees fall for that line, the government will be able to sell you any type of snake oil they have on hand. It is plain and simple as to why your job was sent away - the greed of the upper management of your company to earn a few extra dollars exploiting people somewhere else, and the greed of the American consumer in demanding that they get their crap for the cheapest possible price.
retraining for what? a lesser position with less pay and less health coverage
In this particular case it was mostly because of labor strife. I have no brief for unions most of the time, but this one certainly wasn't all their fault. At any rate, it worked out fine for me (I got another job before I could use my TAA benefits) but not so great for the people who are delivering pizzas now.
I can and do believe that Americans are making products to sell in foreign countries. As a matter of fact exports are up 16% in the third quarter vs. last year. As far as making products for newly enriched day laborers, why not Americans? Americans (and Japanese) are better than anyone at wringing cost out of manufacturing operations; they have to be. No factory in America can just throw bodies at a manufacturing problem. They should be perfectly set up to make stuff that newly enriched laborers can afford. Anyway, I'm not sure what the alternative to this is. Either we train people to do jobs which the market values enough for them to make a good living, or we don't. I'll post some more thoughts about this on my blog -- http://www.briansaxton.org -- I would be pleased if you guys would stop by and comment.
Re:
Another View from "Educator"
late thoughts on retraining
Specifically, though, what type of retraining are we talking about and exactly how much and how often is one supposed to retrain? There are limitless vocational programs including everything from massage therapy, cooking, health assistance, jail guarding, mechanics, trades, cosmetology and a host of other entry-level work. Many of these positions are limited in market share, low paying and are extremely competitive. The best jobs in those fields require years of experience, and in the case of computing or web design, opportunities continue to be shipped to cheap labor countries glutted with well trained high-tech personnel. Having a degree or certificate is no longer a ticket to employment, let alone any sort of passport to economic security. More depends upon your social status and the school you attended. Unfortunately, not everyone graduates from Harvard with the ‘right’ type of degree currently in demand.
Except for a few job markets, specifically the medical and legal professions, fields that are not easily outsourceable and requiring large amounts of training and practical experience, we are coming to the hideous realization that most jobs in this post-modern, post-industrial era are easily dispensable. It’s not that Asians work harder or are more diligent than workers in industrialized western nations, as so many preachers of the business gospel would have us believe. It’s simply that people from poor nations will do whatever it takes to survive until they too can aspire to a better life as we once aspired.
Even with training, today’s displaced worker might not realistically qualify for jobs for which this complex, highly specialized, increasingly competitive economy operates. It takes more than a few months or even years of training to make someone fit for a job. It takes specific skill sets in addition to natural talents, aptitudes and personal abilities to enable a displaced employee to avail himself to ever newer, more sophisticated work situations. Of course, connections and knowing the ‘right’ kinds of people never hurt. And keep in mind that it’s a lot easier to reinvent yourself when you’re 25 compared to 45, the age at which our youth oriented business culture often sends its senior talent out to pasture.
The Brave New World analogy makes a lot of sense as the fickle economic winds and popular currents blow in new directions, making us necessary one moment and redundant the next. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota) points out in his hard-hitting book, Take this Job and Ship It, that when we find people in other parts of the world willing to do our jobs at less cost and personal freedoms, essentially we are engaged in a frantic race to the bottom where there are few winners and many losers. It amounts to a regressive flight from democracy to corporate oligarchy.
We accept this discomfiting economic paradigm quite simply because it’s difficult to imagine and implement a system that might ultimately provide a better way of life for average people, something for which unions and government fought long and hard. It’s also costly and fraught with risk, and right now Americans seem content to live on the cheap at someone else’s expense rather than striving to attain a social contract. Simply take your soma tablets and deal with it, we are told. Free trade is not a natural and immutable law unless society accepts it without question and does not aspire to something higher.
Globalization is not bad on all accounts, and in some cases has served as a force for democratization throughout much of the world. However, like democracy, it does not come without responsibility and the rule of law. It does not mean we allow markets to rule and do whatever big business damn well pleases. Capitalism is a force that, like anything else, requires restraint and balance lest it destroy us. Men are the masters of markets, not the other way around. Trade requires treaties and covenants designed by responsible governments, not ‘king of the hill, winner take all’ ethics designed by faceless corporations. We are higher than plants and animals and thus, our economic survival should not be prone to the same biological happenstance of natural selection.
Make no mistake about it, our consumer culture and the powers that be want us dumb, unthinking and in debt. As humans, we are certainly never finished learning and growing. However, there is a sharp distinction between the kind of learning that edifies the intellect and uplifts the spirit toward enlightened self knowledge and the type of endless vocational retraining and pre-packaged seminar pabulum puke that seeks to drain our wallets in the hope of a job that won’t be there for the long haul anyway.