Blog Post

Manufacturing in the US: Will Trump’s strategy repatriate highly-paid jobs?

Trump has set out a plan to repatriate highly-paid manufacturing jobs to the US. But the idea that manufacturing jobs are better paid than service roles is a myth. Moreover, labour markets are slow to shift between sectors. An aggressive trade policy may create some jobs in manufacturing but will not be a benefit to US citizens in general.

By: and Date: January 6, 2017 Topic: Global economy and trade

Incoming US president Donald Trump has been running on a political ticket to re-negotiate trade deals. He has been promising “fairer” deals that would reduce US trade deficits and preserve well-paid manufacturing jobs.

Two of Trump’s closest advisors, Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross, will hold key positions in the new administration. They spelled out their economic policy vision in a document published on September 29 on Trump’s website, entitled “Scoring the Trump economic plan: trade, regulatory, & energy policy impacts”. Much has been said about this document already. Former US treasury secretary Larry Summers has called it “ well beyond Voodoo economics”.

One of the central claims in the paper is that trade deals have allowed companies to relocate factories away from the US, thereby leaving “Mr and Ms America …back home without high-paying jobs” (p 4). The basic contention is that “bad” trade deals lead to trade deficits, which in turn reduce the size of the manufacturing sector and leave US workers only with lower-paid service sector jobs. The authors explicitly claim that “service sector jobs tend to be of lower pay” (p9).

For wonks: if a sector has higher productivity growth and preferences are normal, a simple model shows that the share of that sector in the economy’s total employment will fall. This is also the reason why employment in agricultural sector has fallen so dramatically.

It is true that in a simple economic model with a tradable sector, call it manufacturing, and a non-tradable sector, call it services, a higher trade deficit will tend to mean less domestic manufacturing and more service sector employment (see this short graphical analysis by Paul Krugman). Of course, technological progress has been a major driver of losses in manufacturing jobs in the US and elsewhere. Nevertheless, there is truth in the claim that trade policy affects the number of jobs in manufacturing.

But is it really true that service sector jobs are worse paid than manufacturing jobs?

In figures 1a and b, I show the evolution of average hourly earnings in the US. The difference between the two has been falling substantially and is now at less than 80 cents per hour, that is about 3% – a rather small difference. When one takes out supervisory roles (see figure 1b) and focuses on just the “ordinary” worker/service provider, then the difference actually becomes negative and service sector jobs are better paid on average than manufacturing jobs. By about 80 cents an hour.

Figure 1a – Average hourly earnings, Dollars per hour, all employees

Note: Monthly, Seasonally Adjusted – All Employees

Source: FRED.

fig1a

Figure 1b – average hourly earnings, Dollars per hour, production and non-supervisory employees

Note: Monthly, Seasonally Adjusted – Production and Nonsupervisory Employees

Source: FRED.

fig1b

Figure 2 compares hourly earnings in different sectors of the US economy. The traditional manufacturing sector does not rank among the most highly paying sectors.

Figure 2 – average hourly earnings of production and non-supervisory employees by sector in November 2016, Dollars per hour, seasonally adjusted

Source: FRED.

fig2

For wonks, the Balassa Samuelson theorem starts from this assumption to explain why more developed countries tend to have higher price levels.

To an economist, these results are hardly surprising. In an integrated labour market, economic theory would predict a certain convergence in wage levels across sectors to the extent that employees will tend to move to sectors with higher compensation, thereby contributing to wage level convergence.

So what effect would a systematic policy forcing companies to repatriate their factories to the US have?

What would happen if manufacturing companies followed the example of Ford and brought their production back to the US? There are two potential scenarios:

  1. If the US were not to impose tariffs on foreign competitors, American consumers would quickly shift to buying Volkswagens built in Mexico rather than Fords built in the US. This would be inevitable, because the price of Fords produced at American wage levels would be higher than those of Volkswagens produced at Mexican wage levels. Ford might then soon have to scale back production significantly, leading to job losses.
  1. Of course, the incoming President could decide to increase tariffs to protect American production. This is, in fact, what Trump’s recent Tweet regarding Toyota Motor suggests will be his future policy. In that case, American consumers would have no choice but to buy more expensive American-produced cars and bear the additional cost. In turn, they would tend to suppress their consumption of American services. Wage levels in the manufacturing sector could rise but that would only attract more people to move into these sectors, possibly eliminating the wage advantages again. The bottom line would be less consumption overall and reduced welfare as the US foregoes the benefits of specialisation that trade brings.

This analysis does not even consider possible retaliation measures by trading partners that may penalise products exported from the US, which could have negative impacts on the US manufacturing base.

What is more, there is an important political economy dimension to all of this: workers cannot move from one sector to another without difficulty. To a worker that has lost their manufacturing job in Detroit, a trade policy aimed at bringing back manufacturing jobs is good news. But if others in services lose their jobs, they do not stand to benefit.

Not only is it simply wrong to claim that any manufacturing jobs gained through a more aggressive trade policy would definitely offer higher salaries than the service sector jobs lost, as the data above clearly shows. It is also not the case that displaced service workers would simply be able to take up any additional manufacturing jobs instantly. A server cannot leave the restaurant on Friday and start to build cars on Monday.

A more sophisticated argument is that the speed with which economies were opened to major players like China may have been too fast. A recent paper by Autor et al points out that trade induces rapid change to which labour markets cannot easily adjust. Opening up too quickly to trade with competitive partners like China may therefore not be an optimal strategy. But it is still hard to see how putting up barriers after the fact would be a winning policy for Trump’s America.

So, on the whole, Trump’s strategy looks like a losing proposition – contrary to his advisors’ claims. It might mean more manufacturing jobs, so long as partners do not engage in a trade war, but those jobs would not actually be better paid and service-sector Americans would struggle to take them up anyway.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

Three data realms: Managing the divergence between the EU, the US and China in the digital sphere

Major economies are addressing the challenges brought by digital trade in different ways, resulting in diverging regulatory regimes. How should we view these divergences and best deal with them?

Speakers: Susan Ariel Aaronson, Henry Gao, Esa Kaunistola and Niclas Poitiers Topic: Digital economy and innovation, Global economy and trade Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: May 19, 2022
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

Global trade Down Under

A conversation on the global trading landscape.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global economy and trade Date: May 4, 2022
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

From viruses to wars: recent disruptions to global trade and value chains

How have events in recent years impacted global trade and value chains and how can we strengthen these against future disruptions?

Speakers: Dalia Marin, Adil Mohommad and André Sapir Topic: Global economy and trade Date: April 27, 2022
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

The decoupling of Russia: European vulnerabilities in the high-tech sector

Although Russia bears the brunt of Western high-tech sanctions, the European Union will face challenges in sectors where it relies on Russian and Ukrainian commodities and technologies.

By: Monika Grzegorczyk, J. Scott Marcus, Niclas Poitiers and Pauline Weil Topic: Global economy and trade Date: April 12, 2022
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

The impact of the war in Ukraine on food security

Global food production will be sufficient to feed the global population this year. But export bans, high prices and increasing transport cost might prevent vulnerable countries from procuring sufficient food supplies. Measures to ensure global access to scarcer food supplies and to boost grain production are warranted.

By: Pauline Weil and Georg Zachmann Topic: Global economy and trade Date: March 21, 2022
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

China’s economic support for Russia is not a panacea

The EU is still Russia’s largest trading partner, actually several times bigger than China.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global economy and trade Date: February 28, 2022
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Global chip shortage may soon turn into an oversupply crisis

Only companies investing in advanced semiconductors will see their margins increase.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global economy and trade Date: February 25, 2022
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author
 

Policy Contribution

Is the post-war trading system ending?

This policy contribution assesses how the trading system has changed over the last five years – roughly coinciding with the start of the Trump administration and one year of President Biden – and sets out scenarios for how the situation might evolve.

By: Uri Dadush Topic: Global economy and trade Date: February 21, 2022
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

EU-India relations in a post-COVID world

Closed door event for a selection of experts on India and the EU to discuss the state and future of EU-India relations.

Speakers: Yamini Aiyar, Vinita Bali, François Godement, Sébastien Jean, Mohan Kumar, Silvia Piana, Shyam Saran and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global economy and trade Date: February 15, 2022
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Towards an inventory of corporate subsidies by China, the EU and the USA

In this event, panellists discussed corporate subsidies by China, the European Union and the United States.

Speakers: Simon J. Evenett, Denis Redonnet, André Sapir and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Global economy and trade Date: February 2, 2022
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Podcast

Podcast

Understanding Japan’s economic relations with China

What can Europe learn?

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global economy and trade Date: January 12, 2022
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

How an open climate club can generate carbon dividends for the poor

The German-led G7 can accelerate decarbonisation while tackling climate justice.

By: Andreas Goldthau and Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Green economy Date: January 11, 2022
Load more posts