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: Date: January 6, 2017 Global Economics & Governance Tags & Topics

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.

View comments
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Jan
24
12:30

The future of EU trade policy

We are happy to welcome the European Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström to Bruegel on 24 January to talk about the future of the EU's trade policy.

Speakers: David Bremmer, Cecilia Malmström and André Sapir Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

dsc_0809
dsc_1000

The impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland: a first look

Following the proposal from the Scottish Government that Scotland remain in the Single Market, the differing “Brexpectations” of the UK’s four constituent countries are once again back in the news. Scotland is getting a lot of attention in the Brexit debate, but Northern Ireland is an equally interesting case.

By: Filippo Biondi and Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 22, 2016
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Alicia García-Herrero
DSC_0160

UK-China agreement on trade in services is no substitute for a UK-EU deal

The UK government has high hopes that new trade deals with non-EU states will offer an economic boost after Brexit. But how likely is this to materialise? The authors show that a FTA with China is unlikely to offer much to the UK's prominent services sector. Strong links with the EU will remain vital.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Jianwei Xu Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 6, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Trumpocalypse now: first reactions

What’s at stake: this question should probably be re-formulated as “what’s NOT at stake?” On Tuesday 8 November, the US elected Donald Trump as its next President. Several aspects of Trump’s political and economic agenda appear extreme (we have previously focused on his stance on trade). After the initial shock, we review economists’ opinions on what has happened and what may happen. We will be coming back to this topic regularly.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 21, 2016
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Alicia García-Herrero
DSC_0160

Trump could give new impetus to EU-China relations

It is too early to say what the Trump administration’s trade policy will look like – but a total cut-off from Asian partners is unlikely. It would harm the US economy, and offer China even more scope to cement its position in Asia. Nevertheless, with TPP and TTIP both looking unlikely, the EU should move fast to build relationships with China and ASEAN countries.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Jianwei Xu Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 15, 2016
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

DSC_0794

Trump, NATO and European defence spending

US President-Elect Donald Trump made critical statements about low European defence spending during the election campaign - signaling an expectation that Europe should contribute more to the cost of its security. Indeed, most European NATO members have spending well below the 2% target that NATO membership entails. Reaching this target could cost the EU27 NATO members 96 billion USD per year.

By: Justine Feliu Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: November 15, 2016
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Zsolt Darvas
DSC_0798

Income inequality boosted Trump vote

Our early econometric analysis shows that Donald Trump performed more strongly in states with higher income inequality. He also did better in states with a higher share of less-educated, older, US-born and non-Hispanic voters.

By: Zsolt Darvas and Konstantinos Efstathiou Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 9, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Simone Tagliapietra

President Trump: what next for global climate action?

The new Trump presidency might now signal a U-turn in the United States’ international climate policies.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Energy & Climate Date: November 9, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

Monetary policy at the time of elections

What’s at stake: At this week’s meeting, the Federal Reserve left interest rates unchanged. While this was largely expected, the economic blogosphere has been discussing whether and to what extent this is linked to the election, and what can be expected for the future.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 7, 2016
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Silvia Merler

The Wallonian Resistance

What's at stake: this week has been filled with news that the he small Belgian region of Wallonia intended to veto CETA (the Canada-EU trade agreement). Eventually, Wallonia conceded defeat and agreed to let the agreement go on. But meanwhile, it spurred a debate on trade agreements and their sovereignty implications, which we summarise here.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: October 31, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Uuriintuya Batsaikhan

Maple syrup on Belgian waffles: EU-Canada trade

Wallonia recently voted against the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), which aims to eliminate 98% of tariffs between Canada and EU. While the ratification is currently on hold, we take a look at the figures for EU-Canada trade.

By: Uuriintuya Batsaikhan Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 20, 2016
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

pc-18-16

What consequences would a post-Brexit China-UK trade deal have for the EU?

A China-UK free trade agreement has been extensively discussed since the UK’s vote for Brexit. Many supporters of Brexit argue that the UK’s regained flexibility to strike trade deals with other partners, and in particular with China given its economic size, will be a key advantage. This analysis indicates that a China-UK FTA will be neither as easy nor as clearly advantageous as portrayed by Brexit supporters.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Jianwei Xu Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 7, 2016
Load more posts