Trade deal

I don’t know any more about this Pacific trade deal than you do. I read the views in the paper and I read comments accompanying them. 

Most opponents worry about lost US jobs, mostly manufacturing jobs. Jobs lost to cheaper labor in Asia. No doubt that has occurred and might continue to occur or accelerate. On the other hand, Americans have enjoyed the low cost of production on everything from iPhones to TVs and clothes. We simply wouldn’t have what we do if it were not for global competition on many goods. 

Can we protect certain American jobs by not participating in the global economy? Should we trade, but not be in control or have a seat at the table?

I don’t know what’s in the trade deal, but I know this is a different world and America and its workers and its unions must adapt or lose out. This is not unlike health care. The cost of services determines premiums. In this case the cost of production determines consumer prices. 

It seems to me the key is not trying to protect old jobs and old ways, but to create new types of jobs and to maximize technology in the process. 

I recently toured the John D Rockefeller estate in Sleepy Hollow New York ( by the way, in today’s dollars John was worth $340 billion – talk about inequality). At the estate his barn, more like a mansion in its own, displayed in date order Rockefeller’s vehicles starting with buggies from the late 1800s to a Cadillac from the 1930s.  

That transition made it quite clear how things change, how some jobs disappear and others are created. Did the buggy maker become an auto mechanic, the stable boy a chauffeur? Even the horses had a changing role from hard work to riding for pleasure. 

Protecting what we have just seems less important than creating what we need for a prosperous future. Making that transition is the key. Let’s hope our leaders know what they are doing.