The Charlotte Observer published an op-ed in last
Sunday’s edition entitled, Addressing the Problems of the Modern-Day ‘Okies.’ Clark G. Ross, a professor of economics at
Davidson College, presented a clever dichotomy of democratic vs. republican
economic policies by contrasting the travails of Steinbeck’s Joad family in The
Grapes of Wrath with today's displaced working-class.
Once again, we have an academic extolling moral
equivalency as a means to mitigate the corrupt and self-serving policies of the
Democratic Party. If this sounds
partisan, so be it. I for one will not
mince words. Trade policies such as
NAFTA and GATT directly contributed to the demise of the textile and furniture
industry in the Carolinas along with taxation and regulatory mandates from
overzealous bureaucrats in Washington D.C.
How can any country compete with a third world hellhole when the rules
are lopsided?
Here is an excerpt from Mr. Ross’s op-ed:
As we listen in July
2016 to the national political conventions at which the powerless are courted
by both Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton, I ask myself whether either candidate
really has a message of hope for the Joads of 2016. For we have such people
today, they just do not come from small, formerly sharecropped farms. Where do
they come from?
Some had been coal
miners in West Virginia. From environmental regulations to attractive and
competitive energy alternatives to public unease with coal, that industry has
lost significant production and employment. The former textile workers of
central and eastern North Carolina, as well as those in South Carolina face
bleak job prospects. Imported textile items dominate our markets. The producers
of steel and autos of the mid-west or Rust Belt also face challenges from
imports. To the three examples mentioned above, others can be added. What are
these workers to do? The Joads at least had the illusory promise of migrating
westward, hoping to find a better economic life. Today’s “displaced migrants”
have fewer options. There is always the overcrowded service sector, that
unskilled labor market, where wages are pushed down, by the same competitive
pressures that Steinbeck showed lowering the wage rate for fruit and vegetable
pickers. Ironically, activity in this market has contributed to a very low rate
of unemployment with a high rate of part-time, low-wage jobs.
What do we tell these
workers, the “Okies” of today? Ironically, in this election, it is the
Democrats who are essentially arguing the merits of free trade. Their answer
for today’s displaced workers is that we no longer have “comparative advantage”
in your field. How helpful is this? Does articulating this economic principle
and reality generate new jobs for them? The Trump Republicans are saying that
the government with poorly negotiated trade deals exploited them, as hapless
workers. With better trade protections, we will recreate these jobs. And, with
the Trump immigration policies, Mexicans will not steal them, they say. Are
these the same type of misleading offers like the 1930s handbills, promising
good jobs and high wages?
Every one of these
assaults on industry is the result of Democratic Party policies. The attack on coal is an Obama policy. And believe me, there is nothing attractive,
or competitive about solar and wind energy. It's not even sustainable.
NAFTA and GATT were
results of the Clinton administration. The
only bipartisan policy is illegal aliens stealing jobs from American
citizens. And believe me, these people
are not picking vegetables and fruit from farms. They are in the trades.
The only misleading handbills being promulgated are Democrats promising they’re looking out after the middle-class. Only a fool would believe that.
One must wonder, what is
the intent of this article? What is this
exercise in economic moral equivalency all about? It can be summarized in this one paragraph:
The
remedy for their cause and their plight may first need the 21 century
equivalent of a compassionate and gifted individual who can articulate the
depth of their challenge. Then a true bipartisan consensus, formed out of good
will and without the anchor of political expediency needs to formulate
effective policies. Such policies must recognize that the current beneficiaries
of our societal changes must share some of the gain with those upon whose
shoulders our past affluence was built.
Well,
if that is the case, the current beneficiaries of our societal changes are the politicians,
federal bureaucrats and the crony capitalist in Washington D.C. who has built castles upon the sands of our Dust Bowl.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment