The American backlash to trade is in large part the story of a broken political promise.
For decades, policymakers have grasped that public support for trade was fragile. The benefits were obvious — economic growth, export opportunities for American companies and lower-priced goods for consumers. But workers in factories were certain to lose their jobs when they were pitted against overseas competitors. This was especially true as trade expanded with lower-wage countries like Mexico and China.
Among labor economists, trade unions, businesses and Democratic and Republican politicians, a consensus took shape that a form of insurance was required to cushion communities threatened by job losses. Otherwise, public anger would build. Faith in trade would be undermined.
In 1954, when the United States was still exporting far more than it imported, the president of the United Steelworkers union had looked ahead to imagine a time when jobs would be threatened by cheaper goods from abroad.
He proposed a small tariff — not as a form of protectionism, but to provide a reliable source of finance for expanded unemployment benefits, job training and cash to help people move to places where jobs were more plentiful.
Business leaders came to support the idea as a way to prevent labor strife while gaining the benefit of greater skills within the work force.
The post Workers Who Lost Jobs to Trade Needed Help. Washington Cut the Funding. appeared first on New York Times.
