George Will writes today (well, today in the Chicago Tribune, yesterday in the Washington Post) about the housing situation, and this conservative of conservatives points out that the decline in house prices helps some people, the young couple trying to buy their first home, as much as it hurts others. Will is a little late to the party on this one, as quite a few commentators of all stripes have been pointing this out for some time (for one post by one writer, see Dean Baker here).
Will makes an odd offhand connection to global warming in his column, but goes on to say:
But stable jobs accomplish the same goals. Everything you can say about home ownership you can apply equally to the stability of careers. I live in a Chicago suburb that appeared, some years ago, to be on the verge of becoming a major technical center (I wrote about that failure about a week ago). The number of people who were enticed to come to Naperville are now finding that the jobs are elsewhere, so they're left either to move again or to endure lengthy commutes. Either way, these people aren't able to contribute fully to the vitality of the community.
Yet, if you were to suggest to George Will that we do something to encourage stability of jobs, through tax inducements or anti-offshoring legislation, he would be the first to cry about the sanctity of the free market, or the evils of corporate welfare.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of massive tax breaks to get companies to retain jobs (especially since it seems those agreements are invariably written in the corporation's favor), I'm just saying the philosophy is inconsistent. If we are to enact legislation to "mitigate bad consequences" for the innocent, as Will contends, then we need to be willing to consider similar legislation in the job market.
Will makes an odd offhand connection to global warming in his column, but goes on to say:
Homeownership is, up to a point, a barometer of social health: Ownership deepens an individual's sense of having a stake in the health of the neighborhood and the larger community.This statement is pretty much indisputable, though I think there is a small trend running counter to this: When homeowners start to flip and serially move up and use equity as a springboard to further investment, they're probably not making much of a commitment to the community. But that's a minority, as most people move somewhere to make a life, get their kids in the schools, and put down roots. Clearly, the encouraging of ownership through favorable tax treatment and easy mortgages helps with that (whatever negatives may accompany those policies).
But stable jobs accomplish the same goals. Everything you can say about home ownership you can apply equally to the stability of careers. I live in a Chicago suburb that appeared, some years ago, to be on the verge of becoming a major technical center (I wrote about that failure about a week ago). The number of people who were enticed to come to Naperville are now finding that the jobs are elsewhere, so they're left either to move again or to endure lengthy commutes. Either way, these people aren't able to contribute fully to the vitality of the community.
Yet, if you were to suggest to George Will that we do something to encourage stability of jobs, through tax inducements or anti-offshoring legislation, he would be the first to cry about the sanctity of the free market, or the evils of corporate welfare.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of massive tax breaks to get companies to retain jobs (especially since it seems those agreements are invariably written in the corporation's favor), I'm just saying the philosophy is inconsistent. If we are to enact legislation to "mitigate bad consequences" for the innocent, as Will contends, then we need to be willing to consider similar legislation in the job market.
1 comment:
I'm really surprised at the number of free market cheerleaders who seem to feel, when pressed, that our economy would be better served if we all travelled around in gypsy caravans from one bubble industry hotspot to another. While doing family history research, I was struck with how often farm families (and until fairly recently we had a lot more farm families in our country) had to pull up stakes and move after crop failures. Many of our ancestors left the Old World for a better life in the U.S. However, the reason for the movement was a search for stability. People moved in the hopes they'd be able to find a community to put down roots. I don't know of any time, outside of when we were hunter-gatherers, where it was seen as desirable to routinely have to pull up stakes and move off for better opportunities. A vast over-simplification of the reason why cities were first founded, is, people got tired of moving around from place to place.
As far as Naperville and other similar cities, I'm always struck by the chicken-and-the-egg analogy. Companies say they won't move to a certain area because the workforce doesn't have the right skills. The population won't train themselves in the desired skills, or move to that particular area, because there is no work available. I think it's best when certain business regions spring up organically, like the steel industry in Pittsburgh, the automotive industry in Detroit, Silicon Valley in California, etc. When policies are crafted to destroy a certain industry, they, in effect also seem to destroy a certain region as well.
I can't help but think that the booming regions of the country had better enjoy things while they can. There will always be the pressure to cut costs, and the only alternative will be to move even more businesses and industries overseas.
Post a Comment