“Pity me that the heart is slow to learn / What the swift mind beholds at every turn.”
– Edna St. Vincent Millay
The Sunday, February 24th edition of the Dayton Daily News ran an article entitled “Slumping economy is on the minds of these voters” making the argument that the state of the Ohio economy will be a significant decision maker for Ohio voters in both the primary and the general election. No doubt the economy is on the minds of these voters, and it is sad to realize that they put so much stock into the promises of a person who can do virtually nothing to change Ohio’s economy in the short term or, perhaps, even in the long term.
Ohio’s economic problem is not presidential policy so much as it is an ongoing reliance on old economy income sources in a new economy world. Ohio relies heavily on low-tech manufacturing for many of its jobs, and many Ohio politicians, unions, and workers claim that it is the export of those kinds of jobs from Ohio that has had such a dramatic effect on Ohio’s economy. From their view, a president who promises to prevent the export of such jobs cannot help but benefit Ohio.
And a president can put into place policies that prevent companies from exporting manufacturing jobs, but preventing those jobs from leaving will not make Americans buy domestically produced products. The problem with low-tech manufacturing is not one of retaining the jobs, but of producing products consumers will buy, and American low-tech manufacturing, to a great degree, is not doing that.
There are two pieces to this production problem for Ohio:
First, American low-tech manufacturing has far too high of a cost to profit ratio. Significant portions of that cost are related to wages. Frankly, in order for American companies to pay manufacturing workers what they are willing to work for, it then requires the companies to charge far more for their products than many Americans are willing to spend. Without demand, there is no need for supply, and that is a lesson that Ohio is in the painful midst of learning, as an example in domestic auto industry.
Second, American low-tech manufacturing has not embraced the developing high-tech economy. Frankly, the days of being able to graduate from high school and find a factory job that can be worked for thirty years until retirement are dwindling. The modern economy requires a higher degree of education and specialization than ever before, and low-tech manufacturing simply does not make that cut. Further, the modern economy is not one where people stay with one job, even one career, for the entirety of their working lives. As a result, continuing education and the ability to adapt to the demands of modern job availability are a must.
If Ohio needs any kind of president, then, it is a president who will invest in retooling education, taxation, and opportunities so that Ohioans can adapt to the economy that exists rather than the economy they wish would come back. Of course, that presumes that the president can affect those things either. Even better, Ohioans should invest in those things themselves, whatever the president thinks or tries to do.
Certainly, the economy is on Ohioans’ minds as they go to vote, and it is unfortunate that so many voters plan to vote for a panacea rather than a solution. Until Ohioans realize that the solution to Ohio’s economic woes lie with them, they can vote for whoever they want, the economy will remain the same.
Cross-posted at A Host of Contributing Factors
Thank you for your interesting point of view.
In your final paragraph where you state that ‘Until Ohioans realize that the solution to Ohio’s economic woes lie with them, they can vote for whoever they want, the economy will remain the same.’ you seem to be saying that the government that has been elected to serve these people, the government of the ‘most powerful country on earth’, has deliberately shafted them for the benefit of the economic elite, and that they are on their own. Sink or swim.
Are you familiar at all with the age of tariff’s, and in how they were used to protect domestic industry?
Of course the tarriff scheme was also designed to allow the rich to get richer, but it had the accidental benefit of creating and maintaining a middle-class.
Unfortunately for these working stiffs, once the domestic market had become saturated and the elite had maximized their take, it was time to change the rules so that they could do the same again, but this time on a global scale.
For many, if not most Americans, this translates into less than living wages, limited or no access to health care, educational opportunities that are not affordable, no employment security and no retirement security.
Adding insult to injury, we now have ‘public servants’ calling for the elimination of corporate income taxes!
Hell, let’s give it all to the haves, while I work until I’m 70 so that I can pay taxes to build missles to protect their interests!
USA! USA! USA!
Steven, I will be the first to admit that I am weak on tariffs and international trade policy issues, however I fail to see how protecting jobs that are going away because, as you pointed out, Americans can’t afford to buy.
So let’s pretend like we do tariff the kinds of jobs Ohio is losing and simultaneously tax the rich until they aren’t anymore. As wages continue to increase and the profitability of products continues to decline, eventually those jobs are going to go away anyway.
Then what?
When cars cost $30,000 instead of $20,000, gas is $4/gallon instead of $3, small business has ceased to exist because we taxed entrepreneurs out of business, and there are no more rich to pay for our healthcare, then what?
Sure, we saved manufacturing jobs, but we saved them to make products people can’t afford to buy anyway, and since we tariffed the products they could afford to buy, now they’re left with no jobs and no stuff.
My suggestion is not a radical one. What I suggest is that Ohio invest in the future rather than the past. Low-tech manufacturing is a dead end in an information economy. Instead of trying to protect those jobs, Ohio should be investing in the kinds of jobs that will weather this century, and that investment should continue as long as the demands of the market change.
We can make that kind of investment now, or we can make it later for a far greater cost.
-=DLH=-
Pingback: Worldview - Blog Archive » 10:20 PM- Locally, Sinclair levy seems to be winning handily.