The China factor while real hides US multinational activity. As early as the late 1960s US companies were finding lower wage sites through foreign direct investment. Capital mobility or the rise in the structural power of capital has been responsible to a great extent for this state of affairs. The rise in productivity (and the loss in jobs often dismissed by many as a Luddite myth) is consistent with this rise. Capitalist development in China is also a consistent narrative in this overall development of global capitalism. Free trade is only a small part of the story. US FDI in China is export-intensive and the returns to US capitalists high through Chinese productivity growth.
Anthony xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anthony P. D'Costa, Chair & Professor of Contemporary Indian Studies Australia India Institute and School of Social & Political Sciences University of Melbourne, 147-149 Barry Street, Carlton VIC 3053, AUSTRALIA Ph: +61 3 9035 6161 Visit the Australia India Institute Website http://www.aii.unimelb.edu.au/ Conference: http://idsk.edu.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Instruments-of-Intervention_prog_abstract_final.pdf New: After-Development Dynamics (on South Korea) http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198729433.do Forthcoming Book: http://www.tandf.net/books/details/9780415564953/ New Book Series (Dynamics of Asian Development) http://www.springer.com/series/13342 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent from my iPad > On Mar 25, 2016, at 04:59, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > > It’s understandable that voters are angry about trade. The U.S. has lost > more than 4.5 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA took effect in > 1994. And as Eduardo Porter wrote this week, there’s mounting evidence > that U.S. trade policy, particularly with China, has caused lasting harm > to many American workers. But rather than play to that anger, candidates > ought to be talking about ways to ensure that the service sector can > fill manufacturing’s former role as a provider of dependable, > decent-paying jobs. > > Here’s the problem: Whether or not those manufacturing jobs could have > been saved, they aren’t coming back, at least not most of them. How do > we know? Because in recent years, factories have been coming back, but > the jobs haven’t. Because of rising wages in China, the need for shorter > supply chains and other factors, a small but growing group of companies > are shifting production back to the U.S. But the factories they build > here are heavily automated, employing a small fraction of the workers > they would have a generation ago. > > full: > https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/ > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
