ShareThis Page
Donald Boudreaux

Job churn cost of market economy

| Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
A restaurant sign indicates that business is hiring, in Miami.  (AP Photo | Alan Diaz)
A restaurant sign indicates that business is hiring, in Miami. (AP Photo | Alan Diaz)

Words do more than communicate factual information. Words also evoke attitudes, so we'd best be careful about the words we use.

An example is the phrase “unearned income.” Income from investments is labeled “unearned.” “Earned income” is reserved for earnings from labor. Yet, in fact, income from investments is no less earned than is income from labor. Each investor foregoes consumption today and exercises the judgment necessary to direct her savings into investments likely to yield income rather than result in losses. Like any worker, the investor makes a sacrifice to receive income. And this sacrifice creates wealth not only for herself, but also for others. Without savings and investment, there would be no resources to modernize factories or help young families purchase their first homes.

“Unearned income” is, without question, earned.

Another misleading phrase is “losers from trade.” Workers who lose jobs to imports are said to be trade's “losers.” This conclusion is erroneous. Here's why.

In a market economy, every job is at risk of being destroyed. Consider that soon after the polio vaccine's 1950s introduction, many Americans lost jobs making wheelchairs and crutches. These lost jobs had almost nothing to do with international trade, yet the individuals who lost these jobs were surely as distraught as are individuals who lose jobs to imports. There is, you see, nothing unique about jobs lost to international trade.

Indeed, in the U.S. today, roughly 1.7 million jobs are destroyed each month. Compare that to the total of U.S. jobs destroyed by increased trade with China between 1999 and 2011: 2.4 million. That's correct: In less than any ordinary two-month period in America, the total number of jobs destroyed is greater than the number of jobs destroyed by trade with China during the 21st century's entire first decade. If you wonder why we're not suffering massive unemployment, the reason is that, on average, slightly more than 1.7 million jobs are created each month.

Jobs are constantly being destroyed while others are created — a necessary feature of the market economy which generates our enormously high standard of living. Our widespread prosperity would be impossible without it.

Of course, those who lose jobs are unhappy. But they're not economic losers. Instead, they are simply paying the cost of being in a market economy. Each of us is free to avoid this cost by exiting the market. You could, for example, buy land in Texas and, growing your own food and making your own clothing, live without any economic connections to others. You'd never lose your job. You would, of course, also live the rest of your life in dire poverty. And so, by choosing to remain in the economy, each of us chooses to bear the risk of job loss.

I don't mean to minimize the difficulty of actual job loss. Yet it's important to understand that even those who lose jobs gain enormously from being part of a market economy. The cost of being part of this economy is sometimes steep — and it's a risk almost everyone bears — but on net, even those who suffer job losses remain winners.

Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics and Getchell Chair at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me