美
国国会寻求连任的几十位议员说，和中国做生意的代价是数百万就业岗位的流失。上个月，两党代表联名签署了一封信，要求众议院领导向中国施压，迫使其允许人民币对美元升值。这封信援引了一个智库的研究结果，即美国与中国的贸易导致美国流失240万份工作。
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
在中国合肥市，工人们在一家纺织工厂里工作
有些经济学家认为流失的就业岗位没那么多，而有些经济学家说尽管货币战的争论日益激烈，也不可能简单地将失业率与贸易赤字联系在一起。
这一争论随着中期选举的临近而上演，许多竞选广告将美国经济问题归咎于中国。
布兰迪斯大学（Brandeis University）经济学家曼恩（Catherine L. Mann）说，他们真的非常渴望提出一个直接的数字将全球化的某些方面与就业岗位减少或增加的数量联系起来，在华盛顿呆了25年，我清楚的知道这一点，我也知道是不可能得到这个数字的。曼恩曾任职于世界银行（World Bank）和白宫经济顾问委员会（Council of Economic Advisers）。
国会议员那封关于就业流失的信参考了华盛顿特区智库美国经济政策研究所（Economic Policy Institute，简称EPI）的一项研究。工会也援引了这项研究，一个制造商和钢铁工人集团将其做成了在线地图，用户可点击自己所在州，查看那里因贸易造成就业流失的情况。
得出这些数据的是EPI高级国际经济学家斯科特（Robert Scott），他承认该项研究在某种程度上可能夸大了对就业的影响。即使停止与中国的贸易，流失的就业岗位也不会全部回来，因为一些制造商会在此期间提高生产效率，不需要重新雇佣每个人。
斯科特说，但这项研究在某些方面低估了这一问题。如果进口商品比国内商品便宜，每一美元的进口可能会造成国内商品消费的流失高于一美元，但政府并不是以产品数量来跟踪进口，而仅依据消费。斯科特说，我预计的进口导致的失业数字一直是偏低的。他的工作由基金会和工会提供资金支持。
为了得出这些数字，斯科特将美国在各个行业领域的对华贸易赤字数据──去年总计2269亿美元，今年迄今1734亿美元──放进美国劳工统计局（Bureau of Labor Statistics）研发的模型公式中。这些模型能将行业消费水平转换为减少或增加的就业量。这些公式主要是为了给规划者（比如建筑项目规划）提供一个所需人力的情况，并告诉决策机构将会创造多少就业岗位。劳工统计局行业就业规划主管富兰克林（James Franklin）说，这并不是为推算因进口造成的就业流失而设计的。
斯科特反驳说其他许多研究也这样使用这一模型。富兰克林回应道，这是常见的数据误用，与标准贸易理论不符，也就是说，各国会生产具有竞争优势的产品，而购买没有竞争优势的产品。
使用这些公式部分是因为将贸易与就业联系起来的研究不多。密歇根W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research资深经济学家豪斯曼（Susan Houseman）说，将就业形势的变化归因于贸易真的很不容易，这就是为什么有关的学术研究很少。
另外一个试图解决这一问题的研究对人民币低水平加剧美国失业的这一说法提出了质疑。耶鲁大学（Yale University）经济学家法尔（Ray Fair）在一篇尚未被同行评鉴的报告中发现，如果人民币升值，美国贸易赤字将会下降。但其他因素，例如美国通货膨胀率的小幅上涨，将会阻止就业率的上升。
还有些有助于解决贸易和就业关系争论的数据无法获得，例如哪些行业进口哪些产品，经济学家对此感到惋惜。民主党中立派智库美国发展政策研究所（Progressive Policy Institute）资深会员曼德尔（Michael Mandel）说，可惜的是，我们回答这些绝对关键问题的能力严重不足，数据的缺口太大，因此我一直都不愿意发布任何有关就业流失的数字。
Carl Bialik
（本文版权归道琼斯公司所有，未经许可不得翻译或转载。）
Millions of jobs are the cost of doing business with China, according to dozens of members of Congress seeking re-election.
Representatives from both major parties signed a letter last month asking the House leadership to pressure China to allow its currency to appreciate against the dollar. The letter cited a think tank study finding that trade with China reduces U.S. employment by 2.4 million jobs.
But several economists say the estimate congressional members relied on vastly overstated trade's impact on employment. A major flaw, they say, was that the study assumed every dollar spent on Chinese goods displaces a dollar that would be spent on U.S.-made products, when in fact products made in other low-cost manufacturing nations might fill the void. Also, cheap imports might even help fuel the U.S. economy and spur employment.
Other economists offer lower estimates for job losses, while some say that despite the heated rhetoric of the currency debate, it simply isn't possible to connect employment to trade deficits.
The dispute has played out against the backdrop of the midterm elections, where many campaigns have blamed China for U.S. economic problems.
'There is a real desire to come up with a direct number that relates some facet of globalization to the number of jobs lost or gained,' says Brandeis University economist Catherine L. Mann, who has worked at the World Bank and the White House's Council of Economic Advisers. 'Having spent 25 years in Washington, I know it. I also know you can't get the number.'
The letter from members of Congress warning about job losses refers to a study from the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank. The study also has been cited by unions and turned into an online map by a manufacturers and steelworkers group, where users can click on their states and see the toll of trade there.
Robert Scott, the senior international economist at EPI who produced the numbers, concedes that the study in one way might overstate the hit to jobs. Even if trade with China vanished, not all employment would be restored, because some manufacturers would have boosted productivity in the interim and wouldn't need to rehire everyone.
But in other ways, Dr. Scott says his study underestimates the problem. If imported goods are cheaper than domestic ones, each dollar of imports might displace more than a dollar of goods -- but the government doesn't track imports by units, only by spending. 'The bias in my estimates of jobs displaced by imports is consistently on the low side,' says Dr. Scott, whose work is funded by foundations and labor unions.
To produce his numbers, Dr. Scott feeds trade-deficit figures with China from various industry sectors -- which added up to $226.9 billion last year and $173.4 billion so far this year -- into models developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These models convert industry spending levels into jobs gained or lost. The formulas were developed primarily to give planners of, say, construction projects an idea of their manpower needs, and to tell policy makers how many jobs would be created. 'It wasn't meant to hypothesize about job displacement because of imports,' says James Franklin, who heads the BLS division of industry employment projections.
Dr. Scott counters that many other studies use the model in this way. Mr. Franklin responds that this is 'a common misuse of the data.' He adds, 'It doesn't square with standard trade theory,' namely that countries produce where they have a comparative advantage, and buy what they don't.
These models are used in part because there isn't much research on how to link trade to jobs. 'It's really tricky to ascribe changes in employment to trade,' says Susan Houseman, a senior economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Kalamazoo, Mich. 'That's why you don't see a lot of good academic studies on it.'
Another study that did attempt to tackle the issue questioned the idea that China's weak currency boosts U.S. unemployment. Ray Fair, an economist at Yale University, found in a paper that hasn't been peer-reviewed that the U.S. trade deficit would decline if the yuan were allowed to rise. But other factors, including an uptick in U.S. inflation, would prevent a lift to the job market.
Economists lament that data that might help settle the debate over trade and jobs -- such as which industries are using which imports -- aren't available. 'Our ability to answer these absolutely crucial questions is woefully inadequate,' says Michael Mandel, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, a moderate Democratic think tank. 'The gap in the data is so large that I haven't been willing to publish any numbers on job loss.'
Carl Bialik
Representatives from both major parties signed a letter last month asking the House leadership to pressure China to allow its currency to appreciate against the dollar. The letter cited a think tank study finding that trade with China reduces U.S. employment by 2.4 million jobs.
But several economists say the estimate congressional members relied on vastly overstated trade's impact on employment. A major flaw, they say, was that the study assumed every dollar spent on Chinese goods displaces a dollar that would be spent on U.S.-made products, when in fact products made in other low-cost manufacturing nations might fill the void. Also, cheap imports might even help fuel the U.S. economy and spur employment.
Other economists offer lower estimates for job losses, while some say that despite the heated rhetoric of the currency debate, it simply isn't possible to connect employment to trade deficits.
The dispute has played out against the backdrop of the midterm elections, where many campaigns have blamed China for U.S. economic problems.
'There is a real desire to come up with a direct number that relates some facet of globalization to the number of jobs lost or gained,' says Brandeis University economist Catherine L. Mann, who has worked at the World Bank and the White House's Council of Economic Advisers. 'Having spent 25 years in Washington, I know it. I also know you can't get the number.'
The letter from members of Congress warning about job losses refers to a study from the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank. The study also has been cited by unions and turned into an online map by a manufacturers and steelworkers group, where users can click on their states and see the toll of trade there.
Robert Scott, the senior international economist at EPI who produced the numbers, concedes that the study in one way might overstate the hit to jobs. Even if trade with China vanished, not all employment would be restored, because some manufacturers would have boosted productivity in the interim and wouldn't need to rehire everyone.
But in other ways, Dr. Scott says his study underestimates the problem. If imported goods are cheaper than domestic ones, each dollar of imports might displace more than a dollar of goods -- but the government doesn't track imports by units, only by spending. 'The bias in my estimates of jobs displaced by imports is consistently on the low side,' says Dr. Scott, whose work is funded by foundations and labor unions.
To produce his numbers, Dr. Scott feeds trade-deficit figures with China from various industry sectors -- which added up to $226.9 billion last year and $173.4 billion so far this year -- into models developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These models convert industry spending levels into jobs gained or lost. The formulas were developed primarily to give planners of, say, construction projects an idea of their manpower needs, and to tell policy makers how many jobs would be created. 'It wasn't meant to hypothesize about job displacement because of imports,' says James Franklin, who heads the BLS division of industry employment projections.
Dr. Scott counters that many other studies use the model in this way. Mr. Franklin responds that this is 'a common misuse of the data.' He adds, 'It doesn't square with standard trade theory,' namely that countries produce where they have a comparative advantage, and buy what they don't.
These models are used in part because there isn't much research on how to link trade to jobs. 'It's really tricky to ascribe changes in employment to trade,' says Susan Houseman, a senior economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Kalamazoo, Mich. 'That's why you don't see a lot of good academic studies on it.'
Another study that did attempt to tackle the issue questioned the idea that China's weak currency boosts U.S. unemployment. Ray Fair, an economist at Yale University, found in a paper that hasn't been peer-reviewed that the U.S. trade deficit would decline if the yuan were allowed to rise. But other factors, including an uptick in U.S. inflation, would prevent a lift to the job market.
Economists lament that data that might help settle the debate over trade and jobs -- such as which industries are using which imports -- aren't available. 'Our ability to answer these absolutely crucial questions is woefully inadequate,' says Michael Mandel, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, a moderate Democratic think tank. 'The gap in the data is so large that I haven't been willing to publish any numbers on job loss.'
Carl Bialik
没有评论:
发表评论