Skip to main content
Log in

Comparing Some Benefits and Costs from Eliminating the U.S. Trade Deficit with Low Wage Countries

  • Published:
International Advances in Economic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents estimates of the consumers’ surplus that would be lost if manufactured goods currently being imported to the U.S. from low wage countries were instead produced domestically. The study focuses on reducing the imports of consumer goods from such countries by about $600 billion, enough to eliminate the trade deficit in consumer goods with China, Mexico, and other major low wage trading partners. Estimates of the increase in compensation to U.S. workers that would result from such a curtailment in trade are also presented. These estimates have been made using a computational model that, unlike other studies, does not require strong assumptions regarding consumer preferences and production functions. The model was calibrated with data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and Conference Board. Another departure from previous studies is the size of the reduction in the trade deficit. The reduction considered here is considerably less and, therefore, more likely to result from policy changes, than the reductions others have analyzed. At most, these estimates lend weak support to the claim that the loss to consumers from the price increases precipitating from a meaningful, but far less-than-draconian, curtailment in trade would be greater than the compensation that workers stand to gain from it. In fact, it is more likely that there would be a net benefit to a large number of workers, contrary to what other studies have found.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Though Jaravel and Sager calculate the increase in consumers’ surplus from trade with China, their methodology is much different than that of this study. They use regressions of price indices against market penetration to determine the effect of trade on inflation. The current study’s estimates come from a computational model.

  2. Since this could be a flash point for criticism, the following observation defends this assumption. There are three ways of producing raw steel: oxygen blown, open hearth, and electric furnaces. That steel is either poured into ingots and then rolled into slabs, blooms, or billets, or it is continuously cast into these forms. For the first three quarters of the twentieth century, almost all the steel produced in the U.S. was produced using open hearths and rolling mills. Less labor is needed when oxygen furnaces and continuous casters are used than when open hearths and rolling mills are used. Steel in countries like China, India, and South Korea versus the U.S., Germany, and Japan are produced the same way. There are no open hearths in any of these countries, and China and South Korea continuously cast as much steel percentage-wise as the U.S., Germany, and Japan (over 95%). India casts less, but still 85% of its output is produced using that process (World Steel Association, 2017).

  3. For comparison, Autor et al. (2013) estimated that between 1990 and 2007, there was a net reduction in employment in the U.S. manufacturing sector of more than 1.5 million workers due to imports from China. Note that in 1990 the current account trade deficit was $77.4 billion. The value of imports was $629.7 billion versus $551.9 billion for exports. Using the implicit deflators from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (2021) (Table 1.1.4), the prices of imported and exported goods rose about 15% and 13% from 1990 to 2007. Inflating imports and exports in 1990 by these percentages produces a deficit of $100.6 billion in 1990 in 2007 dollars. The deficit in 2007 was about $718 billion. Thus, Autor et al. (2013) found, implicitly, that a $618 billion increase in the deficit eliminated 1.5 million jobs. This study’s calculations led to the conclusion that an increase of 1.6 million jobs would result from a $530 billion decrease in the trade deficit.

  4. 43.5 million workers amounts to employment in agriculture, mining, utilities, construction, manufacturing, transportation, accommodations and food service, and other services excluding government.

  5. The estimate of the wage increase using a percentage change in labor demand of 1.2% is in line with earlier thinking about the impact of exports (Brauer 1991; Revenga 1992). The larger increases are consistent with current views of the effect (Hakobyan and McLaren, 2016; Haskel et al., 2012; Krugman 2008).

References

  • Autor, D. H., Dorn, D., & Hanson, G. H. (2013). The China syndrome: Local labor market effects of import competition in the United States. The American Economic Review, 103(6), 2121–2168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brauer, D. A. (1991). The effect of imports on U.S. manufacturing wages. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Quarterly Review, spring, 14-26.

  • Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2021). Table 1.3, U.S. International Transactions, Expanded Detail. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington. Available at: https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?RID=62&step=1#reqid=62&step=9&isuri=1& 6210=4. Accessed April 12 2021.

  • Chetty, R., Guren, A., Manoli, D., & Weber, A. (2011). Are micro and macro labor supply elasticities consistent? A review of evidence on the intensive and extensive margins. American Economic Review, 101(3), 471–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conference Board. (2021). International Comparisons of Hourly Compensation Costs in Manufacturing, 2016. Available at: https://www.conferenceboard.org/ilcprogram/compensation. Accessed April 12 2021.

  • Costinot, A., & Rodriguez-Claire, A. (2018). The US gains from trade: Valuation using the demand for foreign factor services. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(2), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fajgelbaum, P. D., & Khandelwal, A. K. (2016). Measuring the unequal gains from trade. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(3), 1113–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feenstra, R. C., & Weinstein, D. E. (2017). Globalization, markups, and US welfare. The Journal of Political Economy, 125(4), 1040–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakobyan, S., & McLaren, J. (2016). Looking for local labor market effects of NAFTA. Review of Economics and Statistics, 98(4), 728–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haskel, J., Lawrence, R. Z., Leamer, E. E., & Slaughter, M. J. (2012). Globalization and U.S. wages: Modifying classic theory to explain recent facts. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(2), 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaravel, X. & Sager, E. (2019). What are the price effects of trade? Evidence from the U.S. and implications for quantitative trade models. FEDS Working Paper No. 2019–068. Available at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2019068pap.pdf. Accessed April 15 2020.

  • Krugman, P. (2008). Trade and wages, reconsidered. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring, 2008, 103–154.

  • Lichter, A., Peichl, A., & Siegloch, S. (2015). The own-wage elasticity of labor demand: A meta-regression analysis. European Economic Review, 80, 94–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revenga, A. L. (1992). Exporting jobs?: The impact of import competition on employment and wages in U.S. manufacturing. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(1), 255–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). Table 1110, Deciles of income before taxes: Annual expenditure means, shares, standard errors, and coefficients of variation. Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/mid-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error/cu-income-deciles-before-taxes-2019-2020.pdf. Accessed May 11 2021.

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). Annual survey of manufactures 2018-2019. Washington. Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/econ/asm/2018-2019-asm.html. Accessed April 12 2021.

  • U.S. International Trade Commission. (2003). The impact of trade agreements: Effect of the Tokyo Round, U.S. - Israel FTA, U.S. - Canada FTA, NAFTA, and the Uruguay Round on the U.S. economy. Publication 3621. Available at: https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub3621.pdf. Accessed April 15 2020.

  • World Steel Association. (2017). Statistical Yearbook. Available at: https://www.worldsteel.org/steel-by-topic/statistics/steel-statistical-yearbook.html. Accessed April 15 2020.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jon R. Neill.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neill, J.R. Comparing Some Benefits and Costs from Eliminating the U.S. Trade Deficit with Low Wage Countries. Int Adv Econ Res 27, 91–103 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-021-09823-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-021-09823-6

Keywords

JEL

Navigation