Nostalgia for the past will not help the middle class
The middle class has consistently functioned as a source of ingenuity and stability throughout the latter half of the 20th century and acted as the backbone of the American economy. It forms the basis of the liberal Democratic order that has taken root in the U.S., and has long been the economic, social and political foundation in our country.
But as the middle class shrinks as a result of the Great Recession, economic changes and slow growth, a severe anxiety has surfaced about its future.
ADVERTISEMENT
Much of the strain on the middle class can be attributed to wage stagnation; the rising costs of housing, child care and higher education; and a challenging job market. There is anxiety that people will not experience the same increase in living standards as those enjoyed by past generations of Americans, where each is more prosperous than the last.
The most direct path to healing the middle class involves creating stable jobs, integrating technological innovations and increasing employment opportunities for all demographics. This is what will push up wages and reduce financial uncertainty.
Yet Republican nominee Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE’s platform ignores these prescriptions and instead focuses exclusively on the anxiety of chasing the American Dream, an anxiety felt particularly by white males. Trump has reeled in this group with the promise of returning to the mid 20th century, when manufacturing jobs made up 28 percent of the economy.
He should be informed that nostalgia is not a plan.
In his Contract with the American Voter, Trump promises to bring back manufacturing jobs while entirely glossing over innovation and largely ignoring the importance of the tech sector. By embracing the dogma that bringing back mid-century-style manufacturing jobs will restore America, he ignores the reason this type of manufacturing reached its heyday over 50 years ago: We’ve simply outgrown these technologies.
At its peak in 1953, manufacturing accounted for 28 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and employed nearly 35 percent of the workforce. As of 2014, manufacturing accounted for 11 percent of total employment in the U.S. and 14 percent of the entire U.S. GDP. Most of this change is the result of new technology.
To bring back old-fashioned manufacturing jobs, while failing to create infrastructure to support advanced manufacturing jobs and acknowledge the role of the service sector, is to literally force America backward and negate the progress we have made.
Since 1967, real household income has risen an average of 24 percent for the bottom, lower middle, and middle income brackets. Women’s labor force participation rate steadily rose from 34 percent in the 1950s to 56 percent in 2015, boosting real U.S. GDP growth by 11 percent.
Making the transition to a service economy is a sign of economic progress and a product of higher wages and increasing gender parity in the workforce. But never does Trump mention the inclusion of underrepresented groups and increased gender parity in the workforce as a way to spur economic growth and boost the middle class.
Trump’s policies are largely built on a nostalgia for the past, but nostalgia doesn’t create jobs. In fact, it imperils the American economy to linger in a sort of purgatory where we are torn between embracing a prosperous future and retreating to an unattainable past.
Yes, we can bring back jobs, but not the kinds that robots are replacing.
Democratic nominee Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonWhite House accuses Biden of pushing ‘conspiracy theories’ with Trump election claim Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness Trayvon Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton qualifies to run for county commissioner in Florida MORE, on the other hand, is far more future-oriented, emphasizing the creation of next-generation technology, advanced manufacturing jobs and reducing the cost of higher education along with raising the minimum wage as integral to increased prosperity. Clinton believes that overall American prosperity is inextricably linked to the middle class and has plans to improve its situation.
Clinton’s technology agenda, her “Make it in America Partnerships” to boost domestic manufacturing based on regional strengths, and her plan to support small businesses combine to form an economic approach that would foster job creation through greater innovation.
Manufacturing experts contend that leveraging regional strengths and focusing on emerging industries when making policy could lead to an advanced manufacturing renaissance in the U.S. Furthermore, regional clusters of manufacturing expertise encourage businesses to share technologies and know-how, provide access to skilled employees and open doors to industry-specific funding opportunities, all of which benefits manufacturers.
Her approach provides for partnerships among government, companies, universities, community colleges and apprenticeship programs that will create a high-wage advanced manufacturing workforce that is trained in cutting edge fields like biotech, robotics and aeronautics — industries growing at rates of 10 percent, 11 percent and 3 percent, respectively. As global demand for innovative and new technologies increases, the American workforce will be on the leading edge.
Clinton’s tax plan is also designed to aid middle and lower income households and small businesses while closing tax loopholes for top earners and implementing tax increases on the top 1 percent in an effort to correct rising income inequality. Independent analysis of her tax plan concludes that her proposals would increase revenue by $1.1 trillion over the next decade.
Relatedly, Clinton recognizes that excessive college debt “prevents people from forming families, buying homes, and starting small businesses,” a phenomenon directly observable in the millennial generation. Millennials are the least entrepreneurial generation in recent history, and a large part of this disparity is due to insufficient financial means exacerbated by student debt. Forty-two percent of millennials are saddled with some amount of student loan debt, and nearly half believe that student debt has limited their career options. Clinton’s detailed college plan takes into account the perils of student debt and its adverse effect on the economy by making higher education debt-free.
Clearly, Clinton’s policies would do far more to rekindle the American Dream by leveraging American ingenuity to create an inclusive and progress-oriented economy for the middle class.
Stern is former chairwoman of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and founder and chairwoman of The Stern Group Inc., which serves national and multinational organizations on business, political and tech policy issues that affect their competitiveness in a global economy.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.
Click Here: NRL Telstra Premiership