In this morning’s New York Times, David Leonhardt writes a column (also noted by Brad DeLong) which is a relative rarity in political reporting: an analysis of how well candidates’ platforms address actual problems, as opposed to the more common he-said she-said coverage of a debate (well, usually it’s he-said he-said, so I suppose even he-said she-said is a kind of progress).
He writes:
Now come Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, campaigning across Ohio with a similar kind of tough talk about foreign trade. Based on what they’re saying, you’d have to conclude that they believe that Nafta and other trade agreements have caused Ohio’s huge economic problems. …
The first problem with what the candidates have been saying is that Ohio’s troubles haven’t really been caused by trade agreements. When Nafta took effect on Jan. 1, 1994, Ohio had 990,000 manufacturing jobs. Two years later, it had 1.03 million. The number remained above one million for the rest of the 1990s, before plummeting in this decade to just 775,000 today.
It’s hard to look at this history and conclude Nafta is the villain. In fact, Nafta did little to reduce tariffs on Mexican manufacturers, notes Matthew Slaughter, a Dartmouth economist. Those tariffs were already low before the agreement was signed. …
So what can be done for Ohio?
There is actually a fair amount of agreement among economists on this question. The solution should involve more government investment in infrastructure, the medical sciences, alternative energy and other areas that could produce good new jobs. A more strategic approach to investment, one less based on the whims of individual members of Congress, would also help.
Among ‘other areas that could produce good new jobs’, but not receiving direct mention, might be included investment in education. As Jim Tankersley of the Chicago Tribune reported yesterday,
Recent studies trace Ohio’s relative lack of job creation to a shortage of education and innovation.
Researchers at the Federal Reserve scoured 75 years of state performance and found Ohio’s economy suffered when it fell behind other states in its concentration of patents and high school and college graduates. …
The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts Ohio’s manufacturing wages will drop 11 percent by 2016, while “professional and business services” wages will jump 23 percent. The state projects jobs requiring a two-year degree or more will increase twice as fast as those requiring less education by 2014.
Ohio’s academic ranking Ohio ranks 38th in the nation for its concentration of residents with bachelor’s degrees. In Youngstown, only one in five residents holds a two-year degree or higher. Federal Reserve economists found the Youngstown metro area is in the bottom quarter of major American cities in patents per capita, a key innovation indicator.
But the candidates’ proposals draw mixed reviews in addressing this shortfall:
In appearances across Ohio, Obama and Clinton have interspersed their promises to amend NAFTA and penalize outsourcing companies with a few plans to promote a knowledge-based economy. Both back “green jobs” initiatives to invest in alternative energy production. Both want to make college cheaper through tax breaks.
Economic research suggests the proposals fall far short of a prescription for Ohio’s ills. Filling “green” energy jobs requires more engineers and other high-skill workers, a problem that lower tuition alone won’t solve.
Sen. J4ohn McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, told voters in layoff-ridden Michigan recently that jobs lost to globalization “aren’t coming back.” His economic plan offers a tax credit for research and development but few other specifics for cultivating innovation and education.
On Monday, Clinton launched an automated call to voters that pledges to “fix” NAFTA.
In recent days, Obama has told crowds he realizes “we can’t stop globalization in its tracks and that some of these jobs aren’t coming back.” In Youngstown, he promised to be a president “who will not just tell you what you want to hear.”
Moments later, he launched another riff blasting NAFTA.
Full disclosure: Jim is a good friend of mine from college. He is also, in my opinion, one of the finest young journalists in the nation – but to be fair, it’s not just my opinion. He consistently bucks the trend I noted above, writing thoughtful, analytical pieces that go beyond reporting what happened, asking the more complicated question of why, and explaining the often complex and nuanced answer in terms suitable for the general reader. He even occasionally writes on something besides the Ohio economy and politicians’ misguided attempts to fix it.
He’s one to watch, which is why Ask My Friend Jim will be a regular feature of this blog (assuming I post frequently enough for anything to qualify as a regular feature).
