Showing posts with label Poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Poverty. Show all posts

Friday, June 17, 2011

Free Trade Helps America's Poor. Full Stop.

One of the themes of this blog is how unilateral elimination of US import tariffs disproportionately helps lower income Americans who have to spend a larger share of their paychecks on necessities like food, clothing and footwear.  Now comes a new study from Ed Gresser at ProgressiveEconomy (yes, you read that right: progressive) which provides further empirical evidence of this indisputable fact.  Reuters has the write-up:
The United States should eliminate most, if not all, of its remaining taxes on imported goods to give low-income consumers extra spending cash, a new report recommended on Tuesday....

The United States collected about $26 billion in tariffs on about $1.9 trillion of imports in 2010, suggesting an average tariff rate of only 1.3 percent.

But in fact, tariffs on individual items vary dramatically, with goods most likely bought by the poor frequently hit with the highest rates, the report said.

Sneakers with a wholesale price of less than $3 have a 48 percent duty, while leather dress shoes only 8.5 percent. The duty on a polyester bra is 16.9 percent but just 2.7 percent on a silk one. A canvas bag faces a 16 percent tariff, but one made from snakeskin 5.3 percent.

Gresser, who worked previously for Senator Max Baucus and the U.S. Trade Representative's office, estimated about two-thirds of U.S. import duties are collected on home goods such as clothes, shoes, towels, pillowcases, luggage, handbags, silverware, plates and drinking glasses. Many of those items are no longer made in the United States.

"Tax analysts know very well that any tax on home goods will be regressive. This is because wealthy families spend the smallest share of their income on home goods, while low-income families -- especially if they have children -- spend the most," Gresser said.

Import taxes are often defended as necessary to protect to American jobs, but falling U.S. employment in high-tariff industries such as clothes, shoes, luggage and linens suggest they have been ineffective at that.

Some 1.34 million Americans worked for clothing manufacturers in 1970, but 40 years later only about 160,000 still do. The U.S. shoe industry has shrunk from 230,000 workers to 1,000 over the past four decades.
The full report, The Rebirth of Pro-Shopper Populism, is available here.  The whole thing is worth reading, but here are my two favorite tables.  The first one shows how our tariffs currently discriminate against low-end consumables (and, of course, the people who buy them).


The second one shows the obscene regressivity of US tariffs:


So a single mom has to work 2.6 times as long as a wealthier person/family to pay off their share of annual import taxes.  Unreal.

Seriously, how on earth are these tariffs still in place?  To line the pockets of a few well-connected US companies and their workers?  Because other countries refuse to similarly help their poorest citizens?

Gimme a break.

Truly great stuff from Gresser and his team.  Now, if only they could convince their fellow Democrats - an increasing majority of whom have abandoned their party's long tradition of support for free trade - of the wisdom of tariff liberalization.

Sadly, I'm not holding my breath.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Charts of the Day: It's Getting Better All The Time

Great stuff from Steve Horwitz over at Austrian Economists on the modern enrichment of America's poor:

% Households with: Poor 1984 Poor  1994 Poor 2003 Poor 2005 All 1971 All 2005
Washing machine 58.2 71.7 67.0 68.7 71.3 84.0
Clothes dryer 35.6 50.2 58.5 61.2 44.5 81.2
Dishwasher 13.6 19.6 33.9 36.7 18.8 64.0
Refrigerator 95.8 97.9 98.2 98.5 83.3 99.3
Freezer 29.2 28.6 25.4 25.1 32.2 36.6
Stove 95.2 97.7 97.1 97.0 87.0 98.8
Microwave 12.5 60.0 88.7 91.2 1.0 96.4
Color TV 70.3 92.5 96.8 97.4 43.3 98.9
VCR 3.4 59.7 75.4 83.6 0.0 92.2
Personal computer 2.9 7.4 36.0 42.4 0.0 67.1
Telephone 71.0 76.7 87.3 79.8 93.0 90.6
Air conditioner 42.5 49.6 77.7 78.8 31.8 85.7
Cellular Telephone

34.7 48.3 0.0 71.3
One or more cars 64.1 71.8 72.8 (2001)
79.5







source:  http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/extended-05.html and prior years


As we can readily see, America's poor (i.e., those officially below the poverty line) own a lot more household "necessities" today than they did only 20 years ago.  And what about the gap between rich and poor?  On that issue, Horwitz offers a follow-up chart:

% Households with: Poor 2003 Rich 2003 2003
gap
Poor 2005 Rich 2005 2005
gap
Gap
change
Washing machine 67.0 94.8 27.8 68.7 95.2 26.5 -1.3
Clothes dryer 58.5 93.6 35.1 61.2 94.3 33.1 -2.0
Dishwasher 33.9 86.1 52.2 36.7 88.4 51.7 -0.5
Refrigerator 98.2 99.6 1.4 98.5 99.8 1.3 -0.1
Freezer 25.4 44 18.6 25.1 43.7 18.6  0.0
Stove 97.1 99.6 2.5 97.0 99.7 2.7  0.2
Microwave 88.7 98.6 9.9 91.2 98.8 7.6 -2.3
Color TV 96.8 99.5 2.7 97.4 99.5 2.1 -0.6
VCR 75.4 97.7 22.3 83.6 98.5 14.9 -7.4
Personal computer 36.0 87.9 51.9 42.4 92.7 50.3 -1.6
Telephone 87.3 98.6 11.3 79.8 97.1 17.3  6.0
Air conditioner 77.7 90.3 12.6 78.8 89.1 10.3 -2.3
Cellular Telephone 34.7 88.6 53.9 48.3 92.4 44.1 -9.8

As the chart makes clear, the gap has narrowed in 10 of 13 categories in only 2 years, and the only product with a large increase is landline telephones - something that is easily explained by the large increase in poor cellphone ownership.  Finally, these charts inspired Mark Perry to issue his own awesome chart on the cost of these household necessities in terms of hours worked to pay for them:


Very cool.  As we can see from Perry's chart, the average American today has to work far fewer hours than they did in 1973 to buy basic household items.  As such, they're far better off today than they were back then. Indeed, all of these charts make clear that we should be very, very suspicious when we hear politicians lamenting the worsening state of America's "poor."

I think the charts speak for themselves, but I'll still offer up a post-script: one of the big things driving these figures is open trade with China and other low-cost countries. Indeed, according to University of Chicago's Christian Broda and John Romalis, "[M]uch of the rise of measured income inequality has been offset by a relative decline in the prices of products that poorer consumers buy." And China, as the primary manufacturer of such "products," is one of the main drivers of their price declines.