Expert: Michael Troy - 3/29/2004

Question
If the U.S. decides to import workers or export jobs, would that eliminate the need for the affirmative action laws; if not, what impact would it have?

Answer
Hi Dawn,

I don't think the two are really related.  However, it might help if we define the terms a little.

Countries don't really "export jobs" despite the politicians' love of using that term.  A job is not a commodity that has to be transported from place to place.

A job is simply an agreement between an employee and an employer.  Person A agrees to work a certan number of hours each day for Company B.  Typically, either party is free to end that arrangement at any time.  If person A finds a job that pays more or has better working conditions, he is free to quit and move to that other job.  Similarly, if Company B finds a better employee who will do a better job for less money, it is free to replace the old employee.

Typically, an employee and employer tend to stick together for long periods of time.  An employee gets better at his specific job after having worked at it for a while.  So it usually benefits both parties to have a long term relationship.  But the real benefit of the flexibility is that employees are not forced to stay in jobs they do not like merely because changing jobs is not acceptable in a society (as is the case in places like Japan or Korea) and companies are not forced to keep employees who cause them to lose money (as is common in most of Europe).  The job mobility creates the most economically efficient model since both parties must remain happy with the arrangement for it to continue.

In the past, the US gave a real benefit to employers over employees by encouraging massive immigration to this country (or as you put it: "import workers").  Because there were always plenty of workers to take unskilled jobs at very low wages, it was hard to make a living at them.  Similarly, some people today argue that by allowing companies to open divisions in other countries, American workers will be forced to compete with other potential employees all over the world, many of whom are willing to work for much lower wages than any American would accept.

It is true that some American workers lose their jobs when they are forced into world competition.  But the reason behind the competition is to produce the best goods at the cheapest cost.  If the government artificially protects jobs, in artificially inflates prices.  The costs of all the basic goods go up and any benefit to higher wages is lost because of inflation and a higher cost of living.

So the debate over free trade is really about whether we prefer short term stability that will eventually lead to problems, or whether we deal with the problems of some people losing jobs in order to keep the economy as efficient and productive as possible.

The debate over affirmative action is actually something quite different.  Affirmative action is designed to ensure that minorities have jobs at the same levels as non-minorities regardless of whether they are equally qualified.

Regardless of whether the economy is good or bad and whether trade is high or low, there may still be a disparity in the hiring rates.  Therefore, trade and immigration rules really don't impact the need for affirmative action.

Supporters of affirmative action will argue that it is always needed until minorities consistantly make the same amount of money and have the same levels of unemployment as non-minorities.  Opponents of affirmative action will argue that giving preference to one employee over another because of skin color is an injustice that is never justified, regardless of economic conditions.

I hope this helps!
- Mike