GUEST POST -- JOSH BIVENS: MORE ON TRADE. Matt sides with James Galbraith in the latter's recent debate at TAP on trade. I will predictably (I work at EPI) take issue.
I think JKG is mostly right-on regarding his final recommendations about what is most helpful for protecting the interests of American workers in the era of globalization: full employment and an expansion of the social-democratic state.
Galbraith and Matt argue for the futility of including labor standards as a core of lefty trade policy. They're mostly right on this if the question is what will protect the interests of American workers in the short-run . No immediate relief from globalization's pressures would be felt from even an ideal set of trade-enforced labor standards. That said, it's hard to argue that, say, South Korean workers didn't see large wage increases as the result of growing political freedoms in that country, and, that these wage increases didn't close the gap between Korean and American workers over the longer-run. Just because something won't close the trade deficit or push up Chinese wages orders of magnitude tomorrow doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to pursue.
There's solid research on the positive linkage between political freedoms and wage-growth, and, labor rights are an important component of these political freedoms.
