The Aplia Econ blog runs the numbers:This exercise clearly shows that US consumers would be better off without the tariff. It would be more efficient to give a $30,000 a year subsidy to each of the 564 workers to do nothing and trade with China. This would make everyone better off than they are in current situation.Advocates of trade restrictions often argue that protection will save jobs. Since we can observe price and cost increases associated with trade restrictions, we can estimate how much it costs to save each job in a protected industry. According to the NPR story, there are roughly 30,000 dry cleaners in the U.S., and on average, each pays an additional $4,000 per year due to the hanger tariff. This indicates an average annual cost of 30,000 firms x $4,000 per firm = $120 million. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission's report, U.S. employment in wire hanger manufacturing was 564 workers in 2004 and fell to 236 workers by 2006. Let's assume that employment in this sector would have fallen to zero in the absence of the tariff, and that with the tariff, employment will recover to 2004 levels. In other words, assume the tariff "saves" 564 jobs. Dividing the cost of the tariff to U.S. dry cleaners ($120 million year) by the number of jobs saved (564 jobs) indicates that each job saved costs about $212,765 per year. Keep in mind that the typical full-time worker in this sector earns about $30,000 per year. Even if we assume that industry employment doubles, the cost of the tariff is still roughly $120,000 per job.
Friday, 23 May 2008
Another example of the costs of tariffs
Over at Marginal Revoultion, Alex Tabarrok points out that US consumers are suffering because a tariff on imports of coat hangers from China is raising dry cleaning costs. He says that,
No comments:
Post a Comment