Kyle Fitzgibbons

How much of a role did trade play in the long-term decline in the manufacturing share of total employment, which fell from around a quarter of the work force in 1970 to 9 percent in 2015? The answer is, something, but not much.

Or to put it another way, absent the trade deficit manufacturing would be maybe a fifth bigger than it is – which is actually what EPI estimates too (Exhibit D in the linked paper). That wouldn’t make much difference to the long-run downward trend, but looms larger relative to the absolute decline since 2000.

Autor et al only estimate the effects of the China shock, which they suggest led to the loss of 985,000 manufacturing jobs between 1999 and 2011. That’s less than a fifth of the absolute loss of manufacturing jobs over that period, and a quite small share of the long-term manufacturing decline.

​I’m not saying that the effects were trivial: Autor and co-Autors show that the adverse effects on regional economies were large and long-lasting. But there’s no contradiction between that result and the general assertion that America’s shift away from manufacturing doesn’t have much to do with trade, and even less to do with trade policy.

Job destruction caused by technology is not a futuristic concern.  It is something we have been living with for two generations. 

First everything we hear and see regarding technology suggests the rate of job destruction will pick up.  Think of the elimination of drivers, and of those who work behind cash registers.  Second, the gains in average education and health of the workforce over the last 50 years are unlikely to be repeated.  Third, to the extent that non-work is contagious, it is likely to grow exponentially rather than at a linear rate.  Fourth, declining marriage ratesare likely to raise rates of labor force withdrawal given that non-work is much more common for unmarried than married men.

Will we be able to support these people and a growing retired share of the population?  What will this mean for the American family?  For prevailing ethics of self-reliance?  For alienation and support for toxic populism? These are vital questions.  Even more vital is the question of what is to be done. These questions should preoccupy social science researchers.  They are vital to our future.​

For many pro-life politicians, the answer to high abortion rates is to make abortion illegal or harder to get. Donald Trump, a recent convert to the pro-life cause, has vowed to appoint a conservative to America’s Supreme Court. Many religious leaders fulminate against abortion, although Pope Francis softened the Catholic church’s line slightly on November 20th. Abortion remains a grave sin, but penitent women can now be forgiven by parish priests and do not have to go to a bishop.

International comparisons show that bans and restrictions do little to cut the number of abortions. Most women will do what it takes to end an unwanted pregnancy, even to the point of risking their lives. According to the Lancet study, abortion is as common in countries where it is illegal or allowed only to save a woman’s life as it is in those where it is provided on demand.

Studies of Western countries suggest that few women who have had an abortion regret their choice. Although women with pre-existing mental-health problems can see them worsen following an abortion, such problems also tend to worsen if they carry an unwanted baby to term. But in poor countries, where sterile rooms and well-trained doctors are in short supply, even legal surgical abortions can be risky. In the West less than 1% of abortions carried out by manual vacuum aspiration are followed by complications. In Bangladesh the share is 12%.

Contraception also offers an excellent return on public investment. An abortion costs the NHS 13 times the amount it spends on the average contraceptive user per year. The Copenhagen Consensus, a think-tank, estimates that making contraception and sexual-health advice universally available would bring returns worth $120 for every $1 spent, mostly by reducing deaths in pregnancy and childbirth in poor countries.

​Even in England, with its well-run sexual-health clinics and policy of providing contraceptives free, about a fifth of pregnancies end in abortion. And a third of women who have abortions have had at least one before. It cannot be abolished, no matter how enlightened a government’s policy. But the English have more-or-less the right attitude. A high abortion rate is best viewed as a public-health problem that can be cheaply addressed—not through pointless bans or restrictions, but by providing the means to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Refugees might be the face of migration in the media, but 90 percent of the world’s 247 million migrants have moved across borders voluntarily, usually for economic reasons. Voluntary migration flows are typically gradual, placing less stress on logistics and on the social fabric of destination countries than refugee flows. Most voluntary migrants are working-age adults, a characteristic that helps raise the share of the population that is economically active in destination countries.

Moving more labor to higher-productivity settings boosts global GDP. Migrants of all skill levels contribute to this effect, whether through innovation and entrepreneurship or through freeing up natives for higher-value work. In fact, migrants make up just 3.4 percent of the world’s population, but MGI’s research finds that they contribute nearly 10 percent of global GDP. They contributed roughly $6.7 trillion to global GDP in 2015—some $3 trillion more than they would have produced in their origin countries. Developed nations realize more than 90 percent of this effect.

Realizing the benefits of immigration hinges on how well new arrivals are integrated into their destination country’s labor market and into society. Today immigrants tend to earn 20 to 30 percent less than native-born workers. But if countries narrow that wage gap to just 5 to 10 percent by integrating immigrants more effectively across various aspects of education, housing, health, and community engagement, they could generate an additional boost of $800 billion to $1 trillion to worldwide economic output annually. This is a relatively conservative goal, but it can nevertheless produce broader positive effects, including lower poverty rates and higher overall productivity in destination economies.