Sobering statistics from that radical rag, National Geographic

From the "China" issue, May 2008, Vol. 213, No. 5 at p. 170:

Percent of the world's umbrellas made in China 70

Percent of the world's buttons made in China 60

Percent of U.S. shoes made in China 72

Percent of U.S. kitchen appliances made in China 50

Percent of U.S. artificial Christmas trees made in China 85

Percent of U.S. toys made in China 80

Percent of Chinese goods sent to the U.S. that end up on Wal-Mart's shelves 9

Percent of the unsafe toys recalled in the U.S. in 2007, including Thomas the Tank Engine, that were made in China 100

Number of months a Chinese factory worker would need to work to earn the cost of a Thomas the Tank Engine train set 6

These numbers have consequences. Last week, for example, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that shoe prices in the U.S. will jump 10 to 15% in the next year -- the first price increase after nearly 10 years of declining prices.

Why the price boost? According to the linked article, by Rachel Dodes and Ray A. Smith, "The rising prices largely reflect higher costs in China, though higher fuel costs and the weak dollar share in the blame." The Sun-Times article contradicts the above statistic about the percentage of U.S. shoes made in China. National Geographic claimed that 72% of our shoes come from China; the Sun-Times reported that China "makes about 85 percent of all shoes sold in the United States."

Either way, we are heavily dependent on China for shoes. And the good news just keeps getting better. Again, from the Sun-Times piece, "[M]ore expensive shoes could also be a precursor to price increases for belts, purses and other leather accessories -- all made in the same region in China."

Globalization is not necessarily evil. In fact, the idea of raising living standards for everyone by encouraging trade and manufacturing everywhere is a fine and noble thing.

In theory.

In practice, however, things seem to have worked out differently.

I've been reading a history of Chicago recently and I can't help but see similarities in the way our local millionaires from the Gilded Age handled their labor issues and the corporate titans of today. There are differences of scale, that's all.

In the 1890s a businessman could cut wages at will and, if an employee, or group of employees, beefed, there were always men waiting at the gate who'd gladly take the jobs, even at the reduced rate of pay.

Thirty or 40 years ago, we saw companies strip the "Rust Belt" of manufacturing capacity, moving jobs to the "Sun Belt," where pesky unions couldn't be found and year-round tee times could. The sons and daughters of those wanderers have taken those same jobs out of the country completely. To China, for instance.

But China better not get too ambitious or try and raise their own prices too high. Because these corporate locusts will move on to another country. Because there's always another country waiting at the gate who'd gladly take the jobs....