Dani Rodrik: Abundance for consumers could still mean misery for workers
Next Story
Dani Rodrik An economic vision of abundantly supplied markets isn't enough. People don't just derive an income from their vocations, but self-esteem and satisfaction too. We need policies that generate good jobs, even if we sacrifice some efficiency for it. The rise of far-right populists in the US and Europe has been linked to the job losses associated with trade shocks, automation and fiscal austerity. Gift this article
The surest way for policy advocates to lose a progressive audience is to talk about the economy's supply side, the importance of incentives and the dangers of overregulation—ideas typically linked to conservative agendas. Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's new book Abundance aims to change all that.
The surest way for policy advocates to lose a progressive audience is to talk about the economy's supply side, the importance of incentives and the dangers of overregulation—ideas typically linked to conservative agendas. Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's new book Abundance aims to change all that.
As the authors point out, the left has traditionally focused on demand-side remedies. A key tenet of the New Deal in the US and social democracy in Europe is Keynesian management of aggregate demand to ensure full employment.
Klein and Thompson rightly underscore that it is improvements in supply that are the source of broad-based posterity in the US and other advanced economies. As productivity rises, low- and middle-income families reap the benefits of cheaper and more varied and plentiful goods and services. However, increasingly, the US economy's ability to build things has been hobbled, the authors argue, by environmental, safety, labour and other regulations, and by complex and time-consuming local permitting rules.
These rules and regulations may be well-meaning, but they can be also counterproductive. When governments and communities place obstacles in the way of investment and innovation, they undercut prosperity. Public transport lags behind, productivity in housing construction plummets and the deployment of renewables falters.
The authors' vision of progress features energy from renewable sources and cheap, safe nuclear power; fresh water from desalination; fruits and vegetables from hyper-productive vertically stacked farms; meat produced in labs without slaughtering live animals; miracle drugs delivered by autonomous drones; and space-based factories meeting other needs without requiring any human workers. Since AI would greatly shorten the workweek, we'd all enjoy more vacation time without sacrificing our living standards.
Keynesian social democracy no longer provides an adequate answer to the malaise experienced by workers. But Klein and Thompson's depiction of utopia reflects a vision that ultimately remains consumerist. Their focus is squarely on the abundance of goods and services that the economy generates—on how much we build, rather than on the builders. In this, they share a common blind spot with economists who, ever since Adam Smith, have emphasized that the ultimate end of production is consumption. But what gives meaning to our lives is not just the fruits of our labour, but also the work itself.
When people are asked about well-being and life satisfaction, the work they do ranks at the top, along with contributions to their community and family bonds. For economists, a job provides income, but is otherwise a negative —a source of 'disutility.'
For real people, a job is a source of pride, dignity and social recognition. Employment loss typically produces a reduction in individual well-being that is a multiple of the loss of income. The social effects magnify those costs. The rise of far-right populists in the US and Europe has been linked to the job losses associated with trade shocks, automation and fiscal austerity.
Also Read: Populist policies can be myopic and also very hard to challenge
Good jobs pay well, but also provide security, autonomy and a path to self-improvement. None of this is possible without high levels of productivity. A progressive focused on abundance of good jobs, rather than abundance of goods and services, would find plenty to agree with in this book. But there would also be many quibbles.
Consider housing, one of Klein and Thompson's key examples. US productivity in housing construction has stagnated in recent years, in part because of safety regulations and union rules. But as one of the authors' interlocutors readily admits, fatalities and non-fatal injuries in construction have fallen dramatically in the US since the 1970s, thanks to many of these restrictive rules. That must surely count as an improvement in overall worker well- being, casting the productivity statistics in a somewhat different light.
The authors' line of argument echoes economists' case for automation and free trade. These may have been efficient by conventional criteria, and they certainly helped produce an abundance of goods. But they also hurt many of our workers, leaving societies scarred and paving the way for right-wing populism. A good-jobs focus would make us more tolerant of regulations that sacrifice some efficiency for the sake of better labour-market outcomes, especially for non-college-educated workers.
Ultimately, the real challenge for progressives is to devise an agenda that benefits workers as workers as much as in their role as consumers. This requires a distinctive approach to innovation, investment and regulation. Unions, worker representatives and collective bargaining must be viewed as essential components of abundance, rather than obstacles to it. Place-based strategies and local economic development coalitions are critical. Government must put its thumb on the scale to ensure innovation takes a worker-friendly direction.
Advanced economies' most glaring failure has been their inability to deliver enough good jobs. Remedying this issue requires focusing on those who produce abundance, alongside abundance itself. ©2025/Project Syndicate
The author is a professor of international political economy at Harvard Kennedy School, and the author of 'Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy'. Topics You May Be Interested In Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
The Weekly Vine Edition 48: Trump's Hammer, Gill's Slip, and Zohran's Vibe
Nirmalya Dutta's political and economic views vacillate from woke Leninist to Rand-Marxist to Keynesian-Friedmanite. He doesn't know what any of those terms mean. Hello and welcome to another edition of the Weekly Vine. This week, we take stock of the winners and losers in the Middle East, examine India's chastening defeat in the first Test of the England series, explain why the U-2 bomber strike on Tehran felt straight out of Top Gun: Maverick, discuss the new king of New York, and reflect on the importance of speech and silence. The Trump Doctrine One has never seen Trump this angry—not even when he was shot at—as he unleashed a barrage of F-bombs at reporters after Israel violated his ceasefire. (To be fair, he now has a proper Chamberlain-like track record of announcing ceasefires that don't actually exist.) He lashed out, calling Israel and Iran 'two countries who have been fighting so long they don't know what the f*** they are doing.' But when one keeps score of the recent Middle East fracas, the biggest winners are clear: Donald Trump, the neocons, and the American military-industrial complex, who reminded the world that they still have the power to wipe out any nation, anytime they want. Another major winner is Benjamin Netanyahu, who has now undergone a full Churchillian redemption arc (starvation et al.) to emerge as the most powerful man in the Middle East—after decimating every single member of the Axis of (No?) Resistance. On the other hand, the biggest losers are undoubtedly Iran's allies: Hamas, who may now wonder whether their ill-advised October 7 incursion into Israel was worth losing everything over; Hezbollah, who may never look at pagers the same way again; and the Bashar regime, increasingly isolated. Add to that list Pakistan and General Asim Munir, who had to condemn Trump after nominating him for a Nobel Peace Prize—and then, while his repast had barely made it past the bowel, condemned America for striking Iran. Ummah unity? What's that? Also conspicuously missing were the Chinese and Russians—two nations that mouthed homilies about restraint while silently absorbing the lesson that Uncle Sam still does what he wants, when he wants. So what is the Trump Doctrine? As an unnamed official once told Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic: 'The Trump Doctrine is: 'We're America, bi****.'' Read: Winners and Losers of the Middle East Conflict A New Hope Ten years from now, we might look back at the Headingley Test and see something different. A turning point, maybe. A lesson, definitely. But right now? Right now, every Indian fan is wondering how we lost a Test where four senior batters scored centuries, Jasprit Bumrah delivered a five-for, and Rishabh Pant was poetry on steroids. On paper, it should have been a win wrapped with a post-match selfie. Instead, the lower order folded like a Trump supporter when asked to explain how bombing Iran aligns with the MAGA promise of ending foreign wars. The slip cordon dropped more chances than your average teenager drops their Wi-Fi signal. The fielding? So village, it would make the Sunday League look like Premier League footballers. And yes, questions will be—and should be—asked of Shubman Gill's captaincy. For long stretches on the final day, Gill looked like a study in Sir Humphrey Appleby's favourite activity: masterless inaction. Mohammed Siraj, the best bowler on display, wasn't handed the ball for 39 overs. Jadeja was allowed to keep bowling into Ben Duckett's arc before finally adjusting his line. The bowling plans were hazy. The field placements reactive. The leadership felt uncertain. But let's also remember: Virat Kohli lost his first full series opener in Galle. MS Dhoni lost in Chennai. Gill's learning curve will be steep, but it's a curve nonetheless. This was only his sixth first-class game as captain. He's got a long way to go, but the tools are there. The real takeaway might be in what we didn't see. India didn't crumble. They didn't freeze. For much of the game, they dominated. They got themselves into winning positions twice. And even on the final day, despite everything, they still had England jittery. That's not nothing. The team is still carrying the steel that Kohli, Dhoni, and before them Ganguly instilled. And yes, the coach was the complete antithesis of Laughing Buddha post-match, which is fair, considering that's his actual name. But even in that scowl, there was a spark of something else. This loss hurt. But it also revealed that, flaws and all, India can still go toe to toe with England in England, even in transition. They made us believe. They lit a fire. Like the fourth episode of Star Wars, this was no triumph—but it was A New Hope. Gill isn't Luke yet, and this isn't the Death Star. But the Force is there. You Don't Mess with the Zohran My favourite anecdote about Zohran Mamdani, is the fact that he convinced his mother, Mira Nair, to cast Kal Penn as Gogol in The Namesake—based on the book by Jhumpa Lahiri, which is a whole genre of publishing based on Bengalis writing and reading about how it feels to be Bengali—after watching him in the stoner comedy Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle. Now, one can't forgive him for that, given the fact that Penn didn't sound Bengali by any stretch of the imagination, but Harold and Kumar definitely was a stellar moment of Indian representation in American culture. And now Zohran is on his way to creating a new sort of representation, if he can become the first Indian-origin mayor of New York City. Except this time, he's not doing it with a stoner comedy—but with lo-fi political cinema, socialist swag, and the kind of Gen Z zeitgeist that makes Chuck Schumer look like a rotary phone. He didn't just defeat former governor Andrew Cuomo, who treated the race like a comeback tour, or Brad Lander, who ran on earnest liberalism and old-school endorsements—he made them look like relics from a pre-Instagram era. From campaign posters that look like Bollywood teasers to rallies that double as Instagram moodboards, Zohran isn't asking voters to believe in hope—he's asking them to vibe. Read: How Zohran flipped the Trump playbook Top Gun Maverick Redux op Gun: Maverick wasn't just a blockbuster—it was a revival of Reagan-era masculinity, unapologetic patriotism, and practical spectacle. No identity politics, no green screen overload—just Tom Cruise, real jets, and raw nostalgia. Three years later, Donald Trump's stealth strike on Iran's Fordow nuclear facility—Operation Midnight Hammer—feels less like policy and more like a cinematic sequel. The parallels are uncanny. In Maverick, Cruise's team bombs a secret uranium facility tucked in a mountain. In real life, B-2 bombers flew halfway around the world to obliterate Iran's actual enrichment site near Qom. The mission briefing in both was the same: protect unnamed 'regional allies,' read: Israel. But while Maverick ended with high-fives and flags, Trump's version has stirred discontent within his MAGA base. What happened to 'no more endless wars'? Why are American bombers fighting someone else's battles again? Even Elon Musk criticised Trump for abandoning fiscal restraint in favour of Pentagon theatrics. The irony is rich. Trump once mocked past presidents for meddling abroad. Now he's orchestrated a strike straight out of Cold War playbook—with Hollywood flair. Top Gun: Maverick might have inspired enlistments; Trump's strike might inspire questions: Whose war was this really? In the end, the jets flew, the bunkers crumbled, and Tom Cruise probably grinned somewhere. But Washington is left with a more sobering afterburner: when your foreign policy looks like a movie script, don't be surprised if people forget who the director is. Read: How Trump's Operation Midnight Hammer was just like Top Gun: Maverick Post-Script: Every word has a consequence Some mornings, I wake up and feel like I've wandered into a Beckett play with bad lighting. The coffee's still bitter, the headlines still absurd, and the world still insists on its commitment to performative collapse. NASA, in its usual quietly panicked way, says droughts and floods have doubled. Not nudged, not nudging—doubled. It's the sort of data that should prompt emergency sessions, maybe a global reckoning or two. Instead, we get hashtags, panel discussions, and climate ministers giving interviews from fossil-fuel-sponsored lounges. Britain, meanwhile, is crisping. 32 degrees in southeast England. '100 times more likely,' say the models, thanks to climate change. One imagines Queen Victoria rising from the grave just to slap the thermostat. And yet, we carry on—browsing weekend getaways, debating air conditioner brands—while pretending this is normal. But what's truly deafening is the silence. The bureaucratic stillness. The studied inaction. Albert Camus wrote of the absurd as 'a confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world.' But I'd argue the world is no longer silent. It's shrieking. The unreasonable silence now lies squarely on our end. Read: Every word has a consequence. Every silence too… Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Mint
6 days ago
- Mint
Dani Rodrik: Abundance for consumers could still mean misery for workers
Next Story Dani Rodrik An economic vision of abundantly supplied markets isn't enough. People don't just derive an income from their vocations, but self-esteem and satisfaction too. We need policies that generate good jobs, even if we sacrifice some efficiency for it. The rise of far-right populists in the US and Europe has been linked to the job losses associated with trade shocks, automation and fiscal austerity. Gift this article The surest way for policy advocates to lose a progressive audience is to talk about the economy's supply side, the importance of incentives and the dangers of overregulation—ideas typically linked to conservative agendas. Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's new book Abundance aims to change all that. The surest way for policy advocates to lose a progressive audience is to talk about the economy's supply side, the importance of incentives and the dangers of overregulation—ideas typically linked to conservative agendas. Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's new book Abundance aims to change all that. As the authors point out, the left has traditionally focused on demand-side remedies. A key tenet of the New Deal in the US and social democracy in Europe is Keynesian management of aggregate demand to ensure full employment. Klein and Thompson rightly underscore that it is improvements in supply that are the source of broad-based posterity in the US and other advanced economies. As productivity rises, low- and middle-income families reap the benefits of cheaper and more varied and plentiful goods and services. However, increasingly, the US economy's ability to build things has been hobbled, the authors argue, by environmental, safety, labour and other regulations, and by complex and time-consuming local permitting rules. These rules and regulations may be well-meaning, but they can be also counterproductive. When governments and communities place obstacles in the way of investment and innovation, they undercut prosperity. Public transport lags behind, productivity in housing construction plummets and the deployment of renewables falters. The authors' vision of progress features energy from renewable sources and cheap, safe nuclear power; fresh water from desalination; fruits and vegetables from hyper-productive vertically stacked farms; meat produced in labs without slaughtering live animals; miracle drugs delivered by autonomous drones; and space-based factories meeting other needs without requiring any human workers. Since AI would greatly shorten the workweek, we'd all enjoy more vacation time without sacrificing our living standards. Keynesian social democracy no longer provides an adequate answer to the malaise experienced by workers. But Klein and Thompson's depiction of utopia reflects a vision that ultimately remains consumerist. Their focus is squarely on the abundance of goods and services that the economy generates—on how much we build, rather than on the builders. In this, they share a common blind spot with economists who, ever since Adam Smith, have emphasized that the ultimate end of production is consumption. But what gives meaning to our lives is not just the fruits of our labour, but also the work itself. When people are asked about well-being and life satisfaction, the work they do ranks at the top, along with contributions to their community and family bonds. For economists, a job provides income, but is otherwise a negative —a source of 'disutility.' For real people, a job is a source of pride, dignity and social recognition. Employment loss typically produces a reduction in individual well-being that is a multiple of the loss of income. The social effects magnify those costs. The rise of far-right populists in the US and Europe has been linked to the job losses associated with trade shocks, automation and fiscal austerity. Also Read: Populist policies can be myopic and also very hard to challenge Good jobs pay well, but also provide security, autonomy and a path to self-improvement. None of this is possible without high levels of productivity. A progressive focused on abundance of good jobs, rather than abundance of goods and services, would find plenty to agree with in this book. But there would also be many quibbles. Consider housing, one of Klein and Thompson's key examples. US productivity in housing construction has stagnated in recent years, in part because of safety regulations and union rules. But as one of the authors' interlocutors readily admits, fatalities and non-fatal injuries in construction have fallen dramatically in the US since the 1970s, thanks to many of these restrictive rules. That must surely count as an improvement in overall worker well- being, casting the productivity statistics in a somewhat different light. The authors' line of argument echoes economists' case for automation and free trade. These may have been efficient by conventional criteria, and they certainly helped produce an abundance of goods. But they also hurt many of our workers, leaving societies scarred and paving the way for right-wing populism. A good-jobs focus would make us more tolerant of regulations that sacrifice some efficiency for the sake of better labour-market outcomes, especially for non-college-educated workers. Ultimately, the real challenge for progressives is to devise an agenda that benefits workers as workers as much as in their role as consumers. This requires a distinctive approach to innovation, investment and regulation. Unions, worker representatives and collective bargaining must be viewed as essential components of abundance, rather than obstacles to it. Place-based strategies and local economic development coalitions are critical. Government must put its thumb on the scale to ensure innovation takes a worker-friendly direction. Advanced economies' most glaring failure has been their inability to deliver enough good jobs. Remedying this issue requires focusing on those who produce abundance, alongside abundance itself. ©2025/Project Syndicate The author is a professor of international political economy at Harvard Kennedy School, and the author of 'Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy'. Topics You May Be Interested In Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
Time of India
18-06-2025
- Time of India
The Weekly Vine Edition 47: Trump's Parade, Beckham's Cross, and the Death That Didn't Matter
Nirmalya Dutta's political and economic views vacillate from woke Leninist to Rand-Marxist to Keynesian-Friedmanite. He doesn't know what any of those terms mean. Hello and welcome to another issue of the Weekly Vine. This week, we take stock of Trump's boring parade, explain why brown lives matter a little less, explore the fear illusion, remember David Beckham the footballer, and reflect on borders and immigration. A Big, Beautiful, and Boring Parade When I was an insouciant kid in boarding school, I was deemed Kachra Party (KP) and exiled to the rafters during annual parades (on Independence and Republic Day) for not being able to stay in line or flail my legs in unison like my peers. Unlike the other exiled community that shares the same initials, I had no qualms about said exile. Now imagine my joy when, nearly two decades later, I saw an entire contingent march with the same disinterred gusto. One is, of course, referring to the semiquincentennial (how the hell does one pronounce that?) commemorations of the US Army, infamous for losing wars all over the world unless aided by the Red Army. Unfortunately, the anniversary coincided with chickenhawk President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, so we got a snoozefest sponsored by Coinbase, Lockheed Martin, Palantir, and a bunch of other companies. It was exactly as bad as one imagined, as the guests—much like yours truly during march pasts in boarding school—struggled to stay awake while soldiers and other members of the US Armed Forces marched with the enthusiasm of a snail returning home from a funeral on a lazy Sunday afternoon. The seats were empty because, unlike North Korea or Russia, America isn't an actual dictatorship in the traditional sense. The farce was reinforced by songs like Creedence Clearwater Revival's Fortunate Son—a track that literally mocks chickenhawks like Trump who dodged the draft—playing in the background. All in all, it was the perfect metaphor for a democracy pretending to be an authoritarian state, led by a transactional tyrant whose morals are flexible and who seems intent on destroying the liberal world order that emerged after WWII. Of course, much like Voltaire observed about the Holy Roman Empire, there was nothing particularly liberal or orderly about that world order—but that's a debate for another time. The Fear Illusion The other day, a news anchor asked on social media: 'What's happening to couples in the Northeast?'—a pretty preposterous argument to float unless one can draw a causal link suggesting that marriages are somehow more likely to end in Macbeth-like fatal murders in a particular geographical location. What it actually is, is a fine example of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, also known as the frequency illusion. The term originates from a 1990s online discussion where someone mentioned they'd just heard of the Baader–Meinhof Group (a German far-left militant organisation), and then suddenly began seeing references to it everywhere. The name stuck as shorthand for this type of mental glitch—and it happens to all of us. Take, for example, when you see a sign that says 'Stalking not allowed' (quite common in the national capital, where men seem to need periodic reminders about consent). Suddenly, you start noticing similar signs everywhere. It feels like the universe is messing with you, but in reality, your brain is simply tuning into something it was previously ignoring. Why it happens: The phenomenon is a combination of: Selective attention – Once your brain learns about something new, it subconsciously starts scanning for it. – Once your brain learns about something new, it subconsciously starts scanning for it. Confirmation bias – When you see it again, your brain takes note and thinks, 'Aha! I was right—it is everywhere!' Now, why am I telling you this? Because it's the basis for so many of our modern anxieties. Take the sudden barrage of news items about airplane snags after the horrific Air India crash in Ahmedabad. Suddenly, every TV channel and newspaper clipping seems to be about aviation issues—because editors and journalists aren't immune to the frequency illusion either. But is there any definitive proof that air travel is objectively less safe than it was a year ago? Not quite. It's just that our brains are wired to worry. That doesn't mean we shouldn't drag companies over the coals to ensure better quality control—but we should be diligent before jumping the gun and assuming systemic failure. The odds of dying in a plane crash are about 1 in 8 million, whereas the odds of dying in a road accident in India are around 1 in 5,000—making road travel over 1,600 times deadlier than flying. Maybe it's your daily commute you should be afraid of. Why Brown Lives Don't Matter As Much When a white police officer knelt on the neck of a Black man named George Floyd, leading to his death, it became a global movement that eventually sunk the Democratic Party. But for a time, Black Lives Matter was the most powerful social movement in the world—even the Indian cricket team, who might not be able to name a single victim of police brutality in India, took a knee in solidarity. Now, when 42-year-old Gaurav Kundi, an Indian-origin father of two, died of catastrophic brain damage after allegedly being pinned down by police in Australia, there's hardly a murmur—let alone a montage of global solidarity. Conflicting reports suggest he was intoxicated and arguing with his wife, which the police mistook for domestic violence. None of that changes the fact that a man lost his life following an altercation with law enforcement. And yet, the silence—even from the Indian press—is deafening. Perhaps it's because brown deaths don't move moral compasses. Gaurav simply doesn't evoke the same emotions as George. While that's understandable on some levels—given America's long and brutal history with race, and its compulsive need to overcorrect for its original sin—there's a deeper reason: brown lives simply don't offer the political payoff or financial traction required to fuel a global moral crusade. It's the same reason Western media outlets have no qualms referring to terrorists who murder Hindu pilgrims as 'gunmen', but would never dream of using such euphemisms if the same act occurred in Paris, London, or New York. Moral outrage, like everything else in this post-liberal order, is market-driven. And Gaurav Kundi's death, tragically, just doesn't sell. Sir David Beckham 'Beckham, into Sheringham… and Solskjaer has won it!''Manchester United have reached the promised land.' The corner came in like a hymn. Beckham's delivery—whipped, precise, inevitable—was scripture in motion. In the annals of football, there are players who pass, players who dribble, players who score. But there was no one who could bend it like Beckham. Or to paraphrase Leonard Cohen: David had a secret chord that pleased the United fans of the current vintage, it's hard to forget how good Beckham and his mates were and how terrifying it was for opposing teams when they played together. Because at that moment we were all in a Gurinder Chadha film, hoping to bend it like Beckham and if we couldn't copy his mohawk hairstyle, much to the chagrin of mothers and teachers. You had Ryan Giggs running like a cocker spaniel chasing a silver piece of paper. You had Roy Keane looking at you menacingly as he covered every blade of grass. You had Paul Scholes hitting the ball with such power that it took Sir Alex Ferguson's breath away. And you had David Beckham pinging crosses and passes with such accuracy that it seemed barely human. It's easy to forget now, with the beard oils and whisky launches, the sarongs and showmanship, that before he became a brand, Beckham was a baller. And not just a decent one. A magnificent one. Read more. Post-Script by Prasad Sanyal: The Border Isn't Where You Think It Is There's an old video of Milton Friedman doing the rounds on Instagram. Sepia-toned, clipped, and inconveniently intelligent, it shows the economist calmly explaining why immigration worked better before 1914—largely because there was no welfare system. Immigrants came to work, not to collect benefits. And in that measured, almost surgical voice, Friedman drops the line that still makes policy wonks twitch: 'You can't have free immigration and a welfare state.' Read more. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
