In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama said that "[g]lobalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers", calling for government action to redistribute wealth more equitably.  Such a statement encapsulates the fundamental lack of understanding of basic economics, and progress in general, that is the basis of Obama's entire economic agenda.

Such a statement is ridiculous enough on the face of it to elicit laughter — is he saying that, for example, farm workers were in a better "position" using oxen and plows compared to tractors?  Were cotton field workers better off before Eli Whitney's cotton 'gin came along?  Certainly, the ox-breeders and manufacturers of yolks might have thought so; perhaps he is angling for the Amish vote.

For Obama's statement to be true, some pretty strange assumptions are necessary, and one is forced to look at things from a "trickle up" standpoint where what is true for a localized system becomes true for the entire world.  Certainly the innovation of the automobile had a negative impact on the employment of stagecoach constructors, but the overall impact was certainly a positive for job creation and worker prosperity.

"Globalization" can be a dirty word to many anti-trade protectionists on the left and the right.  But as the world economy has opened up, it has served to increase the market for goods and services.  Economy of scale and comparative advantage have produced a worldwide boom in economic activity and prosperity wherever free markets and trade are promoted.  Instead of working only for the "Big Three" of Ford, Chrysler, or GM, auto workers in the United States now have job opportunities producing Toyotas in Texas, Mercedes Benzes in Alabama, or Nissans in Tennessee.  Farmers have increased exports to countries such as Canada, Mexico, China, and Columbia.  Less expensive imports of steel have fueled construction in the US, creating jobs and opportunities.

Technological innovation is a net negative for economic prosperity only if one looks at the small picture.  Where a century ago over half of the labor force was employed in agriculture, now we have more plentiful, less expensive food with only about 3% of the population working to produce it.  Those formerly earning their living toiling in the fields now can be mobilized towards more productive efforts.  The result has been a standard of living that continues to improve.

Automation likewise serves to increase productivity while lowering prices and increasing options.  Automation also creates new jobs writing software, manufacturing the automation equipment itself, and a myriad of other related jobs — jobs which tend to be more highly compensated than pure assembly line positions.

Certainly there are pockets of economically depressed areas.  Cheaper steel from overseas can result in the closing of domestic steel mills; however, competition ultimately benefits those American industries that innovate, and as mentioned above, less expensive steel leads to increases in construction and decreases in related costs for businesses and consumers.

Rather than the increased government intrusion on the market advocated by Sen. Obama, a better answer is less government intervention — removing the shackles of government taxation and micromanagement would allow American companies to be more efficient and competitive; it is instructive that the highest unemployment rates are in states where the highest levels of taxation and regulation are in place.  It is increased government intrusion on the free market — on individual choice — that harms the position of workers, not progress.