Freeman

ARTICLE

Industrial Hostages

DECEMBER 01, 1982 by BRIAN SUMMERS

Mr. Summers is a member of the staff of The Foundation for Economic Education.

With unemployment afflicting many communities, political leaders are proposing that businesses be prevented from closing their plants and moving to new locations. In several states, bills have been introduced which would require severance pay to laid-off workers and restitution payments to the surrounding community.

These proposals have been examined by several leading economists, most notably Richard B. McKenzie of Clemson University. Let us examine their findings, so we can better judge the merits of legal restrictions on business mobility.

Restrictions on business mobility are costly.

Suppose, for example, a manufacturing firm in the North is prevented from moving to the South, where taxes, wage rates, and other business expenses may be lower. This places the manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage compared with firms in less costly regions. His profit margins decline and his stockholders suffer losses. Eventually he may have to close.

In addition, there are hidden costs. With capital held hostage, other sectors of the economy can’t expand. New businesses, new products, and new jobs won’t appear because the needed resources are tied up in inefficient production processes. In the long run, restrictions on business mobility lead to greater costs, higher prices, and lower real incomes.

Less mobility means less competition.

When a business firm moves into a region, it competes with local businesses and bids up the wages of local workers. Restrictions on business mobility prevent firms from entering new areas, thereby reducing competition in those regions.

As time passes, competition is also reduced in areas companies wish to vacate. New firms are reluctant to enter a region that may, at some future date, prevent them from leaving. Taking hostages scares away potential employers.

Restrictions on business mobility increase the monopoly power of unions.

When businesses are prevented from moving, the threat of job loss is reduced, and unions can increase their demands. The industrial hostage is at the mercy of the union, while nonunion workers in other parts of the country are prevented from bidding for jobs.

In the long run, restrictions on business mobility are futile.

If business firms are prevented from moving to more hospitable locations, the profitable opportunities there will be exploited by others. New firms will open and existing firms will expand. These businesses will be able to undersell the industrial hostages. The hostage firms will have to contract or go out of business.

As the new firms grow and the hostage firms decline, employment patterns will shift in spite of the relocation rules. But, because of the dislocations caused by the restrictions on business mobility, the adjustment process will be far more costly than would occur in a free and open market.

ASSOCIATED ISSUE

December 1982

comments powered by Disqus

EMAIL UPDATES

* indicates required
Sign me up for...

CURRENT ISSUE

July/August 2014

The United States' corporate tax burden is the highest in the world, but innovators will always find a way to duck away from Uncle Sam's reach. Doug Bandow explains how those with the means are renouncing their citizenship in increasing numbers, while J. Dayne Girard describes the innovative use of freeports to shield wealth from the myriad taxes and duties imposed on it as it moves around the world. Of course the politicians brand all of these people unpatriotic, hoping you won't think too hard about the difference between the usual crony-capitalist suspects and the global creative elite that have done so much to improve our lives. In a special tech section, Joseph Diedrich, Thomas Bogle, and Matthew McCaffrey look at various ways these innovators add value to our lives--even in ways they probably never expected.
Download Free PDF

PAST ISSUES

SUBSCRIBE

RENEW YOUR SUBSCRIPTION