Go vote. Think first.

In thirty three days, we will collectively make a momentous decision.

There are two major party candidates and two third party candidates. Ardent as their supporters may be, let us posit that neither of the third party candidates will prevail.

That leaves us two candidates, one on the left, one on the right, both less than perfect. Which way do we tack? Continue on to port, or heave to starboard? It will depend on what the majority of American voters think is most important, and how they assess the ability of each candidate to improve their lives.

Let’s take a broad look at a few topics of concern without prescribing solutions or ascribing relative advantage to either candidate.

1.       Globalization and trade

Globalization has caused wrenching changes in all Western economies, not the least here at home. First, manufacturing jobs moved from New England to the South, then to Mexico, and Asia, and India, constantly searching out lower costs of production. The result was directly observed as job losses. It made criticism of trade agreements, such as NAFTA, easy and popular.

But here is the rub. While certain manufacturing jobs, largely low skill, were lost, the cost of purchasing goods was lowered. The American consumer was able to purchase far more with her dollar. Clothing, dishwares, appliances, bedding, furniture – all could be had at Walmart or Costco or Sears at much lower prices.

The loss of low-skill manufacturing jobs is directly experienced and widely observed. But the benefits accrued from international trade, while enormous, are diffuse and not obviously seen. That a family can purchase new school clothes at a significant saving is not seen nor deemed noteworthy. But when multiplied by 100 million households, this one minor example could rack up billions of dollars in savings. Now multiply this by many other examples of savings gleaned from various daily purchases.

American households, given numerous billions of dollars, will now allocate that money in other ways. Savings. Restaurant meals. Vacations. House renovations. All of which generate additional economic activity and new jobs.

Directly observable costs and diffuse benefits – something to be careful of when arguing positions.

2.       Middle class wage stagnation

Globalization, cheered above, has also contributed to middle class wage stagnation. A displaced manufacturing worker who ends up serving french fries is not advancing up the wage scale. It is an absolute requirement that trade deals include benefits and re-training of displaced workers so that they become qualified for higher skill jobs.

But another more pernicious effect is the lack of economic growth. Growth is the engine that creates jobs, increases demand and competition for workers, and drives higher wages. The past eight years since the financial meltdown have achieved very disappointing growth. The President’s administration projected growth in 2010 for the following five years at 3.9%. GDP actually grew by only 2.2% a year during that time. (Wall Street Journal, 10/4/2016, “Judging President Obama on His Own Terms).

In 2013, the administration reduced their four-year growth projection to 3.3%. The actual growth rate stubbornly remained low at 2.3% during that period. While these differences may seem insignificant, consider this: “Compounding growth at 3.6% annually means a 28% larger economy after seven years. Compounding at only 2.1% means 15.7% growth. If the administration’s growth projections were accurate, the GDP would be about $1.8 trillion larger. That’s roughly $6,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.”

What would a family of four do with their additional $24,000? First and foremost, it would move them more solidly into the middle class. And, as mentioned above, they would spend it. Savings. Restaurant meals. Vacations. House renovations. All of which generate additional economic activity and more new jobs.

What is standing in the way of higher economic growth? Why have the administration’s projections gone afoul, stranding innumerable erstwhile wage earners in the doldrums?

Many economists, such as John Cochrane of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, believe it is in great part due to the growth of the bureaucratic state. Cochrane characterizes overly burdensome business regulation as “sand in the gears” of our economy.

At recent count, there are 81,611 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations costing $2.028 trillion per year in compliance costs. (That’s about $25 million per page). Can we intelligently reduce this burden, so that smog doesn’t return to Los Angles and Lake Erie remains swimmable and banks remain solvent?

One would certainly hope so. It is our choice of president and legislators which will determine our course.

Good luck, dear voter. Think deeply.