re: Trade Data Shows Trump’s Tariffs Are Working

quote:

---

You’ve left out the marginal increase in cost of those paying those additional workers.

---

No.
The inherent cost of domestic employment is translated into the cost of goods. If that overall equation is negative, as you seem to presume, then we would have economic contraction. We don't, either in nominal or in real terms. Real GDP was up in the last measured quarter 1.6%.

Trump got TSMC to deal.

Biden grew on the deal by offering them $11 billion in subsidies.

Then (because of tariffs) TSMC just invested $100 billion more to Trump.

quote:

---

The inherent cost of domestic employment is translated into the cost of goods.

---

This makes no difference. The employer is poorer for paying higher wages. Otherwise, why wouldn't an employer hire 1,000 peope to dig holes, and another 1,000 workers to fill them up? Wouldn't they be "richer" for creating all the new jobs?

quote:

---

If that overall equation is negative, as you seem to presume, then we would have economic contraction. We don't, either in nominal or in real terms. Real GDP was up in the last measured quarter 1.6%

---

I'm not sure I have to even argue this. GDP as a single variable causality model is... probably not a good idea. Especially given the share of services and other non-manufacturing in our economy. In fact, most growth has occurred in education and healthcare sectors, which are not terribly dependent on imported goods.

quote:

---

That fab also expanded in 2022 and 2024 before tariffs were even announced.

---

There total investment was $40 billion . They may announced at start of Trumps term another $100 billion investment......bc of tariffs.

quote:

---

They may announced at start of Trumps term another $100 billion investment......bc of tariffs.

---

Classic post hoc ergo propter hoc. I won two bike races after Trump's tariffs. It was probably the tariffs. Thanks Trump!

So they made the original deal with Trump, and invested the most with Trump, but you don't think it's because of Trumps policies?

Um ok then

quote:

---

It is in the broken window fallacy as well. He has work he wouldn't otherwise have.

---

In the broken window fallacy, the shop owner's loss of economic production is passed directly to the window man. When return to the norm (shop with repaired window) occurs, money in the system has not changed. It has simply been reshuffled.

That simply is not the same equation.
I'm not sure how else to explain it.

quote:

---

In the broken window fallacy, the shop owner's loss of economic production is passed directly to the window man.

---

Whether the losses are passed to the window man or the worker makes no difference. To illustrate, is the owner enriched of the workers repair the glass instead of hiring a glass man?

Perhaps the markup on material and labor would be lower, but the owner would still
lose the production of the worker while he made the repair.

quote:

---

You make several questionable assumptions in that brief sentence.

---

Ok. Feel free to demonstrate how paying more for labor makes the owner more wealthy.

If overpaying for COGS leads to wealth, why would owners move production overseas to begin with?

quote:

---

So if the suggestion is we are even fractionally close to full impact, that would be silly.

---

Literally the premise of the OP.

quote:

---

Because he'd not get paid for the production.

---

Indeed! How much “extra” does an owner get paid for the marginal increase in labor coats without raising prices?

EDIT: I’m not the downvoted on your post.

Again. There are trade offs in every system. We ran with a tariff system that funded the US government.

And somehow, we won wars and generated wealth to push us to the #1 nation.

"Free Trade", sold to the USA by FDR (should say alot), has devastated jobs here. It has never been an either or. We could have maintained the manufacturing while creating jobs in tech and more.

"Free Trade" has also harmed wage growth and put people on welfare(something we all know should end).

Tariffs will generate jobs and raise wages while keeping critical needs in house. Thats the offset.

1. Factories could move production overseas.
Once companies could produce in Mexico, China, Vietnam, etc. and sell back into the U.S. with fewer trade barriers, they had a cheaper labor option. That meant American workers in manufacturing had to compete against workers making far less.


2. That weakened wage bargaining.
Even if a factory didn’t leave, the threat became: “Accept lower wages/benefits, or we’ll move production.” That puts downward pressure on pay, especially for non-college workers and union workers. EPI argues this was one of NAFTA’s biggest effects: employers gained leverage to push down wages and benefits.

Economic Policy Institute
3. Manufacturing jobs disappeared or paid less.
The strongest evidence is the “China shock.” Research by Autor, Dorn, and Hanson found that areas exposed to rising Chinese imports had higher unemployment, lower labor-force participation, and reduced wages, especially in manufacturing-heavy towns.

American Economic Association
4. The replacement jobs often weren’t equal.
A laid-off factory worker making solid wages with benefits might find work in retail, warehouse, food service, gig work, or lower-paid service jobs. So even when people “found another job,” their household income could still drop.


5. Once wages dropped, public assistance filled the gap.
When good jobs vanished, more people needed unemployment benefits, disability, Medicaid, SNAP, housing assistance, earned income tax credits, or other support. The China-shock research found labor-market adjustment was slow, with wages and labor-force participation staying depressed for years.