Quantcast
Connect with us

Happy Labor Day: Trump’s trade war isn’t bringing jobs back from China

Published

on

- Commentary
Thanks for your support!
This article was paid for by reader donations to Raw Story Investigates.

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber? Try us and go ad-free for $1. Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.

Terry H. Schwadron
Terry H. Schwadron

If you believe even a scintilla of the Chinese trade talk from the White House, you likely accept the notion that these trade disputes are bringing companies and jobs back to the United States.

Here’s my question: Is it true?

If the companies and jobs are not coming back, where exactly is the beef of this conflict?

As it turns out, there is no central accounting for such job transfers, but what seems to be happening is that companies made unhappy with the trade situation are moving to other countries with low wages – including Bangladesh and Vietnam – or simply increasing the output of goods produced in China for an Asian market rather than for the United States.

ADVERTISEMENT

Companies who might consider returning jobs to the U.S. face the prospects of investing in plants that will pay much higher wages, tariffs on imported parts and supplies.

Meanwhile, of course, U.S. companies that have been adversely affected are in search of supply lines and markets outside China. Those companies who might consider returning jobs to the United States face the prospects of investing in plants that will pay much higher wages, tariffs on imported parts and supplies as well as other uncertainties of the U.S. economy.

My conclusion: The effect of trade wars will not be immediate, and is unlikely to produce the results that Donald Trump promises.

Jobs for Cambodia

Politico and the South China Post recently looked at a bicycle manufacturer with plants in Shanghai and, since 2014, in South Carolina. Indeed, there was a big to-do in South Carolina when Kent International announced grand plans for expansion. Today, production at the Shanghai plant is moving to a planned new factory in Cambodia, and the South Carolina effort has met tariffs on steel parts that have stalled any plans to bring jobs to the United States. Rather than buy those component parts in America, this company finds imports cheaper; rather than move the manufacture to South Carolina, those Chinese jobs are now going to be Cambodian jobs.

It would appear that companies leaving China are headed for cheaper labor markets in Southeast Asia.

ADVERTISEMENT

Overall in the United States, manufacturing job trends are seen as cooling and national economic growth has slowed. The latest U.S. jobs report showed manufacturing employment rose by an average of 8,000 per month in 2019, compared with an increase of 22,000 jobs per month in 2018. Job additions have been revised to be a half-billion less than first reported nationally, and the rate of growth has been refigured to about 2.5% a year.

The Coalition for a Prosperous America, a backer of Trump’s tariffs, has estimated that the Chinese tariffs could create more than million U.S. jobs in five years; instead, those jobs so far seem to be going elsewhere in Asia. That group now favors cutting off Chinese trade altogether, a position that Trump has adopted, disowned, and then sort of backed again. Trump has gone so far as to describe emergency powers by which he could force U.S. companies to quit China before saying he does not intend to use the laws now.

“Tariffs are a great negotiating tool, a great revenue producer and, most importantly, a powerful way to get companies to come to the USA and to get companies that have left us for other lands to COME BACK HOME,” Trump tweeted last month.

ADVERTISEMENT

For sure, there have some announcements from companies about bringing jobs back to the United States. Stanley Black & Decker said this year it would move production of its Craftsman line of tools, which it acquired from Sears, from China to Texas, adding 500 jobs. Restoration Hardware is another, saying in a recent earnings report that tariffs were spurring it to bring some manufacture to the U.S.

The U.S. Commerce Department published this year a “case study” on reinvesting in the U.S., highlighting the experiences of six companies moving production to America. The report makes the case “that anecdotal evidence of hundreds of reshoring cases is very real,” but it also admits that tariffs are a “challenge” for companies wanting to move production to the U.S.

ADVERTISEMENT

Half of the companies profiled by the Commerce Department highlight the harm of tariffs on investment decisions, but also cited difficulty finding trained workers, uncertainty about regulations and a more expensive-than-planned transition.

‘Modest Effect’

Harry Moser, president of the nonprofit Reshoring Initiative, told the South China Post that he agrees 100% with the goals of Trump’s tariffs, but said they have had a “modest net negative” effect on jobs coming back to the U.S. as companies look elsewhere to relocate production. Reshoring did a study that showed 2018 moves already were waning by this year.

The South China Post talked with a Hong Kong-based supply chain inspection company which said  neither China nor the U.S. is winning the trade war.  The company, which has 6,000 clients worldwide, has seen a 13% drop for China-based inspections from U.S. companies, while seeing increases of work for U.S. companies increase 21% in Vietnam, 25% in Indonesia and 15% in Cambodia. Mexico inspections for U.S. clients jumped by a staggering 119%in the first six months of 2019.

ADVERTISEMENT

For other companies, the threat of intellectual property, theft and not tariffs has driven decisions to relocate production to the U.S. An Ohio toy company reported that one brand returned work from China to an existing plant in Hudson, Ohio, in a bid to avoid fake versions of its products from being sold to consumers, noting that the counterfeit manufacture also was producing unsafe goods.

Still, the firm said that were it not for having an existing plant, the company would have considered moving production elsewhere in Asia to avoid labor costs.

It sounds to me that we should be wary of claims of the U.S. gains from tariffs on China.

ADVERTISEMENT

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber? Try us and go ad-free for $1. Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Commentary

Trump unleashes yet another maddening scandal as he opens the door to Saudi Arabian interference

Published

on

I don’t often talk about how mad I am. I don’t often talk about how mad I am, because talking often about how mad I am prevents me from speaking clearly and rationally. I want to speak clearly and rationally. There is so much need for speaking clearly and rationally amid the endless streams of waste and filth polluting our public discourse.

This article was originally published at The Editorial Board

But I can’t speak clearly and rationally at the expense of morality. Morality often begins with a feeling. The Gospels tell us of Jesus looking on the poor—he could hear and smell their misery—and he was “moved with pity.” But another way of putting it, another way of translating ?????????????, is that the rabbi felt compassion “in his guts.

Continue Reading

Commentary

What the Trump impeachment inquiry means for the rest of the world

Published

on

Once again, the United States is experiencing the profound drama of Presidential impeachment proceedings. But, dissimilar from the past, this time the implications for the rest of the world could be large.

Consider the two modern predecessors to today’s impeachment inquiry into President Donald J. Trump’s attempt to persuade Ukraine’s government to begin a criminal investigation of one of his leading Democratic challengers, former Vice President Joe Biden and Biden’s son Hunter.

The first was the slow-brewing crisis that began with a midnight break-in at the Democratic National Committee’s offices at the Watergate Hotel in Washington in 1972. This impeachment went on for two years and consumed the American political system. It finally ended in President Richard Nixon’s resignation in August 1974. The second was the special counsel investigation of President William J. Clinton, who was impeached in the U.S. House of Representatives but acquitted by the Senate in 1999.

Continue Reading
 

Commentary

Cynicism may be the real threat to impeachment

Published

on

Cynicism is to democratic politics what rust is to motor vehicles. Both are corrosive if left unchecked. Rust will destroy a vehicle, and cynicism, if it becomes endemic, will ultimately destroy democracy.

This thought struck me after some recent conversations with a few friends and acquaintances about the possible impeachment of President Trump. The cynical view of the process is that all politicians are corrupt in one way or another; they act based on self-interest and not in the public interest. In this view, Trump is no different; he is just doing what politicians do. This type of public cynicism may very well be the greatest impediment that Democrats face during the impeachment process. As David Brooks recently wrote in the New York Times, “it’s a lot harder to do impeachment in an age of cynicism, exhaustion and distrust” especially when Trump’s actions are viewed by many as “the kind of corruption that politicians of all stripes have been doing all along.”

Continue Reading