Manufacturing, Immigration, low Prices, Why Trump Will Fail
I read this article in The Business Insider as to why Trump's three goals of Manufacturing, Immigration, and Lowering Consumer Prices will not work together.
The actual article is quite lengthily, but I have provided the link at the end of this discussion for those of you who are interested. Here is the summary,
---Trump's Economic Trilemma: Manufacturing, Immigration, and Prices
**Core Argument:**
Trump is pursuing three conflicting goals:
1. **Boost U.S. manufacturing**
2. **Reduce immigration**
3. **Keep consumer prices low**
Economists argue he can’t achieve all three simultaneously—at least not without major tradeoffs.
---Manufacturing vs. Immigration
- Trump wants foreign companies to build factories in the U.S., using tariffs as leverage.
- But immigration crackdowns—like the raid on Hyundai’s $7.6B Georgia plant—are scaring off investors and delaying operations.
- High-tech industries (e.g. semiconductors, EVs) need skilled foreign workers to launch U.S. facilities. Blocking visas like H-1B undermines this.
--- Immigration vs. Prices
- Many manufacturing and construction jobs rely on immigrant labor.
- Restricting immigration shrinks the labor pool, driving up wages and production costs.
- With fewer workers, companies either raise prices or move operations abroad.
---
Tariffs vs. Prices
- Tariffs raise costs on imported goods, which domestic producers often match.
- Example: Trump’s 2018 washing machine tariffs raised prices on both washers and dryers—even U.S.-made ones.
- Tariffs also reduce product variety and shift labor away from sectors like healthcare, where demand is rising.
Public Opinion & Policy Contradictions
- Americans want more manufacturing but don’t want the jobs.- They support lower immigration but also want low prices.
- The administration’s policies—tariffs, visa fees, raids—create uncertainty and erode trust among investors.
---Expert Takeaways
- Economists say the policies are “bad for consumers, full stop.”
- Immigration restrictions and blunt trade tools risk slowing growth and raising costs.
- The White House disputes this trilemma, citing post-WWII growth and Asian tariff models—but experts say those comparisons don’t hold water anymore.
Here is the link to the entire article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-i … omy-2025-9Interesting thread
I’ve read the argument that Trump’s three goals, boosting U.S. manufacturing, reducing immigration, and keeping consumer prices low, cannot work together, but I strongly disagree. First, on manufacturing versus immigration, the claim is that immigration crackdowns scare off foreign investment and make it impossible to grow U.S. factories. From my perspective, that’s simply not true. America has over six million unemployed citizens and millions more underemployed, many of whom could be trained for factory work if companies had the right incentives. Foreign companies invest in the U.S. because it’s the largest consumer market, not just to exploit cheap labor. Trump’s tariffs actually force these companies to invest in American workers and infrastructure, and skilled labor shortages can still be addressed with targeted visas without open borders. In my view, demanding that companies employ Americans is exactly what should happen.
Regarding immigration and prices, many argue that restricting immigration automatically drives wages up and raises costs for consumers. I see it differently. Productivity gains and automation already replace millions of low-skilled jobs, meaning factories don’t need massive labor pools. Higher wages are a positive for American families, and even if prices rise slightly, workers’ stronger paychecks more than make up for it. Allowing unchecked immigration to flood the labor market only depresses wages and benefits corporations, not American workers. You cannot argue that Americans need higher wages and then claim immigration restrictions will destroy the economy, that’s contradictory.
On tariffs versus prices, critics often point to the 2018 washing machine example, but I think they cherry-pick short-term data. While prices did rise temporarily, domestic production expanded, and more Americans were hired. Strategic tariffs are not about making goods more expensive; they’re about rebuilding U.S. supply chains and protecting national security. Cheap goods are worthless if Americans have no jobs and essential products come from countries like China. A little higher cost today is a small price for economic independence and security.
People also say that Americans’ goals are contradictory: wanting more manufacturing, lower immigration, and low prices. But history shows this isn’t true. After WWII, America controlled immigration, grew manufacturing, and created the strongest middle class in history. Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan rebuilt their economies through tariffs, protected industries, and careful labor management. Critics dismiss these comparisons, but I think they hold up; nations prosper when they put their citizens first. The real contradiction isn’t in Trump’s policies, it’s in the globalist mindset that says we can’t grow manufacturing without cheap foreign labor or imports.
In the end, I don’t see this as a “trilemma.” The idea that these goals conflict is mostly a talking point from economists and corporations who profit off outsourcing and cheap labor. From my perspective, Trump’s approach is about rebuilding America’s middle class, securing our supply chains, and ensuring we aren’t dependent on foreign nations. A small increase in prices is worth it if it keeps jobs in America. Immigration should serve America’s interests, and tariffs protect our industries and national security. That’s not a trilemma; that’s a strategy for American survival and prosperity.I appreciate your views, but there is a lot to unpack here. I was thinking about how I could best present my rebuttal to your views, It is a lot to parse, so I enlisted AI to help me analyze your replies. I copied and pasted your replies first followed by mine.
I’ve read the argument that Trump’s three goals, boosting U.S. manufacturing, reducing immigration, and keeping consumer prices low, cannot work together, but I strongly disagree. First, on manufacturing versus immigration, the claim is that immigration crackdowns scare off foreign investment and make it impossible to grow U.S. factories. From my perspective, that’s simply not true. America has over six million unemployed citizens and millions more underemployed, many of whom could be trained for factory work if companies had the right incentives. Foreign companies invest in the U.S. because it’s the largest consumer market, not just to exploit cheap labor. Trump’s tariffs actually force these companies to invest in American workers and infrastructure, and skilled labor shortages can still be addressed with targeted visas without open borders. In my view, demanding that companies employ Americans is exactly what should happen.
• Labor Pool ≠ Labor Readiness: Unemployment doesn’t equal trainable factory labor. Many of the unemployed are older, disabled, or lack the technical skills modern factories require. The idea that they can be rapidly upskilled ignores the time, cost, and infrastructure needed.
• Foreign Investment Is Risk-Averse: Immigration raids like the one at Hyundai’s Georgia plant create reputational and operational risk. Companies don’t just want market access—they want labor stability. If they can’t hire the workers they need, they’ll invest elsewhere.
• Tariffs Alone Don’t Build Infrastructure: Tariffs may nudge companies toward domestic production, but without a coherent industrial policy (training, tax credits, regulatory clarity), they’re just blunt instruments. Hyundai’s delay proves this.
Regarding immigration and prices, many argue that restricting immigration automatically drives wages up and raises costs for consumers. I see it differently. Productivity gains and automation already replace millions of low-skilled jobs, meaning factories don’t need massive labor pools. Higher wages are a positive for American families, and even if prices rise slightly, workers’ stronger paychecks more than make up for it. Allowing unchecked immigration to flood the labor market only depresses wages and benefits corporations, not American workers. You cannot argue that Americans need higher wages and then claim immigration restrictions will destroy the economy, that’s contradictory.
• Automation Doesn’t Eliminate Labor Needs: Automation shifts labor demand—it doesn’t erase it. Factories still need technicians, engineers, and logistics workers. Many of these roles are filled by immigrants, especially in high-tech sectors.
• Wage Gains Aren’t Universal: Restricting immigration may raise wages in some sectors, but it also raises costs for businesses, which pass those costs to consumers. The net effect can be inflation without real wage growth.
• “Unchecked Immigration” Is a Straw Man: U.S. immigration is already tightly controlled. The idea that the labor market is flooded ignores visa caps, enforcement, and demographic trends (e.g., declining birth rates and aging population).
On tariffs versus prices, critics often point to the 2018 washing machine example, but I think they cherry-pick short-term data. While prices did rise temporarily, domestic production expanded, and more Americans were hired. Strategic tariffs are not about making goods more expensive; they’re about rebuilding U.S. supply chains and protecting national security. Cheap goods are worthless if Americans have no jobs and essential products come from countries like China. A little higher cost today is a small price for economic independence and security.
• The Washer Example Is Representative: Prices rose not just for washers but dryers too—even U.S.-made ones. That’s not cherry-picking; it’s a textbook case of tariff pass-through.
• Domestic Production Didn’t Scale: While some jobs were added, they were limited and offset by price hikes. Tariffs often protect inefficient industries rather than spur innovation.
• National Security Requires More Than Tariffs: Resilience needs diversified sourcing, domestic R&D, and skilled labor—not just protectionism. Tariffs without complementary policy are economic sandbags, not scaffolding.
People also say that Americans’ goals are contradictory: wanting more manufacturing, lower immigration, and low prices. But history shows this isn’t true. After WWII, America controlled immigration, grew manufacturing, and created the strongest middle class in history. Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan rebuilt their economies through tariffs, protected industries, and careful labor management. Critics dismiss these comparisons, but I think they hold up; nations prosper when they put their citizens first. The real contradiction isn’t in Trump’s policies, it’s in the globalist mindset that says we can’t grow manufacturing without cheap foreign labor or imports.
• Post-WWII Conditions Were Unique: America had global industrial dominance, a young labor force, and massive federal investment (GI Bill, highway system, defense spending). Immigration was low, but so was global competition.
• Asian Models Are Not Transferable: Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan used export-led growth, currency manipulation, and state-directed investment. Their success depended on tight social cohesion and centralized planning—not free-market tariffs.
• Today’s U.S. Is a Service Economy: Manufacturing is no longer the primary engine. Trying to recreate a 1950s industrial base in a 2025 digital economy is like rebuilding steam engines in the age of electric cars.
In the end, I don’t see this as a “trilemma.” The idea that these goals conflict is mostly a talking point from economists and corporations who profit off outsourcing and cheap labor. From my perspective, Trump’s approach is about rebuilding America’s middle class, securing our supply chains, and ensuring we aren’t dependent on foreign nations. A small increase in prices is worth it if it keeps jobs in America. Immigration should serve America’s interests, and tariffs protect our industries and national security. That’s not a trilemma; that’s a strategy for American survival and prosperity.
• Economists Aren’t Just Corporate Mouthpieces: The trilemma is based on real-world constraints—labor supply, production costs, and consumer demand. Ignoring these tradeoffs is ideological, not strategic.
• Dependency Isn’t Solved by Isolation: Reducing reliance on foreign nations requires innovation, not just tariffs. Immigration restrictions and trade barriers can backfire by pushing talent and capital abroad.
• Middle-Class Revival Needs Policy Depth: Infrastructure, education, healthcare, and housing all play roles. Tariffs and immigration crackdowns alone won’t rebuild the middle class.
• Undocumented immigrants make up ~41% of crop farmworkers nationally.
• In Idaho, nearly 90% of dairy workers are foreign-born.
• Deportations remove skilled laborers who operate machinery, manage irrigation, and harvest crops. These roles aren’t easily filled by domestic workers due to skill gaps and geographic mismatch.
Impact:
• Crops go unharvested or rot in fields.
• Farmers reduce output or shift to mechanized crops.
• Peterson Institute study found mass deportation could raise food prices by 10%.
Example 2: Alabama’s HB-56 Law (2011)
• After workplace raids and housing restrictions, immigrant workers fled the state.
• Result: $2.3B–$10.8B loss in GDP, labor shortages, and higher food costs.
Hospitality: Service Gaps → Operational Strain → Consumer Friction
Example 3: Hotel Labor Collapse
• Immigrants fill critical roles in housekeeping, kitchen staff, and maintenance.
• Deportations remove long-time workers, leaving hotels understaffed during peak seasons.
• Remaining staff are overburdened, and fear spreads among others—reducing job fair attendance and applicant pools.
Impact:
• Rooms take longer to clean, amenities are cut, and service delays frustrate guests.
• Hotels raise prices to cover overtime and recruitment costs.
• Guests downgrade their travel plans, hurting revenue and raising per-unit service costs.
Example 4: Restaurant & Food Prep
• 10–15% of food prep workers are undocumented.
• Deportations shrink kitchen crews, slow service, and reduce menu offerings.
• Restaurants raise prices or cut hours to survive.
Hospitals: Deportation → Staffing Crisis → Higher Costs
Example 1: Immigrant Share of Hospital Workforce
27% of hospital physicians are immigrants, including 8% who are noncitizens.
22% of nursing assistants and 16% of registered nurses (RNs) are immigrants.
Immigrants also make up 29% of hospital cleaning and maintenance staff, critical for infection control.
Impact:
Deportations and visa restrictions remove essential personnel across clinical and nonclinical roles.
Hospitals face understaffing, longer wait times, and reduced capacity—especially in rural and underserved areas.
To fill gaps, hospitals offer higher wages, overtime, and bonuses—driving up operating costs.
Example 2: Sensitive Location Protections Removed
In January 2025, the Trump administration ended protections for “sensitive locations” like hospitals.
Immigrant workers now fear raids and detentions at their workplace, creating anxiety and absenteeism.
Even legally present workers (e.g. green card holders) are vulnerable to enforcement errors or delays.
Impact:
Staff morale drops, retention suffers, and recruitment slows.
Patients delay care out of fear, worsening outcomes and increasing long-term treatment costs4.
Why This Matters
Healthcare is now the top employer in most U.S. states, and 18% of its workforce is foreign-born1.
Deporting these workers doesn’t just hurt hospitals—it ripples into insurance premiums, public health outcomes, and emergency response.
The Leah Zallman Center found that nearly half of nursing homes already limit admissions due to staffing shortages. Deportations worsen this.
This isn’t just a labor issue—it’s a strategic vulnerability. Immigration enforcement that targets hospital workers destabilizes one of the most critical sectors of the economy.
Thanks for dropping by.Your comment was a lot to unpack, and since I don’t debate AI, I’ll just give you my view. I don’t buy into the argument that unemployed Americans can’t be upskilled for modern factory work. History proves otherwise. After WWII, the U.S. trained millions of veterans for industrial and technical jobs. In the 1980s, workers moved from traditional assembly lines into computer-assisted manufacturing. To suggest today’s unemployed or underemployed Americans are somehow untrainable is both dismissive and flat-out wrong. Government and industry have worked together before to expand technical education, apprenticeships, and retraining, and they can do it again. The issue today isn’t capability, it’s willpower and incentives. If companies see profit in employing Americans, the training will happen.
When it comes to foreign investment, I’m risk-averse. The Hyundai example people like to point to is misleading. Big companies—Hyundai, Toyota, BMW, and plenty of others- still expand in the U.S. regardless of immigration enforcement because access to American consumers outweighs labor headaches. If they truly wanted labor stability above all else, they’d be in Mexico or Southeast Asia where wages are cheap and rules looser. But they’re not. They’re here because only America offers the right mix of market size, infrastructure, investor protections, and long-term stability. Immigration enforcement might make them adjust how they hire, but it doesn’t erase their need to be in the U.S. market. Pretending they’ll pack up and leave over immigration laws ignores decades of history that show otherwise.
As for tariffs, I see them as guardrails, not replacements for industrial policy. Without tariffs, tax credits and training programs get undercut because companies will always chase the lowest overseas labor cost. Tariffs keep that from happening, making other policies actually work. The Hyundai delays don’t prove tariffs fail; they prove multinationals resist giving up easy access to cheap foreign labor. That’s why stronger and more consistent trade enforcement, paired with domestic incentives, is the only way to truly rebuild American manufacturing, by making outsourcing less attractive and reinvestment here more rewarding.
Automation doesn’t weaken the case for American workers; it strengthens it. Factories today need technicians, engineers, logistics specialists, not just line workers. Those jobs are perfect for U.S. citizens if we invest in vocational training, apprenticeships, and technical colleges. Leaning on immigrant labor as the default creates a cycle where companies skip investing in Americans. Immigration isn’t the only answer; we can and should rebuild the pipeline of skilled domestic workers ourselves.
I also push back on the claim that restricting immigration raises wages but automatically causes inflation. Inflation isn’t just about wages; it’s about fragile supply chains and reliance on imports. Producing more at home reduces shipping costs, avoids tariffs, and stabilizes supply, which offsets wage pressures. And frankly, raising wages isn’t a negative “cost”, it’s the goal. A strong middle class with more disposable income fuels the U.S. economy far more reliably than cheap labor from abroad.
The idea that U.S. immigration is already tightly controlled doesn’t hold water when millions have entered unlawfully in just the last few years. Visa caps might look neat on paper, but illegal immigration undermines them. Pointing to declining birth rates and an aging population doesn’t justify unlimited immigration either. What it does mean is we should have policies that encourage family formation, boost labor force participation among Americans, and expand opportunities for people already here. Immigration can play a role, but the current system is chaotic, and pretending otherwise ignores the reality at the border and how illegal labor suppresses wages.
Yes, washer and dryer prices did spike, but that’s not the full picture. Those tariffs pushed Samsung and LG to open plants here, creating U.S. jobs and securing supply chains. That’s not just a short-term cost; it’s a long-term win. Manufacturing strength isn’t measured only in headcount but in anchoring industrial ecosystems at home. Even a few thousand jobs in high-multiplier industries ripple into steel, logistics, and suppliers. Once those ecosystems are gone, they’re nearly impossible to rebuild.
Tariffs also tie directly to national security. Critics say they protect inefficiency, but real security isn’t about chasing the lowest price—it’s about independence. Relying on rivals for essentials is riskier than marginally higher prices. Tariffs are a wall that buys time for R&D, workforce development, and infrastructure to catch up. Without that wall, whole sectors can vanish before policy even has a chance to work.
I also don’t accept the argument that post-WWII lessons don’t apply. Yes, that was a unique time, but the takeaway is still relevant: big national investments and industrial support can transform economies. The U.S. doesn’t need to copy Japan, Korea, or Taiwan wholesale either, but we can take parts of their model, like targeted industrial financing and smart public-private partnerships, that work in our system.
Even in today’s service-heavy economy, manufacturing remains essential. The digital economy still depends on hardware, chips, and advanced inputs. This isn’t about recreating the 1950s; it’s about protecting the industrial foundations that keep our modern service economy from being vulnerable to foreign shocks. Economists may frame labor-cost-demand tradeoffs as iron laws, but policy can reshape those equations. Tariffs, subsidies, and workforce training change what’s viable over time.
Dependency isn’t solved by total isolation, but extreme openness isn’t resilience either. Balanced trade measures and smart immigration enforcement give us breathing room to rebuild capacity. Tariffs and enforcement on their own aren’t magic, but when combined with infrastructure, housing, healthcare, and education investments, they strengthen the middle class and make sure wages rise alongside opportunity.
On sensitive-location protections being removed in 2025, I understand the rationale: restoring consistent enforcement. Exemptions at hospitals and schools created loopholes. From that angle, applying immigration laws evenly makes sense. Hospitals, in turn, need to lean harder on legal hiring channels, visa pathways, and workforce development instead of relying on unauthorized labor. Yes, staffing strain is real, but the bigger principle is rule of law, and that has to be the foundation for any solution.,You say you don’t debate AI, but you did in your first comment on this forum. The summary of the Business Insider article was all AI generated.
Did you even read the article? What you have provided here is what you always do and that is defend Trump’s policies and his behavior and you do it by reframing the narrative. It is right out of the Trump/MAGA playbook. “Say this not that.” It’s also obvious you are using some writing app or even AI.
Your comment was also a lot to unpack. My comments are in bullet points, following your comments
I don’t buy into the argument that unemployed Americans can’t be upskilled for modern factory work. History proves otherwise. After WWII, the U.S. trained millions of veterans for industrial and technical jobs. In the 1980s, workers moved from traditional assembly lines into computer-assisted manufacturing. To suggest today’s unemployed or underemployed Americans are somehow untrainable is both dismissive and flat-out wrong. Government and industry have worked together before to expand technical education, apprenticeships, and retraining, and they can do it again. The issue today isn’t capability, it’s willpower and incentives. If companies see profit in employing Americans, the training will happen.
• Labor Pool ≠ Labor Readiness: WWII veterans were young, disciplined, and supported by massive federal investment (GI Bill, VA programs). Today’s unemployed include older workers, disabled individuals, and those lacking STEM foundations. (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)
• Modern Manufacturing ≠ Assembly Lines: Today’s factories require robotics technicians, PLC programmers, and precision machinists—not just retrained generalists.
• Training Infrastructure Is Fragmented: Unlike postwar America, there’s no unified federal push. Community colleges and apprenticeships are underfunded and regionally inconsistent.
When it comes to foreign investment, I’m risk-averse. The Hyundai example people like to point to is misleading. Big companies—Hyundai, Toyota, BMW, and plenty of others- still expand in the U.S. regardless of immigration enforcement because access to American consumers outweighs labor headaches. If they truly wanted labor stability above all else, they’d be in Mexico or Southeast Asia where wages are cheap and rules looser. But they’re not. They’re here because only America offers the right mix of market size, infrastructure, investor protections, and long-term stability. Immigration enforcement might make them adjust how they hire, but it doesn’t erase their need to be in the U.S. market. Pretending they’ll pack up and leave over immigration laws ignores decades of history that show otherwise.
• Hyundai’s Georgia Plant Delay Was Real: ICE raids detained over 475 workers, triggering diplomatic tension and operational delays.
• Labor Stability Is a Strategic Variable: Multinationals don’t just want consumers—they need predictable labor pipelines. Immigration enforcement volatility undermines that.
• Mexico and Southeast Asia Are Expanding: Companies are investing there precisely because of lower labor costs and regulatory clarity. The U.S. isn’t immune to capital flight.
As for tariffs, I see them as guardrails, not replacements for industrial policy. Without tariffs, tax credits and training programs get undercut because companies will always chase the lowest overseas labor cost. Tariffs keep that from happening, making other policies actually work. The Hyundai delays don’t prove tariffs fail; they prove multinationals resist giving up easy access to cheap foreign labor. That’s why stronger and more consistent trade enforcement, paired with domestic incentives, is the only way to truly rebuild American manufacturing, by making outsourcing less attractive and reinvestment here more rewarding.
• Tariffs Create Uncertainty: The Joint Economic Committee found Trump’s tariff volatility could reduce U.S. manufacturing investment by 13% annually, totaling $490B by 2029.
• Hyundai Didn’t Resist Domestic Labor—It Lacked It: The company cited shortages of skilled U.S. technicians for equipment setup. Enforcement blocked legal foreign workers.
• Tariffs Without Policy = Sandbags: Without coordinated training, infrastructure, and R&D, tariffs stall investment rather than redirect it.
Automation doesn’t weaken the case for American workers; it strengthens it. Factories today need technicians, engineers, logistics specialists, not just line workers. Those jobs are perfect for U.S. citizens if we invest in vocational training, apprenticeships, and technical colleges. Leaning on immigrant labor as the default creates a cycle where companies skip investing in Americans. Immigration isn’t the only answer; we can and should rebuild the pipeline of skilled domestic workers ourselves.
• Automation Raises the Skill Floor: It doesn’t eliminate labor—it transforms it. Immigrants fill many of the technician and logistics roles automation creates.
• Companies Don’t Skip Americans—They Can’t Find Them: Geographic mismatch, skill gaps, and wage expectations make immigrant labor essential in key sectors.
I also push back on the claim that restricting immigration raises wages but automatically causes inflation. Inflation isn’t just about wages; it’s about fragile supply chains and reliance on imports. Producing more at home reduces shipping costs, avoids tariffs, and stabilizes supply, which offsets wage pressures. And frankly, raising wages isn’t a negative “cost”, it’s the goal. A strong middle class with more disposable income fuels the U.S. economy far more reliably than cheap labor from abroad.
• Labor Shortages = Price Hikes: Deportations and visa restrictions have already driven up food prices—vegetable costs rose 38.9% in one month.
• Wage Growth Without Productivity = Inflation: If higher wages aren’t matched by output gains, businesses pass costs to consumers.
• Domestic Production ≠ Cost Control: Reshoring is expensive. Without automation and skilled labor, it raises prices, not lowers them.
The idea that U.S. immigration is already tightly controlled doesn’t hold water when millions have entered unlawfully in just the last few years. Visa caps might look neat on paper, but illegal immigration undermines them. Pointing to declining birth rates and an aging population doesn’t justify unlimited immigration either. What it does mean is we should have policies that encourage family formation, boost labor force participation among Americans, and expand opportunities for people already here. Immigration can play a role, but the current system is chaotic, and pretending otherwise ignores the reality at the border and how illegal labor suppresses wages.
• llegal Immigration ≠ Labor Strategy: Most undocumented workers fill roles Americans won’t take—crop harvesting, dairy, elder care.
• Mass Deportation Backfires: Alabama’s HB-56 law caused GDP losses up to $10.8B and labor shortages across agriculture and hospitality.
• Family Formation Isn’t a Labor Substitute: Boosting birth rates is a 20-year strategy. Immigration fills gaps now.
Yes, washer and dryer prices did spike, but that’s not the full picture. Those tariffs pushed Samsung and LG to open plants here, creating U.S. jobs and securing supply chains. That’s not just a short-term cost; it’s a long-term win. Manufacturing strength isn’t measured only in headcount but in anchoring industrial ecosystems at home. Even a few thousand jobs in high-multiplier industries ripple into steel, logistics, and suppliers. Once those ecosystems are gone, they’re nearly impossible to rebuild.
• Tariff Pass-Through Was Immediate: Prices rose for both washers and dryers—even U.S.-made ones.
• Job Gains Were Marginal: The plants created hundreds of jobs, not thousands. Ecosystem ripple effects were overstated.
• Supply Chain Anchoring Needs More Than Tariffs: It requires skilled labor, infrastructure, and stable policy—not just protectionism.
Tariffs also tie directly to national security. Critics say they protect inefficiency, but real security isn’t about chasing the lowest price—it’s about independence. Relying on rivals for essentials is riskier than marginally higher prices. Tariffs are a wall that buys time for R&D, workforce development, and infrastructure to catch up. Without that wall, whole sectors can vanish before policy even has a chance to work.
• Independence Requires Innovation: Tariffs don’t build semiconductors or rare earth capacity. They buy time—but only if paired with investment.
• Protectionism Can Undermine Allies: Blanket tariffs on Canada, EU, and Korea strain strategic partnerships and supply chain coordination.
I also don’t accept the argument that post-WWII lessons don’t apply. Yes, that was a unique time, but the takeaway is still relevant: big national investments and industrial support can transform economies. The U.S. doesn’t need to copy Japan, Korea, or Taiwan wholesale either, but we can take parts of their model, like targeted industrial financing and smart public-private partnerships, that work in our system.
• Post-WWII America Was a Unicorn: Dominant industrial base, global demand, and demographic tailwinds. Today’s U.S. faces aging, debt, and global competition.
• Asian Models Were Export-Led: Japan and Korea used currency manipulation, state planning, and social cohesion—none of which map cleanly to U.S. institutions
• Hardware Is Globalized: Chips, robotics, and advanced inputs rely on multinational supply chains. Tariffs disrupt them.
• Tariffs Don’t Create Viability—They Shift Margins: Without domestic capacity, tariffs raise prices and reduce competitiveness.
Even in today’s service-heavy economy, manufacturing remains essential. The digital economy still depends on hardware, chips, and advanced inputs. This isn’t about recreating the 1950s; it’s about protecting the industrial foundations that keep our modern service economy from being vulnerable to foreign shocks. Economists may frame labor-cost-demand tradeoffs as iron laws, but policy can reshape those equations. Tariffs, subsidies, and workforce training change what’s viable over time.
• Hardware Is Globalized: Chips, robotics, and advanced inputs rely on multinational supply chains. Tariffs disrupt them.
• Tariffs Don’t Create Viability—They Shift Margins: Without domestic capacity, tariffs raise prices and reduce competitiveness
Dependency isn’t solved by total isolation, but extreme openness isn’t resilience either. Balanced trade measures and smart immigration enforcement give us breathing room to rebuild capacity. Tariffs and enforcement on their own aren’t magic, but when combined with infrastructure, housing, healthcare, and education investments, they strengthen the middle class and make sure wages rise alongside opportunity.
• Middle-Class Revival Needs Depth: Housing, healthcare, education, and infrastructure are core. Tariffs and raids don’t touch these.
• Enforcement Creates Friction: Deportations destabilize agriculture, hospitality, and healthcare—driving up costs and reducing service quality
On sensitive-location protections being removed in 2025, I understand the rationale: restoring consistent enforcement. Exemptions at hospitals and schools created loopholes. From that angle, applying immigration laws evenly makes sense. Hospitals, in turn, need to lean harder on legal hiring channels, visa pathways, and workforce development instead of relying on unauthorized labor. Yes, staffing strain is real, but the bigger principle is rule of law, and that has to be the foundation for any solution
• Healthcare Is Already Dependent on Immigrants: 27% of hospital physicians and 22% of nursing assistants are foreign-born.
• Raids Create Strategic Vulnerability: Removing clinical and nonclinical staff undermines public health, emergency response, and insurance stability.
Thanks for dropping by. Stay tuned, my next forum is going to be why Trump loves tariffs. - MikeMike, I write using Grammarly, chat with others, and always compose in paragraph form. I address bullet points with full paragraphs, and if I need to disagree, I make a point to debate the other side of the coin. It’s a good way to have interesting conversations. I do use AI for stats and some research, but whenever I quote an article or reference someone else’s work, I make sure to give the source. I will attempt to address your multiple bullets.
About today’s workforce, yes, it’s different from post-WWII veterans, and modern factories are more complex, but that doesn’t make retraining impossible; it just means we need the right approach. Older workers or those without a STEM background need tailored programs, and learning robotics or PLC systems is more advanced than traditional assembly work, which is why partnerships between government and industry are key: apprenticeships, modular tech courses, and incentives for companies to train workers can fill those gaps. History shows it’s doable, think coding bootcamps in the 2010s or oil and gas workers retraining for renewables.
The ICE raids caused some headaches, but multinationals deal with disruptions all the time and usually just roll with them. Labor stability matters, but market size, infrastructure, and legal protections are why companies like Hyundai, Toyota, and BMW keep investing here. Expansion to Mexico or Southeast Asia isn’t a sign they’re abandoning the U.S.; it’s just diversification.
Automation does change the game, and immigrants fill many new roles, but that doesn’t mean Americans can’t step in; the issue is investment, not ability. Geographic mismatch and skill gaps are solvable with vocational programs, apprenticeships, and technical colleges, and competitive wages attract workers.
Concerns about labor shortages and price hikes are mostly short-term; higher wages only drive inflation if productivity doesn’t keep up, which is why investing in domestic production, automation, and skilled workers matters. Producing more at home reduces reliance on imports, avoids tariffs, stabilizes supply chains, and strengthens the middle class, which drives demand far more reliably than cheap foreign labor.
Undocumented workers do fill certain roles, but Americans can do these jobs with proper pay, training, and mechanization. Short-term disruptions like Alabama’s HB-56 are avoidable, and relying on immigration as the default discourages building a sustainable domestic workforce.
Tariffs may raise prices and create small short-term effects, but they give companies breathing room to invest in domestic capacity. Alone, tariffs don’t do everything, but paired with smart policy, training, and infrastructure, they anchor production in the U.S., foster innovation, and help reduce dependence on global supply chains. Post-WWII America was a special case, but with the right mix of tariffs, training, infrastructure, and investment, we can rebuild industrial strength today. Hardware is globalized, but strategic use of tariffs helps U.S. companies compete without leaving production abroad.
Core issues for the middle class, housing, healthcare, education, and infrastructure- aren’t solved by tariffs alone, but enforcement and workforce development, when smartly applied, stabilize sectors like agriculture, hospitality, and healthcare. Immigrants make up a big part of healthcare now, but that’s because we haven’t invested enough in Americans for these roles; with training programs, apprenticeships, and incentives, we can fill these gaps ourselves. Dependence on foreign workers isn’t inevitable; it’s a choice we make based on how much we invest domestically.
Shar
Shar,
Are there many people who are aware of the guest worker programs?
Temporary foreign workers have long supported the U.S. economy, providing American industries, such as agriculture and technology, with a critical labor force.
This is a program with thousands of workers who participate in it. President Donald Trump has expanded this program.
So, illegal aliens are not really necessary to the US economy. There is a legal way for thousands of workers to come in legally and do critical work in the United States.Mike, I think this is an important point to make. The U.S. already has multiple visa programs that cover a wide range of employment needs, from seasonal agricultural jobs through the H-2A program, to non-agricultural temporary work like hospitality and construction with the H-2B, and even highly skilled positions in tech, medicine, and science through visas like the H-1B. These programs are structured, regulated, and designed to ensure industries have access to the labor they need while keeping the process legal and fair.
I also want to speak a bit about countries that have brought in too many low-wage workers outside of a balanced legal system. In those places, you see real problems: wages depressed for citizens and legal residents, overburdened housing markets, increased strain on social services, higher unemployment among low-skilled workers, and social tensions that harm long-term stability. Unfortunately, many of the millions of migrants that Biden has let into the country will fall into this same category. Instead of thriving, they are far more likely to struggle, and that struggle brings consequences that ripple through the entire nation.
Shar
Related Discussions
- 102
Tarriffs:Trump, a father of a new Golden Age or is it a Golden Shower?
by Credence2 7 months ago
Once again, the great stone head is now calling himself a scholar of economics. He tells us now that the economic turnaround would now "take time", while on the campaign trail he was telling us that it would occur overnight. On March 13th, there will be an assessment of the inflation...
- 73
Trump and his vision of bringing back manufacturing to the U.S.
by Mike Russo 6 months ago
.Trump's vision of manufacturing is in the days of billowing smokestacks. assembly lines, and conveyor belts where all kinds of workers are doing their bit and piece to assemble products that come rolling off the assembling lines and that those workers will be paid a great wage..In today’s world,...
- 162
Balancing Global Talent and Domestic Education: The H-1B Visa Debate
by Sharlee 9 months ago
The ongoing debate about the H-1B visa program has sparked some attention, but much of the current media coverage is missing the broader point raised by both Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. While they acknowledge the importance of addressing the immediate need for foreign talent through visa...
- 22
Curious, what does MAGA really mean?
by Credence2 2 years ago
When we talk about "Again" are we speaking of an earlier bypassed era?What do MAGA want to consider the time that America was great?How far back do we have to go to find an era in the American past that meets the definition of "Great"?In what way do MAGA people consider...
- 29
US Manufacturing
by Don W 8 years ago
So one of the goals of the new administration is to "bring back manufacturing jobs". A laudable goal.But if the cost of manufacturing something in a foreign country and shipping it to the US, is cheaper than manufacturing it in the US, why would a company bother to manufacture in the US?...
- 19
We are finally getting to the bottom.
by rhamson 14 years ago
With the export of jobs to overseas manufacturers there is little left for the American worker to do to make a decent wage. The article explains that GM with UAW blessing will now offer jobs at its new plant in Detroit $14.00 an hour, half of the base wages they are paying other UAW...