Federal 'Buy American' Rules Cost Over $100,000 Per Job Created
Eliminate the domestic content requirements of the Buy American Act, don't expand them.

In a rare instance of agreement, Republicans and Democrats have converged on the idea that "Buy American" provisions should be expanded in order to increase American jobs. But a new paper finds that existing federal rules impose high costs on consumers.
A September 2024 working paper published by the National Bureau for Economic Research (NBER) found the Buy American Act has created more than 50,000 jobs. Just one catch: Each one of those jobs costs the economy more than $100,000.
The Buy American Act of 1933 (BAA) is a New-Deal–era law that prohibits the federal government from purchasing foreign-made goods. The BAA's mandate comprises two principal requirements: first, goods must be manufactured in the U.S.; second, at least 50 percent of the cost of inputs for final goods must be domestic.
The NBER paper found that removing the BAA's provisions would eliminate 100,000 manufacturing jobs, each of which costs the economy $130,000. Nonetheless, both the Trump and Biden administrations have expanded the BAA.
In a July 2019 executive order, the Trump administration directed the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) to "most effectively carry out the goals of the Buy American Act." Specifically, the executive order proposed increasing the domestic content requirement from 50 percent to 95 percent for iron and steel products, and to 55 percent for all other end products. In January 2021, the BAA content requirements were amended accordingly.
The Biden administration pushed further. In January 2021, President Joe Biden issued an executive order directing the FAR Council to "increase the numerical threshold for domestic content requirements for end products and construction materials." In March 2022, the Far Council published its final rule increasing the domestic content threshold from 55 percent to 60 percent, to be increased to 65 percent in 2024 and 75 percent in 2029.
The bipartisan expansion of the BAA's provisions is predicted to be even more costly. The authors of the paper calculate that the BAA's 2029 requirements will lower "the aggregate welfare in the U.S. by 0.68 percent," costing each consumer about $50 in the form of increased prices.
The economists say "they find scant evidence of the use of Buy American rules as an effective industrial policy." The BAA does not promote economic growth; it's a costly "employment measure" that benefits a few by robbing all.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The sheep may want to keep their BAA.
We need affordable housing, so lets jack up the costs!
Whereas Biden's 87,000 new high paying jobs at the IRS practically pay for themselves!
Those jobs cost 1,000,000 per job created. Not included future interest payments on the new debt to pay them.
Not to worry, in a major surprise, today's September jobs report crushed all expectations, adding 250,000 new jobs (a number that is definitely unlikely to be adjusted downward after the election), dropping the unemployment rate to 4.1%.....
Every time I read the literary diarrhea of Reason's 'economic reporters', I am reminded of the great Thornton Mellon explaining business to learned teachers of business who have never, not once, dirtied their professorial hands by running a company.
Look at their degrees.
I was very impressed by Thornton Mellon. An absolute genius.
I was in school when I first heard him. Makes me want to go back.
"The problem is Buy American not the thousands upon thousands of regulations that make American industry more expensive"
Thanks.
Definitely not the bullshit unions, like ILA, preventing modernization and demanding ridiculous wages for easy work.
Maybe if consumers, including the government, were allowed to buy the best available product at the best price, regardless of where it was made, domestic producers would pressure government to reduce regulations. Ever think of that, jarhead?
No. Of course not. You don’t think. Instead you emote and defend tariffs and “buy murkin” because politicians say so, while shouting “REGULAYSHUNS” because politicians say so. They validate what you feel so it must be true.
You’re a brainless tool and a shill.
Maybe if consumers, including the government, were allowed to buy the best available product at the best price, regardless of where it was made, domestic producers would pressure government to reduce regulations. Ever think of that, jarhead?
You're really, really dumb. That's such a simplistic, idiotic view of the economy that I might believe you if you said you were a Reason writer. You're a joke.
What he really advocates for is buying cheaper goods from China that steal IP from the US domestic consumers. You see, sarc is fine with harming others if it means he gets something cheaper. He would buy his neighbors stolen television. Hey it is cheaper, free market. Who cares about who actually bares the cost.
Also refuses to acknowledge the cost of regulatory policy because they he may have to criticize a Democrat. Thinks advantaging China will somehow make regulations be reduced in the US lol.
Strawmen are made of straw.
Lol. They aren't strawman retard. You continue to defend what you call unilateral trade even knowing the theft from China dwarfs tariffs.
Let me ask you sarc. Are you for foreign funding of countries?
You’re literally making stuff up and arguing against it. Not playing your stupid game where you argue against a strawman, I say I never said that and say what I actually think, you call me a liar and continue arguing against a strawman, wash rinse repeat. No thanks. You can do that without me.
You just keep proving you have no capability for any intelligent construction.
Do you know how costs of IRAD are applied to goods?
If a company spends 1M to develop a product with expectations to sell 1M products, the costs of IRAD adds one dollars to COGS. If China steals the IP not only do they not have to add to their COGS, but any reduction of sales by the original company increases COGS for what they do sell. If China theft causes the company to only sell 500k, costs now go up 2 dollars a sale. China's theft doubled the cost. But hey you get to buy the Chinese knock off for cheaper due to their theft.
This is literally your defense of what you call "unilateral trade."
You are subsidizing theft by your choice to ignore costs born by the original company from your choice. You are subsidizing theft.
Now back to the question.
Are you for US dollars funding foreign countries?
You could have just said no.
Let’s become even more dependent on an enemy. The world has changed; trade is no longer trade, it is economic warfare. China means to use trade to undermine our economy by creating dependence on their cheaper goods. They can then hold that dependence over our heads by threatening to cut us off or charge more if we don’t grant them concessions. COST isn’t everything. Paying a little more to ensure our economic viability may not be such a bad thing.
Reminds me of basic Democrat politics. Push policies that make a dependent populace and you will own those N*****s for the next 200 years.
LBJ ref... in case anyone is offended
Two problems, IOW.
Noop. Anyone critical of protectionism is ignoring regulations. They don’t care about regulations. They like regulations. They, they, they. It’s an attack on the critics.
Sarc, the one true victim. Binary. Attack ideas not people. Drink up. Pass out. Forget what you wrote yesterday. Blame others.
Man, how have you made it through life? Oh, that's right, you haven't.
Coming from a guy who can’t eat pickles because he can’t fit his head in the jar…
Ideas!
Well, the one contributes a lot to the perceived necessity of the other.
Here's a crazy idea: maybe instead of making more rules to try to fix the damage caused by earlier rules, just get rid of the rules that helped make American production inefficient in the first place.
Protectionist gonna protect, no matter how much it costs everyone else.
How long before the idiot defenders of protectionism shout “REGULAYSHUNZ!”
Guess I was late. The red herring has already been served.
I'm sure jeffy is waiting for you somewhere, sarcshit.
Old Country Buffet maybe? Or perhaps The Hungry Heifer? If Jeffy were looking for Sarc I would suggest the cheapest bar that he can use his EBT card.
costing each consumer about $50 in the form of increased prices.
What a bargain! Most other waste or taxes cost orders of magnitude more.
The Buy American Act of 1933 (BAA) is a New-Deal–era law that prohibits the federal government from purchasing foreign-made goods
So it doesn't affect the whole economy?
Forget what I said about it being a bargain, it's a steal!
JD Vance wants us to buy American toasters. We'll need at least two more articles to explain how wrong he is.
Note to foreign readers: Hoover's republican administration enforced felony beer laws and laws against all drugs but tobacco with deadly force which collapsed the weakened banking system. Hoovervilles (cracolândias) and hunger made communist party membership increase 700%. Exporting of drug cartelization laws caused German pharma to finance National Socialist politicians. The Blue Eagle was a government interference program to please socialists of both red and blue flavors, but FDR LEGALIZED beer!
No readers, foreign or domestic, give a shit about your pinko hippie gibbering.
I am thinking about going into the toaster manufacturing business.
You should give it a shot. If you have enough of a freakshow rainbow coalition in your company, Harris might give you a grant.
100,000 per job created sounds cheap. It would cost me closer to 250,000 per year to employ one person.
How many charging stations did they make with the billions on the IRA again? 12?
I thought it was 1 🙂
I never said government jobs created actual value. They are still a deadweight loss in value.
100k just doesn’t seem like much when related to employment.
And that's assuming a fair shake analysis rather than "Each job cost $100K if we assume cost of goods produced and ignore disparate employment regulations that any given employee may or may not use but that employers bake into their prices..."
Rather than the "If we round every female part-time employee up to an FTE and round every male FTE who puts in 90 hours down to 40 and then average their total pay over the hours..." that we *know* happens...
Remember how Obama and Hillary laughed at the idea of legalizing weed after the Bush Faith-Based Asset Forfeiture Crusade wrecked mortgage-backed securities, stocks and the economy? Now, since Gary's 4M+ votes beat the Dems in 2016, FOURTEEN more States suddenly offer American cannabis--which costs one-fourth as much before taxes and bribes. When Eli Lilly again cranks out legal LSD, poisonous drugs will have to compete with a safer alternative, and overdose deaths may drop back to 1966 levels. Exports could wipe out dangerous drugs worldwide.
Accepting that $100,000 number.
One less job, meaning one less person making money, buying stuff in USA, perhaps on wellfare, definitly not insured.
What does that cost?
Also, generally speaking, the stuff made in America is significantly better quality than the stuff made in China - what does buying the cheap stuff cost the economy.
Finally, we are essentially sending money to countries that we are not necessarily on friendly terms with (not always... but you know) when they decide to shut down a city for COVID what does that cost?
What if we go to war with them?
Have they planted backdoors in the tech so they can shut us down - what does it cost to verify there are no backdoors?
$100,000 sounds cheap in the end.
Oh and a final note. Outsourcing is not a silver bullet.
1) You must carefully specify what you want - tribal knowledge is not going to work. Need a widget... and it needs to be painted with food safe paint... did you forget to specify that? Right McDonalds?
2) You no longer have control over the ultimate quality of the part nor the engineering behind the part.... Right Boeing?
What did outsourcing cost Boeing?
A policy over the federal government?
Sounds to me like nothing but Congress directing the Executive as it should be doing.
I don't think our defense department should be created by China. Anything else I really don't care; let the voters decide part of representative governing. What should be cared about is all the ILLEGAL (UN-Constitutional) things the Federal government does.
I, too, support the National Rifle Association.
Yeah, let’s have the Defense Department install those Chinese microchips in the F35’s and attack submarines and aircraft carriers. Save some money, they’re cheaper! Yeah, what could possibly go wrong? Some things should NEVER be outsourced.
Where are these factory jobs paying $130,000 per year? Asking for a friend.
No, not factory jobs - dockworkers.
No, not dockworkers. Factory jobs. Please read articles before commenting. Thanks!
No, see, you have to go to China for a factory job. In America, you go to a dock to do manual labor nobody needs that should be automated.
Longshoreman’s union.
The fucking steaming pile of lefty shit EdG shows up again! Damn, we were all hoping you crossed the street without looking and were run down and flattened by a bus.
ROAD, asshole.