MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Even Protectionists Agree: Tariffs Will Cost American Jobs

A pro-tariff organization projects the best-case scenario for tariffs, and it still ends up looking pretty bad.

Michael Reynolds/CNP/AdMedia/NewscomMichael Reynolds/CNP/AdMedia/NewscomEconomists and pro-trade organizations were quick to criticize President Donald Trump's decision to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, a maneuver that many analysts say will harm far more workers, businesses, and consumers than it will help.

Now, it seems, even pro-tariff protectionists agree with that assessment.

A study released this week by the Coalition for a Prosperous America—and trumpeted on the pro-tariff organization's website under the not very convincing headline "Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Produce Minimal Impact on Jobs"—shows that Trump's tariffs will produce an overall decline in both jobs and gross domestic product, leaving Americans with less work and less wealth.

While tariffs will boost employment in the production of iron, steel, and aluminum, those gains will be offset by bigger losses across other sectors of the economy. The manufacturing and construction sectors rely heavily on steel, and those companies would pay more for it due to the tariffs. Unsurprisingly, they are projected to lose the most jobs as a result of the cost increase. The U.S. manufacturing sector is projected to lose 10,000 jobs and the construction industry is projected to lose 7,500 jobs, according to CPA's analysis. Jeff Ferry, CPA's research director, tries to put a positive spin on those jobs loses by claiming that "losses would be negligible, as the 19,000 jobs gained in the steel and aluminum sectors would largely offset any job losses in metal-consuming industries," but that's probably not much comfort to workers in auto plants across the country, keg manufacturers in Pennsylvania, or farm suppliers in Iowa.

The study also fails to account for the potential fallout from retaliatory tariffs that could be imposed by the European Union or China. The study claims that agricultural jobs will increase because of tariffs, but the farm industry is likely to be a major target in any trade war launched against the United States.

"The debate is no longer whether these tariffs will be harmful to the U.S. economy—the protectionists have effectively run a white flag up the pole on that question—but rather the magnitude of the damage," concludes Colin Grabow, a trade policy analyst at the Cato Institute, after reviewing the CPA study.

Other projections suggest the damage could be much worse. The most detailed analysis of Trump's tariffs comes from the Trade Partnership, a Washington-based pro-trade think tank. According to that study, tariffs could grow the steel, iron, and aluminum industries by about 33,400 jobs, but will also wipe out more than 179,000 other jobs. That's about 146,000 net job losses—or five jobs lost for every job gained.

And that's before retaliatory tariffs kick-in. If the EU and other American trading partners follow through on current threats to raise import taxes on American goods, a separate Trade Partnership analysis shows, domestic job losses would soar to over 468,000.

Perhaps the most enjoyable part of the CPA study is the group's attempt to find some scenario in which jobs are not lost under Trump's tariffs. Because the tariffs will raise an estimated $5.97 billion in new revenue for the federal government, and "if this revenue is proactively invested by the federal government, it could lead to net job creation."

Given the federal government's history with money, that seems lie a pretty big "if."

But there it is. Tariffs can be good for the economy if you discount possible retaliation, if you underestimate the consequences on agricultural jobs, and if you trust the federal government to spend $6 billion in the wisest way possible. That's literally the best argument the protectionists have made.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Rhywun||

    If the EU and other American trading partners follow through on current threats to raise import taxes on American goods, a separate Trade Partnership analysis shows, domestic job losses would soar to over 468,000.

    So when the US imposes tariffs on other countries, the US suffers a net job loss.
    And when other countries impose tarriffs on the US, the US suffers a net job loss.

    I guess it sucks to be the US.

  • jcw||

    Yes, tariffs suck for everyone.

  • Rhywun||

    Well, not everyone but I get your point.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Well, you've got it wrong.

    The US doesn't impose tariffs on other countries, they are (effectively) imposed on US citizens. Likewise, EU tariffs are imposed on EU citizens. Thats who pays the tariffs, one way or the other.

    So, when either imposes tariffs on its own citizens, jobs are (most likely) lost.

    Likewise, just because the EU imposes taxes on its own citizens, it makes no sense (economically) for the US to respond by imposing tariffs on ITS citizens.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    ...the tariffs will raise an estimated $5.97 billion in new revenue for the federal government, and "if this revenue is proactively invested by the federal government, it could lead to net job creation."

    IOW, as long as the government can somehow manage to solve "the knowledge problem" everything will be hunky dory. What a bunch of morons.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Lol the hubris in that statement is beyond belief. Or, I wish it was.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I wish we would just tariff China. Those guys are a bunch of assholes run by a mafia at the top.

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    I seem to remember that the asshats who were supporting free trade with China were promising us that a rich China would naturally evolve into a Western style liberal democracy. What we got was a rich and powerful adversary that's just appointed it's first dictator for life. I think it's pretty safe to ignore anything else they might have to say on the subject of international trade.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I am also calling it here now. Taiwan will be reintegrated with mainland China within the next decade. The writing is on the wall, Taiwan is fucked. They have 19 countries that recognize them as a legitimate country and not some phony state, we are afraid to sell them weapons because it might offend China, and they are increasingly isolated with no one to lend them a hand.

    A successful Asian, capitalist democracy. Totally fucked.

  • Rhywun||

    China's bark is worse than its bite & their economy is a house of cards from what I've heard. If it wasn't for our insatiable demand for cheap shit, they would have folded a couple decades ago. Maybe that's all they need to keep themselves afloat; I dunno.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Even exports are a problem for them. China isn't cheap anymore. You have to go to Thailand or Vietnam for that. But their biggest problem is their demographics are absolute shit.

    None of that will prevent them from continuing to ramp up their military, but they've got real economic issues looming.

  • ||

    What we got was a rich and powerful adversary that's just appointed it's first dictator for life.

    Zombie Chairman Mao would probably admit that his country wasn't as rich and powerful in his day, but has serious issues with your understanding of his place in Chinese history.

  • Echospinner||

    Here we get to elect the assholes who steal our stuff. Then we spend the next four years regretting it.

  • Sam Grove||

    I've been arguing this matter with its supporters and get nowhere. Trump has gathered a lot of ignorati to this policy position.

  • Iheartskeet||

    I've only been posting there for a month or two, and I've got to say, its an amazing thing to see such a sizable minority argue against free trade on a libertarian website. Not even arguing that, yeah its good, but we have politics to consider, but actually arguing against it in principle.

    I came to libertarianism by way of Milton Friedman ("Free to Choose" PBS !), yet a guy like him is now apparently a "traitor" or something who has helped ruin the movement. Its utter fuckwittery.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online