Tariffs Won’t Fix What’s Ailing American Men in the Work Force

“Americans today are vastly better off than they were 50 years ago. After adjusting for inflation, household incomes have risen by about 50 percent—more than double what raw census data suggest. Unemployment remains near historic lows. Over the past three decades, the private service sector has created about 40.5 million net new jobs, many in high-wage, high-skill fields like health care, finance, and professional services.

Meanwhile, U.S. industrial output has surged. It’s now at its all-time high but with fewer workers thanks to stunning productivity gains. As economist David Autor notes, the so-called hollowing out of the middle class involves many workers moving up into higher-skill, higher-paying occupations.

None of this means that the labor-force detachment problem should be ignored. It does mean that the story is more complicated than Trump’s “China stole our jobs” narrative suggests.”

“The deeper problem exposed by the China shock wasn’t trade—it was America’s fading economic dynamism. In past generations, when industries declined, workers moved. They retrained. They found new opportunities. Today, many displaced workers simply stay put even as jobs emerge elsewhere.

Government policy plays an enormous role. Over time, policymakers have built a dense thicket of regulations and disincentives that trap people where they are and discourage adaptation.

Restrictive zoning and land-use legislations have sent housing costs in high-wage cities through the roof, pricing out workers who would otherwise migrate toward opportunity. Economists estimate that even modest housing deregulation would allow more Americans to live and work where their skills are most valued.

Another culprit is occupational licensing. Today, nearly one-third of U.S. workers must obtain some kind of government license to do their jobs, up from just 5 percent in the 1950s. These barriers disproportionately affect low-income workers and create huge hurdles to interstate mobility, effectively locking people into stagnant local economies.

Then there’s Social Security Disability Insurance. Reforms in the 1980s expanded eligibility with broader, more subjective criteria. Today, many prime-age men outside the labor force report being disabled even as overall health has improved and physically demanding jobs have declined. The effect is less labor-force reentry—and, thus, worse long-term prospects—for workers on the margin.”

https://reason.com/2025/05/01/tariffs-wont-fix-whats-ailing-american-men-in-the-work-force/

Fireside Chat With Stephen Kotkin & US House Select Committee on China | Hoover Institution

Asking what Xi wants is the wrong question because the appetite grows in the eating. Even if Xi just wants to dominate East and Southeast Asia right now, once China has gained that, their appetite will grow and they will want more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aQfzDs7RzI

Why America Shouldn’t Underestimate Chinese Power | Foreign Affairs Interview

Scale matters. China has more scale than the U.S.. This makes allies important. With allies, the U.S. can surpass China in scale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqyMVZhJHcE

No Divorce From China

“Some people, including a former Trump administration official speaking to Politico, speculate that China’s threatened rare earth cut-off was more damaging to automakers and the defense industry than anyone’s letting on, and that China actually can log this one as a W; “China’s export restrictions to the United States worked. It created enough pain to compel the U.S. government to plead with the Chinese government to reverse course,” the official told Politico.”

https://reason.com/2025/05/13/no-divorce-from-china/

Trump’s ‘Deal’ With China Leaves American Consumers and Exporters Facing Higher Tariffs Than Before

“the deal is a tidy illustration of how President Donald Trump has conducted his global trade war. With China, Trump hiked tariffs to astronomical levels while promising those taxes (which are paid by Americans) would unleash prosperity and create jobs. Then, the White House celebrated the agreement that reduced those tariffs as “the art of the deal.” They are literally doing the meme.
But the “deal” means that imports from China will be subjected to significantly higher tariffs than when Trump took office. Those tariffs will continue to be a serious economic burden for American businesses and consumers, and the threat of even higher tariffs remains—because the “deal” only pauses those tariffs for 90 days, and because Trump’s mercurial nature means no one can really be sure what is coming next.”

“the remaining 30 percent tariff, which is stacked on top of preexisting tariffs from Trump’s first term, “will still make for an expensive back to school and holiday season for most Americans,” Lamar said in a statement. “If freight rates spike due to the tariff-induced shipping disruptions—which will take months to unwind—we could see costs and prices creep up even further.””

“both America and China are still worse off than they were a few months ago. Trump has used constitutionally dubious economic powers to raise and then lower tariffs, creating huge costs and even greater uncertainty.

Rather than praising the president for backing down from an insane position, as the White House believes Americans should do, the proper response to Trump’s latest tariff maneuvers is the same as it has always been: Congress must take away his tariff powers.”

https://reason.com/2025/05/14/trumps-deal-with-china-leaves-american-consumers-and-exporters-facing-higher-tariffs-than-before/

US and China slash tariffs as trade war cools

“Donald Trump’s team cuts tariffs to 30 percent, while China slashes its levies to 10 percent. Now they have 90 days to do a deal.”

“The de-escalation does not affect tariffs ranging up to 25 percent that Trump imposed on more than $300 billion worth of Chinese goods during his first term, leaving a wide range of goods with effective tariff rates of either 37.5 percent or 55 percent.”

“It also does not roll back the 25 percent “sectoral” tariffs that Trump has imposed on autos, steel and aluminum, U.S. officials said. Some other tariff increases that President Joe Biden imposed, such as on electric vehicles, also are not affected.”

“In a separate interview on CNBC, Bessent said the two sides may use the “Phase 1” trade deal that Trump negotiated during his first term as the “starting point” for negotiations. That pact called on China to buy an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese goods in 2020 and 2021, but Beijing fell well short of the goal.”

“The remaining 30 percent tariff on Chinese goods from Trump’s second term reflects a 10 percent “reciprocal” baseline tariff that Trump imposed on all countries on April 2 and a 20 percent tariff that he imposed earlier this year to pressure China to do more to stop the flow of precursor chemicals that are used to make fentanyl.”

https://www.politico.eu/article/us-china-cut-tariffs-dramatically-donald-trump-trade-war/

India vs. Pakistan (and China)

“Last month, there was a terrorist attack in India-controlled Kashmir that killed 26 tourists. Yesterday, India conducted several airstrikes on Pakistan, saying the strikes were retribution for the attack.

The strikes may not have been as successful as the Indian military had hoped. “At least two aircraft were said to have gone down in India and the Indian-controlled side of Kashmir, according to three officials, local news reports, and accounts of witnesses who had seen the debris of two,” reports The New York Times. “Pakistani military officials said that more than 20 people had been killed and dozens injured after six places were hit on the Pakistani side of Kashmir and in Punjab Province. Residents of the Indian side of Kashmir said at least 10 people had been killed in shelling from the Pakistani side since India carried out its strikes.””

“”The scale of the strikes went far beyond New Delhi’s response to previous attacks in Kashmir it has blamed on Pakistan, including in 2019 and 2016, which some analysts said meant the risk of escalation was higher,” reports Reuters. But “the last time India and Pakistan faced off in a military confrontation, in 2019, U.S. officials detected enough movement in the nuclear arsenals of both nations to be alarmed,” reports The New York Times.

There’s also, of course, the China factor: Pakistan now gets lots of its weapons from China, whereas India is more reliant on the West; relations between India and China have soured in recent years, while China and Pakistan have gotten much closer.”

https://reason.com/2025/05/07/india-vs-pakistan-and-china/