An eight-second Wall Street Journal video clip illustrates the old-time, labor-intensive manufacturing that some, including the two last US presidents, want to bring back to America by using state coercion and threats (“Trump’s Tariffs Are Lifting Some U.S. Manufacturers,” May 4, 2025). The featured worker in the video clip seems to be endlessly repeating two mechanical operations on a machine. The employer is an Ohio manufacturer looking to boost its production—and its prices, which will be bid up—following the 145% tax that Donald Trump imposed on Chinese imports.
The repetitive and mindless job shown on the clip is typical of old-time, labor-intensive, low-tech, “dirty,” often dangerous manufacturing, which has been mostly eliminated from the United States and other rich countries by two factors: automation and, for the rest, reliance on the comparative advantage of poorer countries at a lower stage of development and labor productivity. Bringing old-time manufacturing back to America, besides diverting resources from industries where labor is more productive and better paid, would also bring back repetitive jobs. Otherwise, it would not increase employment as the labor market is already at, or close to, full employment. The very process of bringing old manufacturing to the US, notably with tariffs and other Colbertist interventions, could further compromise full employment, creating another problem instead of solving a non-existent one.
About mindless manufacturing jobs, which were once common in now-rich countries, Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations (Book 5, Chapter 1):
The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. …
But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.
Revealed preferences suggest that repetitive manufacturing jobs are still preferable to pre-industrial life or scavenging dumps in underdeveloped countries. In the 19th century, most workers outside agriculture, construction, and the resource industries were employed in mindless manufacturing. Of course, these workers are as worthy of our respect as the consumers who patronize more efficient producers.
Adam Smith raised an important question, but he could not imagine that, thanks to the fast economic growth that was to become typical of free societies, few workers would remain stuck in mindless manufacturing. In a modern developed economy, most jobs require some knowledge, thinking, and initiative. In manufacturing, which accounts for less than 10% of employment in America (like in most rich countries), the most repetitive tasks are done by machines. We in the rich world should be happy to be there. And our governments should not fall into economically illiterate and morally reprehensible attempts to prevent poorer countries from rising to our level of development. (Recall that in China, GDP per capita is less than one-third the American level; Vietnam is at 14%—according to data from the 2023 Maddison Project database.)
The most important questions remain to be asked: Who should be producing which goods and services, how, and where? Economic theory and history strongly suggest two alternative answers. The first is to leave the decisions to some authority: the tribe, the council of elders, rationally ignorant voters, politicians, the king, the strongman, or the planning bureau. The second way is to rely on consumer sovereignty, free enterprise, competition, and laissez-faire: letting each individual and each voluntary association (including corporations) decide what to do, and with whom to trade and at what terms.
******************************
Mindless manufacturing
READER COMMENTS
Jon Murphy
May 8 2025 at 10:16am
One should note that these “mindless manufacturing” jobs are not the high-paying manufacturing jobs. Apparel manufacturing (recently touted by the Secretary of Commerce and USTR) make about $17/hr, less than the average Walmart cashier. The “turning tiny screws” jobs are about the same. (All data from BLS)
Pierre Lemieux
May 8 2025 at 10:28am
Good point, Jon. The efficient (and well-paying) manufacturing jobs are those that have remained in America without corporate welfare.
Craig
May 8 2025 at 11:15am
I would suggest unfair trade practices discourage investment in manufacturing. Manufacturing that, if we presume a free market, would actually exist in the US. <–that which is unseen. There's all kinds of things where the additional cost of labor in the US is less than the freight from China or Mexico. Pre-Trump for instance the postal treaty subsidized freight for certain developing countries, including China, so there were items where the Chinese manufacturer could put that item in your hands BELOW THE COST OF ME SHIPPING THE ITEM TO YOU WITHIN THE US or even one town over. Think about that, right? If you wanted a pizza the fact that I am close to you and you can get HOT pizza, well, that's a comparative advantage, right? You can get a cheaper frozen pizza from Tony's and they'll ship it to you frozen for less, but even though I might be more expensive I have the geographic advantage of proximity, I can get it to you quicker and hotter and so you're willing to pay a premium for that, at least some of the time.
If I say to you that as between China and the US that if the guy in China gets to ship to China and the US and I get to ship to the US and China, that trade paradigm isn't just better, it IS undeniably better. Indeed as between the US states themselves, because in a really narrow sense the US can be seen as a free trade zone (broad sense its a nation of course), nobody disputes the utility of free trade as between the states themselves. So I'd suggest perhaps consider that the experiment was run, unfair trade practice were allowed to fester, and shocker the result was Trump because suddenly you wound up with people like me who far prefer income-tax free trade. If it had been done correctly it would've lifted all boats and people would feel about it the same that they do as between trade between the states themselves.
Craig
May 8 2025 at 11:24am
“income-tax free trade”
As an aside the move from the People’s Republic of NJ to the Free State of FL is the lived experience where eliminating NJ taxation itself was enough to dramatically increase real living standards. Its not just a little bit better, its ALOT better. Literally the taxes I no longer pay to NJ pay for my home. So I know my enemy now.
steve
May 8 2025 at 12:29pm
The UPU agreement was reached in 1969. The poor countries were subsidized by the richer countries, not just the US as I understand it. It made sense to change that once China was no longer a poor country that needed subsidizing.
AFAICT the US probably benefited from the early agreement as it allowed for shipping of small packages to flow smoothly across international boundaries and we benefitted greatly from the trade.
You would have to pay me to live in Florida again. Same for New Jersey although not quite as much.
Steve
Jose Pablo
May 8 2025 at 12:53pm
It made sense to change that once China was no longer a poor country that needed subsidizing.
But let’s not kid ourselves, China is still a poor country, with a GDP per capita lower than Argentina, Malaysia, and even Kazakhstan. Not exactly economic global domination material.
If we’re truly feeling threatened by a still relatively poor country, the solution isn’t to rebuild every factory in Ohio and bring back punch clocks. It’s to import 900 million new Americans (including some dog and cat eaters). That’s how we close the gap. Fast.
One can only be amazed by the sheer distortion of reality that plays so easily on nationalist minds. Somehow, a country with a third world GDP per capita, becomes a terrifying superpower, while the wealthiest and most advanced economy in human history pictures itself as a raped victim.
It’s impressive, in a tragic kind of way.
Craig
May 8 2025 at 12:57pm
“You would have to pay me to live in Florida again. ”
You must like mountains. I enjoy interesting topography as well, but just to expound here the taxes I am NOT paying to NJ pays for my houseS in FL AND TN. (Tn also has no state income tax), but if Fl not your thing surely you must be a vampire? 😉
Jon Murphy
May 8 2025 at 12:28pm
That is, of course, possible, but doesn’t show up in the data. The jobs that compete with imports are ones that would have been offshored anyway; they’re relatively unproductive jobs. And given we haven’t seen any drop off in manufacturing investment (just the opposite, actually), it suggests that, if there are unfair trade practices going on, they are not affecting manufacturing beyond it’s “natural course” (to borrow a phrase from Adam Smith). Indeed, constraints preventing manufacturing from rising more than it has are domestic: job openings are very high and are tough to fill.
Pierre Lemieux
May 8 2025 at 1:40pm
Craig: What about one of the most “unfair trade practice”? Americans don’t have to learn English, the lingua franca and language of international commerce! They arrive on the job market or entrepreneurship field being unjustly endowed with this unfair advantage and they use it non-stop. Too add insult to injury, state governments subsidize schools that mostly, if not only, teach written English.
Craig
May 8 2025 at 1:53pm
No worries, if one speaks English slowly and loudly enough the language is universally intelligible.
Craig
May 9 2025 at 10:51am
Bit more complex of a point now. Personally I don’t think that to be unfair at all, I genuinely suspect that most Americans would likely agree with me on that point. When I can’t ship product to willing Chinese customers, I would suggest many would agree with me that practice is unfair. But I digress, the concept of what is fair/unfair is inherently subjective (not dissimilar from law’s ‘reasonable person’ test actually), One might say that since its subjective nobody can genuinely tell if something is genuinely fair/unfair. Fair enough! 😉
But here’s the thing, as to ME I am the sole judge of what I personally think is fair or unfair and I readily acknowledge that I, as an individually, do not have a right to declare unilaterally what is fair or unfair.
That being said if enough people come to the conclusion that the trade paradigm is unfair, you’re gonna have a problem on your hands.
Tyler Watts
May 8 2025 at 11:36am
Great points, Pierre. I did a stint in an auto parts-stamping factory during my last year of college. Mindless, repetitive work that drove me crazy–and they didn’t even allow radios! I only kept my sanity by sneaking tiny headphones into my orange foam earplugs (connected to an excellent Japan-made Sony digital radio receiver in my pocket–still works 22 years later). I was very happy to be laid off from this job, and very quickly went back to much more interesting, challenging, and mentally engaging work in my core trade of residential construction/ remodeling.
Huzzah for the elimination of boring, repetitive, dangerous jobs–and of course their replacement with more creative, stimulating, people-oriented work… that of course also pays better due to the productivity gains of specialization, trade, and technological advances!
steve
May 8 2025 at 12:13pm
I think there is a lot of fantasizing about the past. I moved around a bit but spent my high school years in a true company town. Boys not going on to college or going to work in a family business expected to go work at the big factory. It paid well and you didnt need any post-secondary education. It was kind of idyllic as you could goof off in high school then your dad made sure you got a job and they provided whatever training you need. Not that many girls went to college and those that did got married and stayed at home or got jobs in retail or as secretaries, maybe working as card punchers for the new computers.
However, those days are mostly gone forever. The WSJ had an article a few years ago showing that half of manufacturing jobs needed either a degree or some post-high school education and it was increasing. The pay premium for manufacturing is now small and for the kind of repetitive jobs Pierre describes it’s going to be non-existent.
Steve
Monte
May 8 2025 at 4:52pm
At what point, if any, should the US worry about unfair trade practices compromising national security and stunting long-term economic growth, or should it always be willing to sacrifice itself at the altar of free trade for the benefit of lower prices for the consumer? Weren’t many US industries decimated after China’s entry into the WTO, resulting in the so-called China shock?
Craig
May 8 2025 at 5:23pm
The political stability of the US has been shaken to some degree.
Pierre Lemieux
May 8 2025 at 6:08pm
Craig: If the political stability of collectivism is shaken, the problem is not in the shake itself but in the political and the collectivist.
Jon Murphy
May 8 2025 at 5:47pm
Nope. None actually were decimated. The China Shock literature looks at employment patterns, not industry levels.
Monte
May 8 2025 at 6:23pm
That may be true, but there’s also ample evidence that entire U.S. industries experienced large and lasting contractions, some to the point of virtual elimination. Textiles & apparel, furniture manufacturing, footwear & sporting goods, and the toy industry are all glaring examples. The China shock was fundamentally a trade-off between consumer gains and worker losses – the losses being much more painful and long-lasting than economic models predicted.
See, for instance, The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States.
My question remains, is there a point at which we retaliate against unfair trade practices, or do we just allow our trading partners to paddle us with their own barriers, thanking them for each swat to the benefit of the consumer?
Jose Pablo
May 8 2025 at 6:38pm
entire U.S. industries experienced large and lasting contractions, some to the point of virtual elimination
You’re right! We should definitely do something about American agriculture. It once employed nearly the entire population. Now, just 2% of Americans work in the sector.
Strange how no one seems to be panicking and asking the King for decisive action.
If that’s not a sweeping transformation, I don’t know what is.
Monte
May 8 2025 at 6:51pm
Yes! And at the same time, what are borders except pencil lines on a map. Just erase them, open the flood gates and invite hundreds of millions into the country. Problem solved and the economic miracle we’ve all been praying for! But for the fact that it’s not a responsible or effective remedy for the dislocations caused by free trade, not to mention the cultural and political upheaval that would result. As Sponge Bob would say, “Brilliant, Patrick!”
Monte
May 8 2025 at 6:58pm
Besides, agriculture’s gradual decline was not driven by trade, as much as technology.
Jose Pablo
May 8 2025 at 7:32pm
Besides, agriculture’s gradual decline was not driven by trade, as much as technology.
Much like what happened in manufacturing.
And you are mistaken, the decline of agriculture between 1920 and 1940 was far from gradual. By 1940, around 25% of the population in some rural counties had abandoned their homes. The shift was abrupt and devastating, causing significant social problems in cities as displaced workers from rural areas flooded into urban centers in search of nonexistent jobs. The cultural and familial dislocation was equally profound, as entire communities were uprooted and disrupted.
And rest assured, economic improvements in the future will undoubtedly lead to more people facing difficulties. This is what we call ‘creative destruction,’ and it works beautifully. Unless, of course, a group of uninformed nationalists seeks to stop progress by longing for a much worse past.
Jose Pablo
May 8 2025 at 6:53pm
a trade-off between consumer gains and worker losses
Comparing average/median after-tax salaries:
USA: $58,389 / $42,220
Germany: $37,000 / $31,800
China: $16,700 / $13,380
Poor American workers…
But then again, never let the facts ruin a good story, especially if it helps unscrupulous storytellers win elections.
P.S.: Scott Sumner has an interesting post on salaries and deficits. The conclusion:
To summarize, there is no evidence at all for the claim that “Jobs are leaving the US because we pay high wages.” Wages largely reflect productivity.
Never reason from a wage level.
Monte
May 8 2025 at 7:10pm
The quote confuses GDP averages with actual worker experience and glosses over the economic stress and anxiety that’s real and justified for many Americans, which you plainly point out is of no consequence to you. And framing those concerns as a “story” to win elections totally ignores the reality of those who’ve lost their jobs to free trade. I’m not against it, but neither am I prepared to declare free trade (or open borders) the Holy Grail of prosperity.
Jose Pablo
May 8 2025 at 7:45pm
The quote confuses GDP averages with actual worker experience
Neither my figures nor Scott’s references have anything to do with GDP, which only highlights your complete disregard for facts. GDP figures are even more favorable to the US.
If you believe tariffs, minimum wages, or any other policy lever you can think of will significantly improve the day-to-day reality of workers, you’re mistaken. At best, they offer a bit of relief for your own sense of guilt.
Far more jobs have been gained than lost to free trade. But again, why let facts get in the way?
neither am I prepared to declare free trade (or open borders) the Holy Grail of prosperity.
They are, however, the Holy Grail of human dignity. And only human dignity can lead us to genuine prosperity. That, after all, was the whole point of getting rid of kings almost 250 years ago.
Monte
May 8 2025 at 8:18pm
To say, “Neither my figures nor Scott’s references have anything to do with GDP”, is simply false. GDP per capita is a GDP-based measure, by definition, which, BTW, is an indisputable fact.
I never claimed that they would significantly improve worker’s lives. I’m adamantly opposed to the minimum wage and only marginally in favor of tariffs that minimize the economic impacts of free trade, and only then on a temporary basis.
I don’t disagree. But the fact is jobs have also been lost to free trade.
Way over the top. Human dignity is rooted in values like liberty, security, and living a meaningful life. Free trade and open borders are double-edged swords that can either support or undermine those values.
Trump is neither king nor pope, but he is perplexing. I like to think of him more as a riddler.
Jose Pablo
May 8 2025 at 8:52pm
GDP per capita is a GDP-based measure,
These figures refer to actual after-tax average/median salaries, not GDP per capita. Improving your reading comprehension would do you a world of good.
Monte
May 8 2025 at 9:29pm
The condescension about my reading skills adds nothing to the discussion Jose. But I’ll take your advice, because I’m all for continuous improvement.
GDP per capita is, by definition, a GDP-based measure – total national output divided by population. GDP per capita has everything to do with GDP. After tax figures are a different metric entirely. Conflating the two is inaccurate.
Monte
May 8 2025 at 9:52pm
To clarify, your earlier quote of Sumner is implicitly, if not explicitly, about GDP because it frames wages as a reflection of economic output per worker, not just dollar amounts.
Craig
May 9 2025 at 10:37am
After tax is a problematic qualification because in Germany the taxes pay for health care.
Pierre Lemieux
May 8 2025 at 6:00pm
Monte: A little detail: individuals. Who is sacrificing himself on whose altar? Is the importing individual complaining? Perhaps you’ll find some interest in my short post “Taking Comparative Advantage Seriously.”
Monte
May 9 2025 at 3:15am
Re: Taking Comparative Advantage Seriously
Without objection, up to a certain point. That is to say, doesn’t unilateral free trade for a country beyond a certain threshold become detrimental to its national interests, or are the benefits of unilateral free trade assumed to be infinite?
Pierre Lemieux
May 9 2025 at 12:31pm
Monte: You ask:
The first question is, Whose “national interests”? Or “national interests” in whose opinion? Nothing is infinite (at least in our world). And, incidentally, who determines the threshold where two individuals will be forbidden to trade if they don’t pay a cut to the local lord? Free trade (between individuals or their freely chosen intermediaries, not between politicians and bureaucrats on one side of a border and their counterparts on the other side) is the only known way to make sure everyone benefits from trade.
Monte
May 8 2025 at 6:41pm
Pierre, I do recall reading the post you linked to awhile back, but I’ll review. Free trade is presumably a balanced equation that benefits everyone. Is consumer king, as the saying goes, or do displaced workers from decimated industries due to free trade matter?
Pierre Lemieux
May 9 2025 at 11:34am
Monte: In a free society, every individual is king. He may decide with whom he trades and how he will (peacefully) compete with other individuals: as a consumer, he bids up prices; as a producer, he bids them down. It is the whole regime of economic freedom that is in the interest of all.
Consider this: An individual who marries the most beautiful woman excludes her from the dating market, at least for a while. Many other men will be disappointed, and probably much more than if he loses “his” job making something nobody is willing to pay for anymore. Is that a reason for reasonable restraints on the marriage market by omniscient politicos and bureaucrats?
Or consider this: The average weekly wage in Mississippi is 45% lower than the average wage in California. Will we say that the “deindustrialization” of Mississippi is caused by Californians and that it would be better for Mississippians if reasonable tariffs (or other trade barriers) were imposed on goods produced by Californians?
There is a logic in the benefits of free exchange that is not invalidated by the fact that somebody faces problems at times. This same person will face worse problems if he is up against governments and its lobbyists. This we learn from both economic theory and history.
Monte
May 8 2025 at 8:48pm
More like from 1920 to 1970. This gradual erosion of our agricultural industry was due mostly to improvements in automation, fertilizers, and higher crop yields leading to massive gains in productivity and the severe economic dislocations you mentioned., not free trade.
I’d hardly call the hardships that it causes “beautiful.” How we manage the transitions that occur because of creative destruction are what matter.
A point of agreement! But a coalition of informed nationalists (not my first choice), providing their policies are grounded in sound economic reasoning, could help navigate us through dire straits to a more stable economy. That remains to be seen, of course, but hope springs eternal.
Mactoul
May 9 2025 at 6:16am
EU is not immune from the lure of yesterday’s manufacturing either given that it has imposed green levy on imported steel, cement, aluminum and fertilizer (to start with).
The EU’s green import tariffs, known as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), The CBAM initially targets imports of aluminum, cement, electricity, fertilizers, hydrogen, and iron and steel. The scope is expected to expand in the future. From January 2026, the EU will begin collecting CBAM as an import tariff on these goods.
Who could have expected it from all these EU liberals and decidedly non-populists. Indeed they are so far from populism that they need to frame the leading opposition figures. See Le Pen.
Pierre Lemieux
May 9 2025 at 11:50am
Mactoul: One may be opposed (and have good reasons to be opposed) to a national state imposing on its residents an indirect tax on something (say, carbon), but as long as there are different countries in the world, we may expect this to happen. Any indirect tax implies a border adjustment tax that ensures foreign-produced goods are taxed at the same rate as domestically produced goods before they are purchased by domestic residents (which I assume is what CBAM does, and which VAT border adjustments certainly do).
Of course, if we assume anarchy is a stable regime, that would not exist in such a regime where nothing can be imposed on an individual without his consent. Are you arguing that this is the goal? (It is certainly the criterion, but I have raised, in many writings, some objections to the stability of anarchy. I have certainly not argued that the EU is a paradise of individual liberty.)