During his campaign, President Donald Trump promised to create 25 million new jobs over the coming decade, many of which he claimed would come from the revival of U.S. manufacturing. Trump is firm in his belief that low taxes and protectionist trade policies will create the jobs he promised, in spite of the fact that jobs in manufacturing have been in steady decline for decades. However, even if manufacturing does return to U.S. shores, automation means longterm blue-collar job growth, as prophesied by Trump, is unlikely. Trump is by no means ideologically suited to oversee the inevitable march towards automation.

Protectionists on both the left and right argue that free trade has allowed companies to expand profit margins by moving their manufacturing bases to the global south, where labor costs are significantly lower, and finished products exported to the global north for consumption avoid the costs of high tariffs. As manufacturing automates and the cost of labor becomes irrelevant, the global south will lose comparative advantage. China’s shift towards automation and their drive to create a consumer economy is indicative of the dwindling labor advantage in the global south.

Increasingly, it will make sense for firms to establish automated factories closer to their consumer base as a means of cutting transportation costs. Therefore, manufacturing could be returning to the U.S. irrespective of Trump’s policies. However, the return of manufacturing to the U.S. would not necessarily imply the preservation of existing blue-collar jobs or the creation of new ones.

The degree to which automation replaces human employees remains to be seen, but continued automation is generally considered inevitable. At the current rate, a jobless future could be a reality for many. But current policies would leave them destitute. Discussions surrounding automation have prompted many to argue in favor of reinventing social programs. Social programs that ensure a Universal Basic Income (UBI), a college education, healthcare, and housing are necessary if increasingly automated societies hope to ensure the wellbeing of all. However, such policies would be in diametric opposition to Trump’s economic perspectives.

Over the past few months, Trump has promised to slash government spending–particularly on social services. Trump believes welfare programs will be irrelevant in his “dynamic booming economy” where taxes are low, tariffs are high, and jobs are plentiful. However, if the president truly hopes his people are able to find long term employment in manufacturing, or any other industry, he had better think about developing skilled workers by investing in public schools and free college tuition. More likely, Trump will lead the “race to the bottom,” regardless of whether or not he revives U.S. manufacturing. Automation is a reality Trump has not considered, nor is he ideologically suited to do so.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Trump Prepared for Automated Manufacturing? appeared first on Law Street.

President-elect Trump visited a Carrier Corporation factory on Thursday, officially sealing a deal that will keep 1,000 manufacturing jobs from leaving Indiana for Mexico. Making good on his campaign promise to protect American factory jobs from cheap overseas labor, if in an incremental way, Trump hashed the deal out with  Vice President-elect and former Indiana Governor Mike Pence.

The deal was a response to Carrier’s decision earlier this year to lay off 2,000 workers at two of its Indiana plants, one in Indianapolis and another in Huntington. Trump was irate at the air-conditioning company’s announcement, using it as an example in his crusade to save American factory jobs, particularly in Rust Belt states, many of which were key to his victory last month.

Carrier released a statement on Wednesday, saying the deal “benefits our workers, the state of Indiana and our company.” The statement continued:

Today’s announcement is possible because the incoming Trump-Pence administration has emphasized to us its commitment to support the business community and create an improved, more competitive U.S. business climate. The incentives offered by the state were an important consideration.

Trump and Pence offered a package of financial incentives to Carrier: the company would receive $700,000 per year, $7 million total, in tax breaks from the state of Indiana. Trump also threatened to cut $5-$6 billion in federal contracts from Carrier’s parent-company United Technologies, which accrues substantial profits from military contracts, including from the Pentagon, its largest customer.

Trump’s Carrier deal shows corporations they can:

Threaten to outsource jobs
Actually outsource jobs
Still get a tax cut

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 1, 2016

Not everyone was a fan of the agreement. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT), in an op-ed in The Washington Post on Thursday, said United Technologies “took Trump hostage and won.” Sanders, who like Trump campaigned on preserving American jobs, said Trump’s “Band-Aid solution” is a short-term fix. He added:

We need to re-instill an ethic of corporate patriotism. We need to send a very loud and clear message to corporate America: The era of outsourcing is over. Instead of offshoring jobs, the time has come for you to start bringing good-paying jobs back to America.

While Trump’s handshake with Carrier might make 1,000 workers and their families happy and secure, for the time being, the longer trend of job losses primarily to automation and increased efficiency will be difficult to reverse. According to an analysis from The New York Times, the U.S has lost nearly five million manufacturing jobs since 2000.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Strikes Deal with Carrier to Keep Manufacturing Jobs in the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday night, in the midst of figuring out how to mend the country after a brutal few weeks, and selecting the leaders of the U.S. government’s various departments, President-elect Donald Trump sent out the following tweet:

Just got a call from my friend Bill Ford, Chairman of Ford, who advised me that he will be keeping the Lincoln plant in Kentucky – no Mexico

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 18, 2016

He followed that with another tweet that read: “I worked hard with Bill Ford to keep the Lincoln plant in Kentucky. I owed it to the great State of Kentucky for their confidence in me!”

But there is one problem with Trump’s claims: Ford, the second best-selling U.S. automaker, never planned on shutting its Louisville, Kentucky plant and shipping operations to Mexico. Trump, just a little over a week after being elected and months from being in office, is already taking credit for something he did not do.

Ford has in fact repeatedly said it has no plans to cut any U.S.-based plants, though it has announced plans to open up new ones in Mexico, and shift some small-car production there as well. The car company will invest $4 billion in plants in Mexico in the coming years, but not at the expense of U.S. plants. The Louisville plant, which employs 4,700 people, manufactures the Ford Escape and the Lincoln MKC SUV.

“So Ford is leaving. You see that, their small-car division leaving. Thousands of jobs leaving Michigan, leaving Ohio. They’re all leaving,” Trump said in September during the first presidential debate. Ford responded via Trump’s favorite platform, Twitter:

Ford has more hourly employees and produces more vehicles in the U.S. than any other automaker. pic.twitter.com/k15cqknsvX

— Ford Motor Company (@Ford) September 27, 2016

On Friday, Spokeswoman Christin Baker said in a statement that Ford “confirmed with the President-elect that our small Lincoln utility vehicle made at the Louisville Assembly plant will stay in Kentucky.” And while Ford did say it might suspend production at the Louisville plant for two weeks due to low demand, it has never shared plans to simply up and move to Mexico, as Trump’s tweet claimed.

Taking credit when it is not due to him seems to be a pattern for Trump, especially concerning Ford. Last year, while campaigning on the promise of bringing back manufacturing jobs to the U.S., Trump took credit for a Ford plant that moved from Mexico to Ohio. Ford made that decision in 2011, when Trump was still firing people on “The Apprentice.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Takes Credit for Stopping a Ford Plant from Moving to Mexico appeared first on Law Street.