Bikes in the age of tariffs

And, while Mexico is trying to limit forced labor, they’re still one of our bigger exporters of forced labor: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-la...

So it’s hardly a hypothetical. As for balancing benefits and costs, slave labor intrinsically weakens the value of labor to any country that imports, so ideally the US would tariff goods that are labor intensive from countries that practice slave labor. In general, taking China off of the UN Human Rights Council would be a good show (for what little the UN does), and countries that oppose slavery should tariff the countries that do it as well. I don’t want a blood diamond on my wife‘s finger, why would I want a blood apple in my mouth?

As for Trump, I believe he does so in part, not from an ethics perspective however. I imagine he views slave labor as undercutting US labor value, just as illegal immigration does, and that it plays some part in wrestling manufacturing away from China.

That's not how legislatures work. It's like saying, 'take Senator Jones off the HHS committee because they are anti-vaccine' - the people in Senator Jones' state are entitled to representation with complete disregard for whether others like their Senator. Legislatures work with power as it is, not as how we want it to be.

> for what little the UN does

People on the right repeat it, but repetition doesn't make it fact. What do you know, specifically, about what the UN does (about human rights, if that's what you mean). The foundations for international law, which is powerful and effective though imperfect - like domestic law, but lacking the same enforcement mechanisms.

> [China and Mexico]

If everyone stopped doing all business with anyone in a country that does bad things, there would be no business or trade. Trade enriches the US, and has lifted billions out of poverty - including in China and Mexico.

Putting them back into poverty is just reckless. You need to come up with a better solution to your leaky roof than burning down the house.

Campaign organizers in both major parties benefit by pointing out how the other party keeps spending more money, as a way to encourage even more donations.

It also seems like a negative incentive to pass certain laws. "We need money for the next campaign so we can work on $TOPIC" might be a good fundraiser, so if those laws are passed then the funding stops ... or even switches to the other party.

Which party is working on strict campaign donation limits, which in this post-Citizens United era we know requires a constitutional amendment, or an overturn by the Supreme Court. Certainly not the Republicans, as Vance is asking the Supreme Court to strike down limits on political donations precisely because PACs are now so powerful. Nor do I see active engagement by the Democrats.

Manufacturing isn't defined by the assembly line, of course. Good data is hard to find, so take from it what you will, but the internet loosely suggests that only around 30% of manufacturing jobs are on the assembly line or adjacent to an assembly line. Anecdotal observation aligns with that, so I expect it is in the right ballpark.

> I don't think I've ever heard it

It is not so much the hot topic it once was, but when manufacturing was really in its decline you would frequently see in the news interviews with former manufacturing labour expressing such things as they lamented no longer being able to work in the industry.

It may not be sipping margaritas on the beach enjoyment, but on the spectrum it is unsurprising that many find it to be more enjoyable than other types of jobs. For as bad as you can imagine the assembly line to be, there is undoubtedly someone doing a job that is far worse.

> That's an ignorant, condescending description of assembly line work.

If these kinds of feelings are flooding your head, you have not considered the statement logically. That is not in good faith. Rationally, where do you find error in the statement?

> American companies can't find enough people with those skills as it is; there is no need for more of those jobs.

There is definitely an information problem. Manufacturing by and large happens in small town/rural areas (70% of it, according to the BLS), while people by and large live in large urban areas. The urban dwellers exclaim "Where are the jobs???" and the rural dwellers exclaim "Where are the workers???" It is a fascinating disconnect – something we see outside of manufacturing too.

You are right that this isn't apt to fix that problem. However, it is important to remember that the people calling for this aren't running complex mathematical models to ensure that moving manufacturing to the USA will be better for the world or whatever you think should be driving. They are simply in the mindset of: "I think I want to work in manufacturing. Give me that!" It is not a solution with well-considered grounding. It is an attempt to appease emotions.