Manufacturing jobs are largely automatable and US workers are expensive so, moving things back to the US, is probably going to see a large investment in roboticization rather than trying to get lots of people into a large room, riveting things together.
Not to mention that businesses abhor a vacuum. To stay alive, your business has to try and grow when it can. Growing means hiring on more workers. And if you’re an entrepreneur, looking at a buyer’s paradise work market, he’s going to try and start a new business. China doesn’t have excess work force because their population is 5x ours, they just have more businesses total and businesses with more workers.
Workers don’t care whether they’re working in manufacturing or not, they just want to put food on the table. If they can do that by driving for DoorDash, then they’ll do that. It’s probably better work than working in a factory.
Manufacturing jobs aren’t relevant to anything. Supply chains are important and total employment rate is important, but having physical people in that specific occupation is not important.
In general, it’s always been open knowledge for anyone who cared that the US has two large cost reducers impacting our economy. First, we use a lot of immigrant labor who come temporarily and then leave - adding to our tax base for a time but barely withdrawing anything since they don’t retire here. And, secondly, we follow macroeconomic theory and (historically) have had low tariffs, allowing a lot of production to be done in cheaper nations, then imported.
Changing any of this will be costly. Our labor is already locked up in the industries that we have. Trying to add manufacturing back into the mix is going to take a long time and it’s going to be hard to do without importing people to kickstart it. We don’t have mountains of people just waiting to go work in a factory or go harvesting food out of the farms.
Trying to do all this stuff in the US is going to raise prices. If you try to subsidize it then you’re going to need to raise taxes. Either way, voters are going to take a hit and they’re going to get pissed off at the man in charge. (Trump got in and got out fast enough to leave most of the mess on his successor.)
But, likewise, a long supply chain that crosses many borders is going to be weak, if it’s not built like the internet with a lot of distribution, so that you’re resistant to single points of failure. And that’s especially true if a lot of your external suppliers are operated by low-morality authoritarians.
A better solution for the supply chains is:
- Remove any arbitrary, “realpolitik” style tariffs.
- Have the G20 or some international group set up an independent, ranked-choice-vote appointed department that simply rates the economic reliability (likely to stay peaceful, likely to abide by the rule of law, etc.) of each nation on the planet, and publishes a number.
- Form a compact - with the EU nations, Australia, and anyone else willing - to peg tariffs to those ratings.
- Offer subsidies and incentives to businesses to diversify their suppliers.
- Identify national security risks (base food supply, arms manufacture, etc.) that need to be fully self-sufficient, and subsidize those.
That is to say, find a reasonable compromise that’s more long-term viable and with fewer short-term demerits.
I have heard CEOs of public companies say and bemoan this.
In general, I would recommend an overhaul to how the stock markets work. Dividends should be a component of more stocks, the impact of problems in one industry should have less impact on other industries than it does, and the value of stock valuation should better match fundamentals / be affected less by individual buyers.
Concrete methods for doing that would probably be better left for another thread.