Two of the smartest guys I know personally provided additional insights on what a U.S. manufacturing strategy should look like. In both cases it’s not about a tariff trade war.
Both pieces are included below.
Pat Cronin, an international business consultant, points out that we don’t have enough workers for the current jobs available, much less for any low-skilled job that might be repatriated to the United States because of tariff laws.
Shawn Graff, a high-level non-profit executive, makes the point that new arenas of manufacturing have huge potential.
Here’s Cronin’s thoughtful response:
John,
Right on all accounts, as usual. When you add the services exported by the U.S., we actually run a trade surplus with many of our trading partners.
I, (Unfortunately), agree that neither Trump nor Vance have been in a manufacturing plant, other than to shake hands any time recently.
If so, they would realize that manufacturing performed in the U.S. is higher-tech/higher value add, with the more labor-intensive/lower skill work being off-shored decades ago. It makes no sense bringing the latter back, especially since we don’t have the work force for it.
Plus, the supply chains that would have to be rebuilt to support such manufacturing would be logistically impractical and uneconomical.
Of course, what Trump & Vance are saying is public-speech. It think we are getting to the point when if the aliens land and say, “Take me to your leader,” many Americans would just shrug and say, “I don’t know who this is.”
***
Shawn Graff wrote about another dimension in green manufacturing:
Dear John,
I really appreciated your sharp and thoughtful takedown of the Trump/Vance fantasy of a manufacturing resurgence fueled by tariffs. You’ve laid out a compelling, fact-driven case for why this vision doesn’t hold up in today’s economy—and, more importantly, why it risks taking us backwards instead of forward.
I’d like to offer a few additional thoughts in support of your argument—especially where it intersects with innovation, workforce transformation, and the opportunities we could be seizing instead of chasing ghosts of an industrial past.
First, while manufacturing jobs have decreased in number, we are still building things—but in very different ways and with very different goals. For instance, clean energy technology, regenerative agriculture tools, and green infrastructure components (like modular flood prevention systems and nature-based erosion controls) are all products of advanced manufacturing. What’s needed now is investment in the ecosystem around these sectors—training, research, land use innovation, and targeted public-private partnerships. This isn’t about nostalgia; it’s about catalyzing future-ready industries that fit into a global carbon-constrained, tech-driven economy.
Second, you rightly call out the role of service-sector jobs in healthcare, finance, and tech—but I’d add that we should be equally focused on supporting rural and mid-sized communities in building distributed economies. If Trump and Vance were serious about helping their constituencies, they’d be advocating for federal incentives for localized production of energy, food, and ecological services. Distributed solar installation, forest and watershed management, broadband expansion, and ecosystem restoration all fall into this category. These are hands-on jobs, grounded in place, that require training and generate long-term value—not just profit margins.
Third, your points on automation and productivity are spot-on. But we shouldn’t only look at automation as a job eliminator—it can also be a liberator. With the right policies, automation can free people to focus on creative problem-solving, entrepreneurship, and caregiving. However, this future only works if we expand access to reskilling programs, support universal basic infrastructure (like child care, transit, housing), and protect worker mobility through real labor reforms.
Finally, I’d like to emphasize the global stakes. As you note, countries that retreat into protectionism don’t tend to lead the world—they stagnate. In a time of great geopolitical realignment, U.S. strength lies in its capacity to adapt, attract talent, and export ideas and values—not just goods. Whether we’re competing with China or partnering with Canada and Mexico, our edge comes from our ability to lead in knowledge production and international cooperation, not by walling ourselves off with tariffs.
Thanks again for this powerful piece. You’ve helped reframe the conversation in a way that I hope will reach beyond just economists and policy wonks. If we’re going to have a serious national conversation about jobs and prosperity, it has to be rooted in facts, not fantasy—and in the future, not the past.
