I have noticed that many people reflect the trade reflexively for the decline of the rest. Here An example:
Apologists for the departing trade regime often ignore that its impact was felt the most acutely in certain regions, such as the American Midwest. Researchers John Russo and Sherry Linkon Describe how the closure of a steel mill in Youngstown, Ohio – the first of a wave of closures in the region – undermined the feeling of value and optimism among residents. Many can remember even better days, when employment was high, jobs were paid well, employees were protected by strong trade unions and industrial work provided a source of pride – not only because it produced tangible goods, but also because it was recognized as challenging, dangerous and important.
But is that true? Do the trade explain the decline of the employment of steel from approximately 190,000 to 84,000?
If trade were to explain the work loss in steel factories, you would expect you to have seen a steep fall in the production of domestic steel. There has even been very little change in steel production in a period in which employment has fallen sharply:
This is not to deny that the import has had any impact About employment in production. But the primary cause of job losses was automation. And with AI who is revolutionizing the production, employment in production will continue to fall sharply in the coming decades, even if we completely eliminate all imports.
Ps. This post Do it well to explain why getting back on production is more difficult than it seems.