As we come up to President Trump’s 100th day in office there appears to be a great divide in terms of interpretation of Trump positions. This week, President Trump began pushing with full force his “Buy American, Hire American” program, which has been clarified as being one of the more important elements of the economic nationalist program.
The three parts of “Buy American, Hire American” are as follows:
- American companies should only hire American labor.
- Any government contract should go to an American company.
- To protect American producers from “domestic competition”, we should revoke/alter international trade agreements.
Some of the things to keep in mind that are extremely important as this program develops:
- Skilled workers who are competent at their craft must be found, this requires training programs.
- By cutting federal funding for training programs, the President is putting more of the responsibility on the shoulders of states and cities. (Obama spent far too much federal money on job training programs).
- Snap-On CEO Nicholas Pinchuk commented on the topic: “The best way to make America successful…is to arm our people with the technical capabilities that enable them to win that global contest for prosperity . . .”
- Some find Trump’s “buy American, hire American” program leftist, others see it as sticking to a U.S. first economic nationalist agenda. Rather than hiring workers from other countries, let’s get our workers competent and capable. Does that mean more trade schools? – begin teaching kids early on. Does that mean states and cities should shoulder the burden of training workers? (We need more skilled Americans).
- Some are complaining that if we limit the number of qualified applicants (this is in reference to H-1B visa pool) then we are effectively giving companies incentive to leave the U.S. and relocate where wages are lower and similar job qualifications are afforded. We must create new cycles of supply and demand.
- Many are arguing against Reince Preibus’ assertion that we should – more or less – operate under an “autarky” of sorts. This did not work in 1930s Germany and it most likely won’t work now. If we look closely at historical examples of “autarky”, we can see that it was beneficial, to some degree, in China. In the early 15th Century the Ming Dynasty closed off China from the rest of the world, they remained that way until the 19th Century. The outside world very well may come to us, just like it did for the Chinese – but that’s a gamble that we might not be prepared to take.
- Furthermore, the focus of Trump’s executive order was manufacturing jobs and computer professionals, in the administration’s eyes, these are the two areas where we can increase work for Americans.
As far as keeping businesses in America goes, the more we incentivize business by creating better tax policies, the more likely they’ll be to stay in the country. When Democrats pushed for a higher minimum wage, they pushed jobs out of America.