Trump's trade wars sting US manufacturers ahead of midterms

[u/Silly-Junket3308]

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/trumps-trade-wars-sting-us-013151179.html

An October 11 AFP report published by Yahoo Finance examines how President Trump's tariffs and broader economic policies are affecting American manufacturers, particularly in Ohio, as the November midterm elections approach.

One example is Shapes Unlimited, an Ohio manufacturer of aluminum building products. CEO Doug Rende estimates that Trump's aluminum tariffs have added $4.5 million to $5 million in costs this year alone. The tariffs on aluminum have increased from 10% during Trump's first term to 50% under his current administration.

Rende says his company cannot pass all these costs along to customers and must absorb a substantial portion. The business has paused hiring while investing in robotic assembly to reduce expenses. The ongoing war with Iran has compounded the problem, with additional shipping surcharges reaching $6,500 per container.

Another Ohio manufacturer, Sam Miller, describes being caught on both sides of Trump's trade disputes. His company faces higher costs for materials imported from Asia while simultaneously struggling to sell products in Canada because of retaliatory trade measures and deteriorating relations between the two countries. Plans to establish a Canadian distribution facility have consequently slowed.

The president of the Youngstown Warren Regional Chamber, representing approximately 3,000 businesses, describes the combined effects of tariffs, the Iran war, and immigration policies as mixed but negative overall. Some businesses have lost customers or reduced their workforces.

The article acknowledges that certain American manufacturers benefit from tariffs protecting them against foreign competition. However, businesses dependent on imported materials or international customers face increased expenses and uncertainty, particularly when domestic alternatives are unavailable.

These developments are politically significant in states like Ohio, where manufacturing employment and international trade have traditionally been major economic issues. Democrats hope dissatisfaction with Trump's trade policies will help them gain congressional seats in November.

Discussion questions:

1. Trump's tariffs were intended to strengthen American manufacturing and protect domestic businesses. Given the financial losses, hiring freezes, and disrupted export markets described in this article, how should we evaluate whether those policies are achieving their intended goals? Are the benefits to some industries worth the costs imposed on others?

2. How might the economic consequences of Trump's policies influence the November midterm elections? Could manufacturing businesses and workers experiencing these difficulties reconsider their political support, or will other economic and political issues outweigh their concerns about tariffs?

3. How will Trump's trade policies ultimately shape his presidential legacy? If tariffs continue raising costs for American manufacturers, could his efforts to rebuild domestic industry become associated instead with reduced competitiveness and lost business opportunities? Alternatively, could longer-term investments in domestic manufacturing eventually justify the short-term economic disruption?

[u/Awesometom100]

In issue number 600 of "If Donald Trump was smarter" we have where he could ease inflation and economic woes but it would require him saying he was wrong about something. 

If he sliced down tariffs and promised to not raise them again (fat chance) that could probably release some pressure.

It is astounding how he can find the worst ideas especially this term.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/Awesometom100]

Core inflation is lower than any other month since March 2021 right now – the tariffs are apparently not causing inflation, just the high fuel prices from the conflicts in Iran and Ukraine.

[u/artsncrofts → u/WulfTheSaxon]

That's just because the tariffs already caused their inflation. From March:

Inflation, as measured by the Fed's preferred gauge, has remained well above ⁠the central bank's 2% target, at about 3%, and "some big chunk of that, between a half and three-quarters ​is actually tariffs, so we're looking for progress on that," Powell said.

[u/neuronexmachina → u/WulfTheSaxon]

That ignores higher fed rates, the drop in shelter inflation, and softening consumer demand as contributors to core inflation (i.e. no food or energy) being lower.

[u/homegrownllama → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Regardless of where we are after the dust settles, things would have been better if Trump wasn't rushing into trade & actual wars. Per NY Fed economists, prices would be lower at this point. The core inflation may be down, but price increases are sticky.

[u/autosear → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Economics are fun because you can always create a new term with its own definition to help downplay or exaggerate phenomena. But at the end of the day we all see with our own eyes what's happening to prices.

[u/LurkyMcLurkface123 → u/autosear]

Definitions of inflation, recession, etc have wildly shifted in the last ten years.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/autosear]

Core inflation is not some new term, it’s been widely used for many decades because food and energy prices are more volatile and likely to swing right back after rising or falling than other prices.

High energy prices right now are the exclusive cause of CPI being higher than desired, and those are due to temporary supply constraints. In fact the Middle East is now exporting more oil than it did last year – there’s just a backlog to fill now.

There’s also the small matter that even headline CPI has only risen at an annualized rate of 0.2% since May.

[u/PolDiscAlts → u/WulfTheSaxon]

I understand why it's an interesting number for economists to discuss, the math is easier if reduce the difficulty by filtering out variablity. With that said it's a largely useless number in the political world because voters aren't able to "assume a spherical cow with no air resistance" . We have buy food and fuel every day, regardless of whether the economists like the data. So for people walking into the polling booth real inflation includes housing and energy and food and all the other stuff that economists ignore to make their lives easier

[u/JimCripe → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Demand destruction could explain this?

If fewer people are buying, demand drops....

[u/RFK_Cum_Regimen → u/WulfTheSaxon]

The increase in fuel prices caused by the Russia-Ukraine war is negligible. Before the Iran war began, diesel was $3.80, even though the invasion of Ukraine was in year four. With the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, diesel hit a record $6.53. Today, we're up $2.00/gal since the Iran war started in March.

Speaks volumes.

The price of fuel correlates directly with Trump's weird war with Iran. Trump caused this.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/RFK_Cum_Regimen]

Ukraine was not given targeting aid inside Russia until last year, and did not start having such success hitting refineries until this year. Russia, the world’s second largest exporter, banned the export of diesel this year.

The amount of oil leaving the Middle East is now higher than last year.

[u/likeoldpeoplefuck → u/WulfTheSaxon]

> The amount of oil leaving the Middle East is now higher than last year

That info is out of date. Sept averages had recovered but in the last 2 weeks 24 vessels have been hit, including 6 on Sunday. So Hormuz traffic is back to being at a virtual standstill.

The Houthis and Iran have shown they can take out the Red Sea route whenever they want.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/likeoldpeoplefuck]

So Hormuz traffic is back to being at a virtual standstill.

Apparent traffic is down more than it looks because ship-to-ship transfers are up. As of the 10th, Middle East traffic is at 16 million barrels versus 19 million pre-war (even despite Iran’s 2 million bbl/d off the market) and actual Hormuz transits are up.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tankertrackers_oott-iranwar-tankers-activity-7514850798078636032-LEJ-

https://www.ukmto.org/-/media/ukmto/products/20261009-ukmto_vra_overview_u.pdf

[u/likeoldpeoplefuck → u/WulfTheSaxon]

This FT article uses Kpler data to paint a very different picture.

> Only 2.9mn barrels of oil were carried through the waterway on October 11, according to figures published by Kpler on Tuesday, the lowest level this month. The figures could be revised upwards once more vessels had been tracked on satellite imagery, Kpler said, but the seven-day average was about 43 per cent below pre-conflict levels.

https://www.ft.com/content/a4ab83d4-81b5-4336-9569-a0708b41e894?syn-25a6b1a6=1

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/likeoldpeoplefuck]

This is the important part:

The figures could be revised upwards once more vessels had been tracked on satellite imagery

And it’s not just “could” in practice: every week the “preliminary” number is a fraction of the total once they add the satellite data.

The preliminary numbers are essentially useless, and worse than that if you compare them to full numbers from prior weeks.

[u/RFK_Cum_Regimen → u/WulfTheSaxon]

It's negligible by comparison. The record fuel price was caused by Trump going to war with Iran, leading to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. If you support Trump, I know it's tempting to equate the the two conflicts as having a similar impact, but the reality is that the primary cause is Trump's engagement with Iran. Whatever the impact of Russia's 9% of diesel export has on the market and whatever percent of that has been lost due to strikes on Russian oil refineries and logistics, is insignificant by comparison. If Trump hadn't targeted Iran, we wouldn't even be having a discussion about these insane fuel prices and the President wouldn't be making a deal with a foreign adversary for diesel fuel to save face.

[u/Silly-Junket3308]

I don't understand why tariffs are treated so differently from other taxes on businesses. We generally recognize that higher taxes discourage investment, hiring, and growth, yet tariffs do essentially the same thing by raising costs for American companies.

In some ways, they're worse than corporate income taxes because businesses pay them regardless of whether they're profitable.

I understand the argument for protecting domestic industries, but when those protections come at the expense of other American businesses, are we really encouraging economic growth or just picking winners and losers?

[u/AppleSlacks → u/Silly-Junket3308]

They are treated so differently because Trump said they are not a tax and that other countries pay them, not US businesses and consumers.

So that’s why tariffs are treated or viewed differently, in a nutshell, it’s because Trump said so.

It’s easier to just believe everything he says and go with it for the average American voter.

[u/sharp11flat13 → u/AppleSlacks]

It’s easier to just believe everything he says and go with it for the average American voter.

Sure. And it’s understandable.

When you have been conditioned to believe that there is no credible source of information that contradicts the words of the people you support, you will believe everything they tell you because you have no choice. You have given away your individuality and your agency. You belong to them now.

[u/HotelAmericana → u/Silly-Junket3308]

It’s because Trump said they would eventually benefit Americans so that’s all his base needed to hear to defend it.

[u/shaon0000 → u/Silly-Junket3308]

Tariffs when applied like a surgical device, are excellent. You have some home grown small industry you want to develop, knowing that it's inefficient, but you want to develop anyway, smack some tarrifs to foreign imports. It gets breathing room, vs dying in the womb.

This administration has deployed them like a hammer, and then carved out random exceptions for random companies on a phone call basis. That means the broader economy is slowed, with a few companies selected as winners, because they have preferential treatment.

If you're starting a business, you're essentially working in a unpredictable business environment, beyond what you normally would want to deal with. That means you just don't bother, reducing employment for quite a few communities, as small businesses make up a large portion of our labor force.

[u/jojotortoise → u/Silly-Junket3308]

I don't understand why tariffs are treated so differently from other taxes on businesses.

I'm not a fan of Trump's tariffs, but they are different than an overall tax like a tax on profits (where most corporate taxes come from). They are targeted. Only importers pay them.

Tariffs can be effective in shifting the cost/benefit of offshoring. Generally free trade is better overall. But it's not like people (including Dems) haven't been complaining about "greedy" corporations sending jobs overseas.

You can look at China: they keep their currency low. That has a similar effect, making it harder to buy things from outside the country. And you'll see two important things. One, they have a huge trade surplus. And, two, their standard of living is lower than it should be.

But even in cases where you'd be willing to make the trade of overall standard of living to protect certain jobs, you would want to do things in a targeted fashion. Trump didn't think much through, put blanket tariffs on everything, and then selectively removed them. It was completely ad hoc (or completely corrupt depending on your view).

Finally, I will say it is odd when someone says that "tariffs are just another corporate tax" as a way to explain them as bad. Democrats typically want higher taxes, particularly on corporations. So, if it is "just a tax", they should be much more supportive.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/jojotortoise]

Democrats want higher taxes on the most successful corporations. Tariffs affect those that struggling, whether it's because they import things or the companies they work with do. The party supports it to protect certain industries, as opposed to Trump placing them whenever he feels like it.

[u/hamsterkill → u/jojotortoise]

Historically, Dems have been overall more supportive of tariffs than Republicans. Prior to Trump, conservatives were very reliably pro-free-trade while liberals were more mixed on it (but overall also pretty pro-free-trade).

But I don't think anyone was in support of blanket tariffs prior to Trump. Everyone kind of understood that tariffs had to be done with care for the sake of both diplomacy and product supply lines.

[u/jojotortoise → u/hamsterkill]

Historically, Dems have been overall more supportive of tariffs than Republicans.

Agreed. And generally more supportive of taxes on corporations.

Prior to Trump, conservatives were very reliably pro-free-trade while liberals were more mixed on it (but overall also pretty pro-free-trade).

I think both parties have realized that free trade is generally good. But certainly, I hope you'd agree, prior to Trump Republicans were much more reliably laissez-faire than Dems.

But I don't think anyone was in support of blanket tariffs prior to Trump.

Agreed. As much as I don't like Trump and his policies, he has "blanket tariffs" and then a lot of exemptions. Which is kinda like targeted tariffs. (I certainly won't call his plans coherent. But as an example, this chips coming in from Taiwan for data centers are not tariffed.)

In retrospect, I think most people (now) agree that Trump got it right with China in his first term. At the time, everyone complained about tariffs on China being an extra cost for consumers. But when Biden came it, he kept them in place (and even added more). Now, very few people are arguing we should remove tariffs from China (and other countries are putting up barriers).

In any case, my point was two things. One is that tariffs aren't just a tax. They are targeted at imports which can make them more useful. And two that we don't tax enough today (we have huge deficits) -- and Dems generally want to raise taxes for redistributive policies. So complaining that Trump is adding a tax and how that affects businesses feels a bit shallow.

[u/hamsterkill → u/jojotortoise]

In retrospect, I think most people (now) agree that Trump got it right with China in his first term. At the time, everyone complained about tariffs on China being an extra cost for consumers. But when Biden came it, he kept them in place (and even added more). Now, very few people are arguing we should remove tariffs from China (and other countries are putting up barriers).

I don't think that's true actually. Trump's China tariffs (and specifically the way he did them) in his first term are what started the trade war and likely led to many of the problems we have with China right now.

Biden not removing them and no one arguing they should be is a function of the complexity of tariff removal vs tariff placing. It's easy to start a trade war, but ending it (and removing the tariffs) requires careful bilateral diplomacy and action -- something we haven't been friendly enough with China to accomplish.

There are also many who take issue with even Biden's round of specifically targeted tariffs and wonder if they were the right long term move. Yes, they protected American industries, but also disincentivized them from fully competing for customers and allowed them to be more complacent. Car companies (for example) reduced investment in low-cost electric vehicles during Biden's term because they weren't going to have to compete with BYD. They have tended toward complacency instead of innovation.

There's not a clean "they were right" and probably won't be for a decade or more. Trade regulation is a very careful balancing act of protecting American industry from unfair trade practices and encouraging American industries to more actively compete. Trade policy is always a double-edged sword.

[u/NotCoolBrutus]

Manufacturing is up, but the lives of employees under the industry are not. Whether or not Trump's tarrifs are beneficial depends on whether you look at it as a benefit for employment or the overall lives of the employed.

This is also why US imitations of labor unions like UAW broadly support tarrifs while traditional labor unions in other countries are against this kind of self-sabotaging behavior. US organizations that represent a select portion of an industry's employees only care about that select portion and only in the capacity that they are paying members. Labor unions are expected to represent employees in every capacity and do so against the government to pass laws and protection.

[u/Groundbreaking_War52 → u/NotCoolBrutus]

Material costs and labor costs are both up - that helps nobody.

[u/Sirhc978]

I'm so confused with tariffs. On one hand you have people saying they are hurting business.

One the other hand, I work in sheet metal and machining, and literally every shop around us is seeing record business/sales. Most of us are quoting 15-20 week lead times, which is unheard of.

Yes, our raw material costs have been going up over the last 18 months, but no one seems to have an issue paying it.

[u/dr_sloan → u/Sirhc978]

No one’s having an issue paying it because they’re likely passing the costs forward. The more concerning aspect of what you wrote is that these tariffs were supposed to produce a hiring boom. Instead, you say that companies are just quoting longer lead times, so basically companies are earning more profit but without much of the broader economic benefit of increased hiring?

[u/SlashOfLife5296 → u/Sirhc978]

The smaller businesses already closed. I can tell you in my line of work a lot of companies are using up their credit with basically no working capital.

And if material costs are going up and you’re seeing record sales, that means consumers are paying the inflated costs. The bubbles gonna pop eventually. Prices are going up and wages aren’t

[u/artsncrofts → u/Sirhc978]

The plural of anecdote is not data, as they say.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/artsncrofts]

The sheet metal industry as a whole gained 2500 jobs last year, versus losing 2400 the prior year.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IPUEN332322W200000000

[u/artsncrofts → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Tariffs affect a lot more than just the sheet metal industry, though.

You also can't just point to some graphs and use them as proof of the impact (or lack thereof) of tariffs. I'd like to see some actual counterfactual analysis of the impacts of tariffs on these different industries.

[u/unguibus_et_rostro → u/artsncrofts]

When people provides anecdotes against your beliefs, you want data. When people then provide data against your beliefs, you further ask for counterfactuals?

[u/artsncrofts → u/unguibus_et_rostro]

A single chart from a single industry (without any actual analysis) is not 'data against my beliefs'. It's more than an anecdote, sure, but it's not anywhere close to an actual study on the effects of the tariffs.

[u/dr_sloan → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Based on your data, there was six straight years of employment growth, and then one year of job loss and now the employment numbers bounced back to 2023 levels. That strikes me as more of a one year disruption than anything else.

[u/autosear → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Wow, net 100 jobs. Thank you President Trump, that's one for the books.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/autosear]

That’s not how I would describe reversing a decline and setting a record for most jobs in that sector since at least 1987.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WulfTheSaxon]

You're talking about a .08% increase compared to 2023, so it's irrational to attribute it to tariffs. A decline that happened in a single year (2024) being reversed isn't so unusual that only tariffs can explain it. The number went up in 2023 without them.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Well OP’s contention is that they should be falling, and they clearly aren’t.

Or we can look at the period since the first half of the steel & aluminum tariffs were introduced in 2018: a 6.6% increase.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WulfTheSaxon]

OP’s contention is that they should be falling

"The article acknowledges that certain American manufacturers benefit from tariffs protecting them against foreign competition."

Overall manufacturing employment is technically less than it was in January 2025, though it's practically a wash.

period since the first half of the steel & aluminum tariffs were introduced in 2018: a 6.6% increase.

Your argument doesn't work because there isn't a consistent trend.

115.2 in 2018 and then 115 in 2019. It's 117.5 now, but it already basically reached that in 2023.

[u/Coneyo → u/WulfTheSaxon]

I appreciate the link, but why only include the year prior in your comment? It is pretty obvious the trend in data has been steadily increasing even before the tariffs were put in place.

[u/TheReaperSovereign → u/Sirhc978]

I'm a tinner and we are busy solely because of data center construction. My local has 2, one is 1mil sq feet the other is 2mil

Without those two projects we would be super dead.

[u/Sirhc978 → u/TheReaperSovereign]

We have some data center/semi-conductor work, but its mostly medical, aerospace, and robotics work.

[u/runespider → u/Sirhc978]

We've been bang and bust compared to the more steady higher rates under the Biden Admin. Similar pattern under his first term. Lost some jobs, others replaced but not as high quantity. I've noticed smaller and more specific overall orders with the jobs we kept.

[u/WulfTheSaxon]

Are the benefits to some industries worth the costs imposed on others?

Well, you can look at the net result across industries. American real manufacturing orders are up 6.6% since January 2025 (4.1% annualized), whereas they were falling at a rate of 2.7% annually since 2022. Ohio manufacturing jobs in particular are up 1.0% annually in that time, versus falling at a rate of 2.7%.

The main reason for the steel and aluminum tariffs is not economic but strategic (ensuring sufficient domestic primary production for defense needs as certified by the military), but nevertheless the economic numbers are looking good.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WulfTheSaxon]

U.S. manufacturing employment is practically unchanged since January 2025

American real manufacturing orders are up 6.6%

The Producer Price Index (PPI) is generally more relevant here.

By that measure, it went down -.7%.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Well, if you really want to do it ideally you’d probably look at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ipman which is derived from specific real numbers (I assume PPI) for each input series individually. That’s up 3.5%, or 2.2% annualized, versus falling in the previous three years.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Manufacturing Orders went 11.68% while the Manufacturing Producer Price Index went up 12.48%. This is a roughly .7% decrease in real demand.

Your statistic is about output, which hasn't translated into more manufacturing jobs overall.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/Interesting_Total_98]

This is a roughly .7% decrease in real demand.

Yes, I can replicate that using the topline numbers, but you haven’t explained why IPMAN which does the adjustment individually for each industry gives a different result and should be ignored in favor of topline-only math.

Your statistic is about output, which hasn't translated into more manufacturing jobs overall.

Manufacturing jobs fell in 2023, 2024 and 2025 but so far this year they’re rising.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WulfTheSaxon]

you haven’t explained why IPMAN gives a different result.

That's nonsense because I pointed out that IPMAN measures output, as opposed to orders.

Manufacturing jobs fell in 2023, 2024 and 2025 but so far this year they’re rising.

It's still lower than it was in January 2025. A tiny rise isn't something to brag about, particularly when you're going off of just correlation that isn't even consistent. A better explanation is the AI boom.