{"id":2248,"date":"2026-10-19T13:25:33","date_gmt":"2026-10-19T13:25:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/academics\/tocqueville-program\/?post_type=furman-update&p=2248"},"modified":"2026-10-19T13:28:11","modified_gmt":"2026-10-19T13:28:11","slug":"american-manufacturing-jobs-tariffs","status":"publish","type":"furman-update","link":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/academics\/tocqueville-program\/lectures\/american-manufacturing-jobs-tariffs\/","title":{"rendered":"Tocqueville Fellows Blog by Makena Wyngaard: Do We Actually Want It? The Fight for American Industry"},"content":{"rendered":"

Makena Wyngaard ’28 is a Tocqueville Fellow from Jasper, Georgia, majoring in economics and German studies.<\/em><\/p>\n

What if the greatest obstacle to rebuilding American industry isn’t government policy, but Americans themselves? On March 17, the Tocqueville Center brought Mark DiPlacido of American Compass and Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute for a discussion of \u201cAmerica and the Global Economy.\u201d Throughout their series of two talks, Furman witnessed a clash of ideas so stark, none of us will forget it. As I have reflected on this clash between the pro-tariff Mark DiPlacido and pro-globalization Scott Lincicome, I can\u2019t help but be drawn back to one of DiPlacido\u2019s primary goals: rebuilding American industry.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I think we take DiPlacido\u2019s goal at face value too much, as if it is naturally attainable so long as we make policy incentivizing it. One of the first questions that we should be asking is, do Americans want their industry to be rebuilt? And subsequently, why did American industry decrease in the first place? These questions tie into two economic concepts: revealed preferences and the Three-Sector model, which can help us understand why America might not have industry, and may not ever want it back\u2013no matter what the government says.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"

Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute and Mark DiPlacido of American Compass discuss \u201cAmerica and the Global Economy\u201d at the Tocqueville Center at Furman University on March 17, 2026.<\/p><\/div>\n

Revealed Preferences: Do Americans Really Want Manufacturing Jobs?<\/b><\/p>\n

DiPlacido did in fact address my first question, do Americans want industry? But he did so in a way that utilized stated preference, rather than revealed preference. The tension between stated and revealed preferences comes down to the tension between what I say I value (“I want to bring Industry back to America”) and what my choices reveal I value (I would never work a manufacturing job, that\u2019s dangerous). So, DiPlacido may have data that Americans <\/span>state <\/span><\/i>they want industry back, but I don’t see a matchup in the type of jobs that youth are <\/span>actually <\/span><\/i>going for.<\/span><\/p>\n

Data published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that only 11% of people aged 16-24 are employed in manufacturing and construction, with an extra 1.5% of them employed in agriculture or natural resource extraction (<\/span>U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025<\/span><\/a>). DiPlacido may argue that this is because we “don’t have enough industry to employ them” but I\u2019m not sold. If the people want it, why haven’t we seen more manufacturing “startups?” Surely there are investors\u2014the very investors who look towards American Compass at least\u2014who would be all for this.<\/span><\/p>\n

Even when looking at trade school enrollment, while it has increased slightly post-pandemic, only one of the most popular “trades”\u2014welding\u2014would serve DiPlacido’s domestic manufacturing goal (<\/span>Validated Insights, 2024<\/span><\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

Even more revealing is the Cato Institute’s survey about current American public opinion which shows that 80% of respondents said they wanted American Industry back, but when the statement was changed to “I would be better off working American Industry,” only 25% of respondents agreed (<\/span>Ekins, 2024<\/span><\/a>). So even Americans\u2019 stated preference for rebuilding industry may be flimsier than DiPlacido thinks. Revealed preferences show something more like, “Sure, I want American Industry back, but don’t make <\/span>me <\/span><\/i>do it.”<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"

Makena asks a question during the Tocqueville Center\u2019s \u201cAmerica and the Global Economy\u201d event<\/p><\/div>\n

Deindustrialization and the Three-Sector Model\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

My second question ties into a theory of national economic development introduced by Colin Clark and Allan Fischer in the mid-20<\/span>th<\/span> century, later augmented by Jean Fourasti\u00e9. The Clark-Fischer Hypothesis posits that an economy’s main focus changes as the country develops. A nation’s economy focuses largely on the primary sector (agriculture) in its infancy. As it develops, the secondary sector (manufacturing) begins to dominate labor and resources, partially due to higher and more stable wages (this point is also illustrated by the Harris-Todoro model of Urbanization). Eventually, focus shifts from making goods to selling them, and the tertiary sector (services) dominates. While the primary and secondary sectors do not fade into oblivion, they are often first to be automated or outsourced in the new “service focused” economy. A modern addition to this theory includes a quaternary sector which grows out of the service industry and focuses on research and development, AI, IT, and financial management. In essence, this theory accurately describes the trajectory of much of the Western World.<\/span><\/p>\n

Given this theory and America’s place in it\u2014with citizens currently heavy focusing on the quaternary sector\u2014I wonder if American Compass is simply refusing to look this idea in the eye: maybe American industry didn\u2019t go away because of the bogeyman, maybe it went away because we didn\u2019t want it to be here. So, American Compass may then come to an uncomfortable truth: what it is fighting for is not going to be supported by its constituency\u2014not really.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"

Scott Lincicome and Mark DiPlacido respond to questions from the audience<\/p><\/div>\n

How to Make American Manufacturing Jobs Attractive Again<\/b><\/p>\n

Now the question becomes how do you get people to staff the industrial sector that they don\u2019t want to staff?<\/span><\/p>\n

Well, there are better ways and worse ways, but all of them will be much more difficult than simply implementing tariffs. When I think of how to tackle this problem, I think about increasing salaries, decreasing the stigma around blue collar jobs, and increasing the exposure of blue-collar trades to Americans in grade school. If we have proven that the American dream is, ultimately, about money, then we need to make industry where the money is.<\/span><\/p>\n

But there is still the oh-so-tricky variable of preference. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s crazy to assert that no one prefers to be on their feet for 8 to 10 hour shifts doing the same thing over and over again. And often, industrial jobs will have three shifts: day, evening, and red eye. Who wants to work while their kids are home, and everyone else is off work\u2014or worse, sleeping.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

So, the next question becomes how do you make the industrial sector more like the service sector? But also, how do you make these workplaces safe in the way that they would need to be?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

For example, how many people lose a limb at a desk job in comparison to their peers working at the car factory? Even if the amount of limb loss at the car factory isn\u2019t that high, it\u2019s still more than the desk job. Not to mention that to support all of the benefits and incentives towards joining industry, there will be an associated increase in the price of national goods. And while this may start out as the government subsidizing these benefits, we will do nothing positive for the national debt by doing so in the long term.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

So, we come to the very practical problem of how to change preferences\u2014not just monetary preferences, but the human preference of non-monotonous work.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Maybe the answer lies in pushing the idea that work is just that\u2014work\u2014instead of advancing some “higher purpose” or being a “fulfillment of your passions.” Maybe it means framing industry in the same light as the military: as work through which one fulfills a duty to one\u2019s country.\u00a0 Maybe it means using industrial jobs as a stepping stone out of poverty\u2014requiring little experience or education to be hired, on-sight training and worker investment, and the ability to meaningfully move up in salary without a “degree paywall.”\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

But all of these prescriptions require more intentionality and detail-oriented policy than our current administration seems to be able to handle.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Beyond Tariffs: The Challenge of Rebuilding American Manufacturing<\/b><\/p>\n

At the end of the day, maybe more people <\/span>do <\/span><\/i>want to work in newly returned American Industry, but I think it is time we realize that this group of people is not as large as DiPlacido, American Compass, or Trump think. And, if we want our industrial sector labor force to grow, we have to do more than simply apply tariffs; we have to change preferences.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sources:<\/b><\/p>\n

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2025, August 20). Over half of employed youth worked in leisure and hospitality, retail trade, or education and health services. <\/span>https:\/\/www.bls.gov\/opub\/ted\/2025\/over-half-of-employed-youth-worked-in-leisure-and-hospitality-retail-trade-or-education-and-health-services.htm<\/span><\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Validated Insights. (2024, October). Trade schools report: Market insights. <\/span>https:\/\/www.validatedinsights.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Trade-Schools-Report-Oct-2024.pdf<\/span><\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Ekins, E. (2024, August). Cato Institute 2024 globalization survey<\/span>. Cato Institute<\/span><\/i>. <\/span>https:\/\/www.cato.org\/sites\/cato.org\/files\/2024-08\/Globalization%20Survey_2024.pdf<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Makena Wyngaard ’28 is a Tocqueville Fellow from Jasper, Georgia, majoring in economics and German studies. What if the greatest obstacle to rebuilding American industry isn’t government policy, but Americans […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":2259,"template":"","update-categories":[8],"class_list":["post-2248","furman-update","type-furman-update","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","furman-update-category-student-blogs"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/academics\/tocqueville-program\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/lectures\/2248","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/academics\/tocqueville-program\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/lectures"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/academics\/tocqueville-program\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/furman-update"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/academics\/tocqueville-program\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/lectures\/2248\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2268,"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/academics\/tocqueville-program\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/lectures\/2248\/revisions\/2268"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/academics\/tocqueville-program\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2259"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/academics\/tocqueville-program\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"furman-update-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/academics\/tocqueville-program\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/update-categories?post=2248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}