Report: Obama’s trade rules will cost U.S. jobs
President Obama has introduced several new trade policies since he first became Commander in Chief. According to a report issued today, President Obama’s newly-imposed trade laws with several countries could result in substantial U.S. job losses at a time when the nation’s unemployment situation is already in shambles. So far, the estimated damage could result in the loss of 585,800 American jobs:
The study done for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce attributed almost two-thirds of the lost jobs, or 383,400, to Congress’ failure to approve free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea.
If other countries retaliate by shutting American companies out of just 1 percent of their domestic stimulus programs, the “net employment loss to the United States from the Recovery Act’s “Buy American” provisions could total 176,800. In the event retaliation escalates, U.S. job losses will mount dramatically,” the study said.
Lastly, the Obama administration’s failure to resolve a cross-border trucking dispute with Mexico threatens another 25,600 U.S. jobs, the study said.
It’s likely that the timing of this report is no big surprise. Last Friday the president claimed he was only enforcing trade rules with China when he decided “to impose a new duty of 35 per cent on Chinese t[i]re imports on top of an existing 4 per cent tariff.”
The decision prompted Chinese officials to impose their own tariffs on American chicken and auto parts imported into China.
As we noted on Monday, “If nothing is done, the effect will be a sharp spike in the price of some imported tires — and possibly the loss of more jobs in America.”

September 15th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
A couple years ago when Japan stopping buying fruit from the Pac NW, US consumers found lower retail prices on #1 grade fruit. Is it illogical to assume if tariffs for US chicken make poultry prices higher in China, that the Chinese consumer would buy less poultry, resulting in an oversupply in the US and a decline in US poultry prices?
September 15th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Hey Lucia,
The reasoning seems logical as long as we don’t find a new audience to supplement them to. I like where your head’s at!
There will surely be more to come on this.
Always a pleasure,
Tim
September 17th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Today Bloomburg news reported that China has “rejected Pepsicola juices and pigs feet” exports from the USA. Perhaps this will be a boon to US consumers in lower retail prices. BBQ pigs feet, anyone?
September 18th, 2009 at 11:35 am
You know…I’m gonna have to pass on the pig’s feet.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Yes, because the imports are cheaper. We can only see that Chinese imported goods are everywhere, and sometimes, the only products found on the market.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Thanks for commenting Chinaimport.