Is there any difference between the introduction of tractors in the 1900's (that cut back the 97% of jobs on farms to 3% of all jobs) and the new "tractor" of cheap labor moving jobs from manufacturing to high-tech services?
What difference does it make to a worker losing their job to lose it to an old tractor or a new "tractor"? There is really no difference between the replacement of agricultural jobs with manufacturing jobs in the early 1900's and the loss of manufacturing jobs to high-tech service jobs today. Both required massive retraining of the workforce.
Cheap labor jobs would be lost to technology in any case. The poorest people in the world are getting these jobs only temporarily. Once their wages begin to rise as has been occuring in China and elsewhere, the cheap labor jobs will be taken over by automation. If those jobs didn't go overseas they would have been eliminated by automation anyway.
If only Nancy Pelosi could have been there to stop the introduction of tractors then as she is stopping the introduction of the cheap labor "tractors" now?
It makes no sense to impose tariff-taxes of 67% or more on imported products because it just raises prices for the poorest Americans. The tariff is a hidden tax because you don't know you are paying it. Local sales taxes are applied to both the base cost and the tariff-tax.
It is worse than paying taxes on the same thing twice. With tariffs we are paying sales tax on the base+tariff so in addition to double taxation, we are paying taxes on the tax.
The working class people are hit the hardest by tariffs because the sliding tariff schedule hits the products the working class people purchase more. Upper class elite spend their extra dollars on services and high-priced goods that are not subject to tariffs.