I was in Washington this week and had a chance to read a bunch of material regarding the tariff plan. The notion of expanding employment in the U.S. with these tariffs is really silly. It is clearly the case the primary metal production employment has been on the decline as seen here.
There are many ways to slice and dice employment and the change in employment in a community. How webs to do it, and whether the approach generates meaningful outcomes, is not always clear. We can look at particular sectors and attribute outsize importance to them and fear job loss is symptomatic of a declining employment base. It could also be the case the local labor market composition changed and the losses in one sector were the gain in another.
I am getting into the weeds a bit for this post. I hear more questions regarding an urban-rural split in the state, and it is not always easy to parse this out. For one thing, the definitions of rural and urban are not universally decided and are relative to some degree. I am originally from Chicago, so no city in North Dakota appears urban to me. As a result I will need to define some terms in order to advance the analysis.
With the debt ceiling issue shelved (temporarily, I mean three months is no time at all) most eyes turn towards tax policy now. There are enough games played regarding language right now, “Tax reform” v. “Tax relief” v. “Tax cuts”, that it would seem we are in for an extended debate, or a really long argument. With leadership apparently content to draft plans outside of the committee process there seems to be little chance to quell discontent from within their own party.
My posting has been light, well nonexistent, as I am switching to a different web host. That should be finished soon and posting will continue. However, I looked at some labor market data for North Dakota cities and had to put together a quick post.