“The decision to go to China,” said a Fortune 500 executive, was pushed almost exclusively by analysts who told management that they would not be able to support a purchase recommendation if the company did not intend to be in China. As the executives who make the decision are compensated by juicy stock options, it didn`t take long for the company to offer Mandarin courses. I think these people understand very well the long-term impact of these decisions, and they are very sympathetic to the poor b-ds who come after them and have to sort out this mess – of course, after these options have been exercised. Moreover, the cost of safeguarding employment through protectionism can be very high. A number of studies have attempted to estimate the cost to consumers at higher prices per job, which is saved by protectionism. Table 2 shows a sample of results compiled by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Saving a job through protectionism usually costs much more than the worker`s real wage. For example, a study published in 2002 showed that protectionist measures to save average employment in the textile and clothing industry would cost $199,000 per job saved. In other words, these workers could have received $100,000 a year to be unemployed and the cost would be only half of what it is to get them to work in the textile and clothing industry. This result is not only due to textiles and clothing. Earlier this year, MEPs approved free trade and investment protection agreements with Vietnam, which came into force this summer. In June 2019, an agreement in principle was reached with the Mercosur countries, but it must be approved by the Council and the European Parliament. For MEPs, quality standards in trade agreements are always a red line and any attempt to reduce them could be a reason to reject them.

In addition, EU negotiators often contain clauses on human rights and workers` rights in trade agreements to improve the situation in the country with which we trade Why does it cost so much to save jobs through protectionism? The main reason for this is that all of the extra money paid by consumers because of tariffs or quotas is not intended to save jobs. For example, if tariffs are imposed on steel imports to increase steel buyers, U.S. steel companies earn more profits, buy more equipment, managers pay higher bonuses, give wage increases to existing employees- and also avoid laying off a few additional employees. Only part of the higher price of protected steel is spent on job rescue. If an industry is protected, the economy as a whole loses the advantage of playing its comparative advantage, in other words, producing what it does best. Part of the higher price paid by consumers for protected products is a loss of economic efficiency, which can be measured as an additional loss of own weight, as discussed in labour and financial markets. It is therefore important to look at all the data on this issue, which also shows that there is no clear link between a new trade agreement and job cuts. And this is because technological advances and globalization can affect and make the job market in a given country, usually through cuts in some sectors, but sometimes significant gains in other sectors.