Sign up for our daily briefing

Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Stay on top of the latest market trends

Subscribe to Axios Markets for the latest market trends and economic insights. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Sports news worthy of your time

Binge on the stats and stories that drive the sports world with Axios Sports. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tech news worthy of your time

Get our smart take on technology from the Valley and D.C. with Axios Login. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Get the inside stories

Get an insider's guide to the new White House with Axios Sneak Peek. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Want a daily digest of the top Denver news?

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Want a daily digest of the top Des Moines news?

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Want a daily digest of the top Twin Cities news?

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Want a daily digest of the top Tampa Bay news?

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Want a daily digest of the top Charlotte news?

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Steel furnace in the U.K., 1954. Photo: Maurice Broomfield/SSPL/Getty

New data have persuaded many economists that Chinese trade, and not robots, is at fault for vanished manufacturing jobs across the Ohio and Mississippi river belts, but a key expert is disputing the finding.

Why it matters: Within the answer may lie the answer to resurrecting at least some of the hollowed out manufacturing heartland, or at least not making the same mistakes again. And it may also help explain the rise of populist leaders like President Trump.

  • A growing consensus is that trade deals such as China's 2001 entry to the WTO are far more to blame for manufacturing job losses than automation.
  • But some economists continue to dissent and seek a larger explanation.

The background: In a long piece earlier this month, Quartz's Gwynn Guilford profiled the work of Susan Houseman, an economist with the Upjohn Institute. In a 2011 paper and subsequent followup work, Houseman found that, when you strip away productivity gains by the computer sector, the rest of the manufacturing economy had super-slow growth starting in the late 1970s, and almost no growth starting about 2000, approximately the time of China's WTO accession.

  • That was puzzling, since a productivity bump should have been present if manufacturing was automating in spades, as was claimed.
  • Therefore something else was responsible for the wipeout of jobs.

David Autor, an MIT economist who pioneered research into China's 2001 entry to the WTO, told me that automation has been "overblown and the importance of trade under-appreciated" in grasping the U.S. manufacturing implosion. From his own work, Autor had already intuited that China's WTO membership was primarily to blame, but Houseman provided the final pieces of data that proved it. "She has cracked a big puzzle," he said.

Other economists said the same thing: At the McKinsey Global Institute, for instance, Sree Ramaswamy added pharmaceuticals as an industry that, along with computing, accounted for almost all the real rise in productivity.

  • The big job hit, he said, was to medium and small manufacturers who, in the cutthroat global competition that erupted after big trade agreements, failed to compete.
  • Karen Harris, director of Bain Macro Trends, said it's now clear that trade was "the key channel" that drove down wages across sectors, leading to the rising income inequality that has dogged the U.S. economy.
  • The suggestion in these conclusions is that, from labor unions to Trump, trade critics have been right to all-but ignore automation and blame pacts like NAFTA.

But but but: In so doing, they challenge the work of Carl Frey, an Oxford economist and co-author of a 2013 paper that is the baseline for the study of the impact of automation on jobs.

  • In October, Frey posted a draft of a new paper in which he linked automation anxiety and Trump's 2016 election: Support for Trump was greater in areas of relatively high robot adoption. Lower adoption, he said, would have swung Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin to Hillary Clinton.
  • Frey told me that his work had taken account of Chinese trade. "We control ... for Chinese import competition in our study. Doing so, robots still have a significant impact," he said.

In addition, in terms of the populist wave, a new study by University of Pennsylvania political scientist Diana Mutz found a completely separate explanation from job destruction: people have reacted not to lost income, but to a perceived threat to their local status. In other words, it has been tribalism.

  • If Metz is right, no amount of righted trade deals will turn the populism.

Go deeper

41 mins ago - World

China and Russia vaccinate the world — for now

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

While the U.S. and Europe focus on vaccinating their own populations, China and Russia are sending millions of COVID-19 vaccine doses to countries around the world.

Why it matters: China's double success in controlling its domestic outbreak and producing several viable vaccines has allowed it to focus on providing doses abroad — an effort that could help to save lives across several continents.

Ina Fried, author of Login
51 mins ago - Technology

Report: China will dominate AI unless U.S. invests more

Photo illustration: Axios Visuals. Photo: Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The U.S., which once had a dominant head start in artificial intelligence, now has just a few year's lead on China and risks being overtaken unless government steps in, according to a new report to Congress and the White House.

Why it matters: Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who chaired the committee that issued the report, tells Axios that the U.S. risks dire consequences if it fails to both invest in key technologies and fully integrate AI into the military.

Americans agree about more issues than they realize

Data: Populace Inc.; Chart: Michelle McGhee/Axios

Many Americans assume the rest of the country doesn't share their political and policy priorities — but they're often wrong, according to new polling by Populace, first seen by Axios.

Why it matters: The polling reveals that despite growing political polarization, Americans share similar long-term goals and priorities for the country.