In an illustrative simulation we find that scrapping Buy-America(n) would reduce U.S. employment in manufacturing but boost employment in the rest of the economy with a net gain of about 300 thousand jobs. Even in the manufacturing sector, there would be many winning industries including those producing machinery and other high-tech products. Employment would increase in 50 out of 51 states and 430 out of 436 congressional districts.
Assuming follow-up research confirms these findings. Who expects politicians to begin to advocate for the ending of Buy American regulations?
(also I'm always a little wishy-washy on posting economics papers in a Science collection. There's always an argument about it. I just don't really post enough economics articles to start an Economics collection.)
"Buy American" is the feel-good option. But politely ignores all the imports of raw materials it takes to make stuff here. Such as chromium, certain rare earth metals, and semiconductors.
Assembly line type of work is giving way to robotics, or at least automation. Which is really nothing new – that's been going on since the early days of the industrial revolution. Or in some cases, even longer (i.e., windmills, and water pumps).
If the we went 100% Buy American, then the country would stop importing oil from the tar sands of Canada, exploring for metals in Afghanistan, Nepal, and other locations. If the country has to import a resource, then it shouldn't be built.
The would be true for bringing in people from other countries to do the work that some Americans are unable to do – due to poor education, or lack of on the job training.
The truth is, that we are all living on the same planet, and cooperation through trade has been a vital part of human society for millennia.