Protectionist trade policies will not lead the North -Americans to the workforce, Startup founder Pritesh Lakhani tweeted on Thursday after the announcement of United States President Donald Trump on reciprocal rates. Lakhani, co-founder of Pneucons of the B2B industrial market, dismissed the idea that foreign products rates could push the U.S. occupation, calling it “fantasy that does not survive contact with reality.”

“The idea sounds good: taxes on foreign goods, promoting U.S. jobs, and seeing the brantine suddenly. But it is a fantasy,” he wrote, emphasizing how previous fare measures could not significantly affect labor participation.

Lakhani pointed to the Trump Administration’s tariff war with China from 2018 to 2020, which imposed an average tax of 19% to billions on imports. Although the movement led to the creation of about 400,000 estimated manufacturing jobs, he said that this was only a 0.3% increase in the labor of 150 million strong people, without a doubt the resuscitation of the labor force that some had expected.

“There is no sofa exodus there,” he added, referring to the idea that the rates pushed the north -Americans of government aid and jobs.

His argument focused on economic incentives. Lakhani said that many low -wage manufacturing jobs do not offer a convincing alternative to government assistance. “A single parent in Ohio can get $ 30,000 on taxless profits: SNAP, Housing, Medicaid. Take this $ 20 job and lose most of these benefits,” he wrote. “Net gain? A few big ones, besides a scroll and a back pain. Maths do not call” raise and go “.”

Beyond the labor market, he emphasized that the rates also increase consumer prices. He quoted data that show that North -Americans paid $ 46 billion due to rates in 2019, while North -American farmers suffered from retaliation commercial policies. “It’s not a boom of jobs, this is a washing, with the taxpayers who made the bill,” he wrote.

Instead, Lakhani pointed out the reforms of historical well -being as a more effective approach to promoting employment, arguing that the delivery of benefits to work had previously provoked higher labor participation rates. “The rates cannot touch this type of change,” he said.

Its conclusion concluding: “The rates are a political flexion, not a solution. The sofa remains busy.”