First, you;’re assuming that economics (at least employment) is a zero-sum game, that if there is a job created in China or Mexico, that’s automatically one less job for Americans. Not so. To quote the old saying, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”
Second, you’re assuming that economics is about money. it’s not — it’s about commodities and exchange. Money has no intrinsic value. It’s only good if you can use it to get “stuff”, whether goods or services. Trade is about acquiring and distributing commodities for prices that the most people can sustain.
Those who develop products and services make our lives better, to the point that we’re willing to give them our money because we value what they have more than the money, whether it’s food or a computer or medical care. It’s when government tries to make those decisions for us that we get into trouble.
A tariff is nothing but a tax. It’s a tax on imported goods. If you want to restrict imports, that’s the way to do it — but is that good economic policy? Most economists would argue that it isn’t. It may, however, be good foreign policy. (i.e., you want to punish China, not necessarily because they are making low-priced stuff, but because they are making it with slave labor and using the proceeds to build warheads aimed at us and our allies, among other threats.)
It’s not trade that is killing jobs; it’s the ridiculous costs of regulation, 0bamacare, and other government interference, coupled with exorbitantly high taxes. Fix that and jobs will grow, with or without “protection”. (But keeping the market as unfettered as possible will cause them to grow the most.)
Your comment boils down to “lets ignore what has actually happened” and listen to what economists think.
You are absolutely wrong about what has led to the loss of manufacturing base in the US. Regulations certainly helped but its all down to the mighty $. It was cheaper to make things overseas because our Gvt allowed or in some particulars caused it to be that way. The Gov’t failed us by action, inaction & stupidity with a combination of poor trade deals and bureaucratic/regulatory costs while the economists directed the marching music and gave cover.