-——Unions and the minimum wage are not the problem. ——
From a stockholders/owners view, there is no problem. To produce a profit, the cost of the commodity called labor can be reduced if noncompetitive plants are closed. What is frequently misunderstood is that the labor competition exists on a global basis.
The wreckage of WW II dampened the ability of many countries. For perhaps the last two decades there has been all sorts of growth that permitted them to act in ways previously not possible. The temporary advantage We had begin to dissipate.
The competition is now fully in force. The off the beaten path unbeaten paths to the mountains and Robbinsville are feeling the effect. They are no longer competitive.
The present is not a problem, it is a challenging opportunity.
A significant problem is the social costs placed on the rest of society when these factories close. Given that we as a society have chosen to end the laissez faire attitude of the 19th century when unemployed or injured workers were left to their own devices, today when a factory closes social benefits (unemployment insurance, welfare, retraining) are bestowed on the jobless. Those benefits are paid to the jobless by taking income from those with jobs through the tax system.
In addition, when towns are decimated by industry disappearing, high rates of unemployment typically result in drug use and crime. Again, those still working are taxed to pay rising costs for law enforcement, incarceration, legal aid, and drug rehabilitation. These are real costs to the economy which the firm who lays off the workers and departs the community does not incur.
Labor competition has always existed on a global basis. In the 19th century the new American nation had the choice of allowing open markets or creating a closed market. The founders and their successors chose to define free trade as the freedom for any US citizen to trade with any firm or nation. It did not mean open access for foreign nations and foreign firms to the US market. They early leaders understood that the immature US economy could not compete with European manufacturers. They also understood that if the US market were open with low tariffs, European manufacturers would flood the US market with their surplus production but would not invest in building factories in the US. As a result the young nation placed high tariffs on imports of manufactured goods. These high tariffs resulted in European investment in factories located in the US to avoid the high import tariffs.
Note that at the time wages in the US and Europe were not significantly different so while high tariffs protected US industry the tariffs were not intended to provide higher wages to US workers. In fact, during that time immigration policy was very loose for the express purpose of attracting immigrants to fill up the western lands as well as ensure a sufficient labor supply to keep wages down.
The US has both the population size and natural resources to have a self contained market. For a long period of our history we were primarily self sufficient and we can become self sufficient again if we resume a high tariff trade policy.