Donald Trump delivered in record time on his campaign pledge to save jobs at Carrier Corp.’s plant in Indianapolis.

Jobs were placed at risk to begin with because the 1,400 workers in Carrier Corp.’s plant earn an average of $23 per hour. The new Carrier plant at Monterrey, Mexico will pay workers $3 per hour. Given the enormous wage differential, it is no wonder that Carrier was moving. It is a colossal wonder that the president-elect saved almost 1,000 jobs with just $7 million in Indiana tax breaks.

There was no bigger issue driving the Trump campaign than the de-industrialization of America, for which Trump blames globalization.

There’s been much push-back, including a special report in a pre-election edition of The Economist Magazine defending globalism and free trade. It stated that “free trade has lifted billions out of poverty around the globe,” while acknowledging that “some lose out.”

America has lost about one-third of its manufacturing jobs since 1997 and roughly 50,000 factories since China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization — hardly just “some.” 

Free trade advocates argue that it is not wholly to blame, that many jobs have been lost to technology and factory automation. Generally true, but not in Carrier’s case. Under Carrier’s plan, production equipment at its Indiana plant was to be moved to its new factory at Monterrey, just 50 miles south of the Texas border. Same technology, lower-wage workers.

Technology is more friend than foe. Upgrading technology can save entire plants, if not all jobs within. Because the real metric is not wages, but cost per unit of production. If the technology is the same, then, American workers making $23 must be more than seven times more productive than Mexicans earning $3 in order to remain competitive. Well, American workers may be better, but not seven times better. While new technology helps, it is not the whole answer. Few technologies make factory workers seven times more productive. So many American factories are headed to Mexico, unless something is done.

Many globalists say that traditional manufacturing jobs lost overseas are not coming back. Perhaps,but that is a different issue from whether the traditional factory jobs still in the U.S. can be saved by enlightened policy moves.

Trump’s idea of withdrawing from NAFTA would accomplish nothing, in and of itself. While NAFTA eliminates all tariffs, the tariff rate for goods entering the U.S. from Mexico after withdrawal would be a low single-digit percentage under WTO rules, just as the rate was pre-WTO in 1993 before NAFTA was implemented. NAFTA isn’t the problem and mere withdrawal is not the solution. Trump has threatened a 35 percent tariff. That would make a difference in combination with other policy assistance.

The Economist article took the U.S. to task for spending one-sixth the amount that other OECD countries spend on re-training. That’s spot on. Upgraded technology is worthless without skilled workers able to operate it.

While we have a general problem maintaining manufacturing competitiveness, we face a unique threat. It may sound harsh and un-neighborly, but Mexico has become the prime threat to U.S.-based manufacturing, not China. According to geopolitical analysis firm Stratfor, the relative positions of China and Mexico have reversed since 2000 when Chinese labor rates were 58 percent below Mexico’s. Today, China’s labor rates are 25 percent above Mexico’s. And transportation costs for Mexican exports to the U.S. are very low.

Mexico is an irresistable location for manufacturers producing for the U.S. market. A tariff would moderate the appeal. So, how did Trump save the Carrier jobs? Beyond the token Indiana state tax incentives, many have speculated that he may have threatened United Technologies with reduced Pentagon purchases of its military products. Well, Rexnord Corporation is moving its Indianapolis plant and 300 jobs to Monterrey, but it has no military business to hold hostage. So how can Trump save their jobs and others like them?

The goal should not be to halt globalization, but rather to craft policies under which American manufacturers and factory workers can adjust, both for their sakes and to enable America to win at the globalization game. The Trump administration should examine all policy tools, including worker retraining, withdrawal from NAFTA and meaningful tariffs on imports from Mexico, regulatory reform, corporate income tax reform and institution of investment tax credits exclusively for investment in manufacturing plant and equipment.

Why the full-court press? Post-election, The Economist Magazine reported that the best predictor of a Trump voter was not non-college educated white male, but rather someone experiencing a health crisis. But the two overlap. The article, “Illness as Indicator,” referred to a public health crisis unfolding in white working-class America, where life expectancy is declining. Yes, declining. The maganize said, “Trump voters who won him the election live in communities that are dying.” Rapid de-industrialization is killing Americans. Addressing this tragedy should supersede laissez-faire adherence to the strict laws of free trade and globalism.

So, if President-elect Trump twisted a few arms to save those 1,000 Carrier jobs, hats off to him.

Red Jahncke is president of Townsend Group International, a business consultancy in Connecticut, and a freelance columnist who writes on public policy issues.