One of the flawed arguments for restricting international trade is that protection saves jobs. What do you think?

Saves jobs is one of the fatally flawed arguments which I am going to make further discussion in this part. Like "fatally flawed" sounded, saves job arguments dose have a defect on it. Let's take a clearly view about saves jobs. The argument is: When we buy shoes from Brazil or shirts from Taiwan, US workers lose their jobs. With no earnings and poor prospects, these workers become a drain on welfare and spend lass, …

…dose save some particular jobs, it does so at an inordinate cost. For example, textile jobs are protected in the US by quotas imposed under an international Trade Commission has estimated that because of quotas, 72000 jobs exist in textiles that would otherwise disappear and annual clothing expenditure in the US is $15.9 billion, higher than it would be worth free trade/ In other words, The ITC estimates that each textile job saved costs consumers $221000 a year.