Hello again, dear readers!

Hey there, trade watchers. If you've been following the rollercoaster of U.S.-China relations, the latest deal might have caught your eye. But if you can see past the White House’s “massive victory” spin, this is essentially a short-term truce that kicks the can down the road without fixing the underlying challenges. Read on to find out more. 

Also, I wrote in the last issue about big companies gambling on AI’s ability to enable growth without hiring. This issue, I’ve zoomed in on one of the most noticeable impacts of this trend: a sudden and alarming disappearance of entry-level roles. More on that below.

This issue features the usual bunch of AI Insights and recommendations for the week's podcasts, books, shows, charts, and tweets, followed by a final chuckle.

Let’s get going.

Industry Highlights: Kicking the Can Down The Road

I was recently impressed by Scott Lincicome’s breakdown of  what the U.S.-China deal actually entails, why it's more of a Band-Aid than a cure, and how it exposes some uncomfortable truths about America's protectionist playbook. 

A Quick Summary of the Recent Trade Deal

The U.S. and China have inked a temporary agreement to dial back some of our escalating trade tensions … for now. In exchange for China's promises to crack down on fentanyl exports and its precursors, the U.S. agreed to slash "emergency" tariffs on Chinese imports from 20% to 10% and drop threats of even steeper 100% tariffs. Both sides have hit pause for a year on export controls: China on rare-earth materials, and the U.S. on various tech and dual-use items. 

They also suspended port fees on each other's ships, extended some tariff exemptions, and China backed off on retaliatory measures against U.S. ag products like soybeans, plus actions targeting American companies in China and certain semiconductor exports. On paper, it's a ceasefire that echoes Trump's 2019 "Phase One" deal, but dig deeper, and it's clear this is no long-term win.

As the Cato Institute writes: “The U.S. has made real concessions for small, temporary wins—and boosted China in the process.”

The Deal's Terms: Familiar Ground, But No Real Progress

At first glance, this agreement looks like a straightforward timeout. The U.S. gets commitments from China on fentanyl (a hot-button issue) and in return, we ease up on tariffs and controls that were ramping up this fall. China agrees to buy more American soybeans, which should give U.S. farmers a boost after exports tanked to near zero in 2025. Other perks include pausing those port fees and halting Beijing's hits on U.S. businesses and legacy semiconductors (tied to a separate Dutch issue).

But it's all temporary. This isn't resolving deep-seated problems like China's export-driven economy, unfair trade practices, or human rights concerns. It's a one-year suspension that brings us back to the shaky status quo of summer 2025. Trump himself called it a "punt," admitting we'll likely need to revisit and renegotiate next year. For stock traders and importers with orders in the pipeline, sure, it's a breather. But for American manufacturers dealing with ongoing uncertainty, it's business as usual in the trade war trenches.

Temporary Relief, Long-Term Headaches

The near-term wins are underwhelming. Take soybeans: yes, China's promised buys are a lifeline for U.S. farmers, but we're starting from $0. Even if they materialize, exports won't hit pre-trade-war highs because China has pivoted to suppliers like Brazil, which is flooding the market and driving down prices. Furthermore, under the terms of the agreement Beijing might only buy if U.S. prices are "market competitive",  which they won’t be once Brazil’s produce hits the market. 

The rare-earth suspension sounds better, but what can be achieved in one year? Building U.S. mining and processing capacity takes years, bogged down by regulations. 

History Tells Us China Probably Won’t Follow Through

Remember the 2019 Phase One deal? It promised huge Chinese purchases of U.S. goods, especially ag products, but compliance tanked. Exports started strong but dropped off as China shifted to other suppliers. Today, our ag exports to China are way down from commitments. 

This new pact has the same feel: Vague terms, no ironclad enforcement, and plenty of wiggle room. Promises on fentanyl, rare earths, and more sound tough, but history suggests the U.S. might threaten consequences and then... do nothing when China bends the rules. 

Accidentally Boosting Beijing

The deal pokes holes in the idea that Trump's tariffs are a clever ploy to "contain" China. Sure, tariffs on Chinese goods average around 45% (including 25% from Section 301, plus the new 10% ones), but that's misleading. Many imports face lower rates or exemptions, especially consumer electronics like smartphones and laptops, which sail in with just a 10% hit.

Worse, Trump has slapped high "reciprocal" tariffs on everyone else: 19-20% on Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam and Cambodia, and even 10% on allies like the UK and Australia (despite U.S. trade surpluses there). This levels the playing field... in China's favor. It reduces incentives for companies to shift factories out of China to places like Brazil or India. Toys, apparel, and footwear from China now face tariffs only slightly higher—or sometimes lower—than from these alternatives.

Some Southeast Asian nations like Vietnam locked in their high tariffs via rushed deals with Trump, only to watch him cut China's rates. The result? U.S. policy looks less like China hawkishness and more like blanket isolationism that accidentally boosts Beijing.

U.S. Isolationism Empowers China

Zoom out, and the deal spotlights a bigger issue: America's protectionist streak is tilting the global balance toward China. High, erratic tariffs push other countries to trade more among themselves, diversifying away from us. As The Economist explains, nations like Brazil, India, and Indonesia are deepening ties to shield against U.S. coercion.

China's playing the opposite game: Expanding trade with non-U.S. partners, reducing reliance on American markets. This mutes our tariff leverage, as seen in the rare-earth standoffs. Without building coalitions through deals like the abandoned Trans-Pacific Partnership, the U.S. isolates itself, giving China more parity in negotiations.

The chart below illustrates this point. As you can see, China reduced exports to the U.S. by $69.3 billion year-on-year to September, and went backwards with Russia, too. But this has been more than balanced by a $200 billion gain with other trading partners, particularly Asia, Africa, and the EU.   

Will Next Year be Any Different?

China has its own economic woes that temper long-term threats, but short-term challenges demand smart U.S. responses, like leveraging our alliances and openness to create real solutions like the TPP. If we're serious about countering China, it's time to rethink the playbook beyond endless trade wars. Otherwise, how will next year's sequel be any different?

The Future of Work: The Disappearance of Entry-Level Jobs

Young people, especially fresh graduates, are feeling the heat in a way we haven’t seen since the Great Recession. For decades, getting a degree was seen as a golden ticket to financial stability and career success. However, with the rapid disappearance of entry-level jobs, that ticket seems more like a gamble. 

A staggering 73% decrease in hiring rates for entry-level jobs in the past year has many wondering if they’ll ever find their place in the workforce. This worrying trend puts young professionals in a tough spot and risks long-term fallout for short-sighted companies.

The Bottom has Fallen Out of Entry-Level Jobs

Gone (suddenly) are the days when entry-level positions were seen as the essential first step on the ladder to career success. Companies are now doubling down on AI and automation, trusting tech to undertake traditionally manual or repetitive roles such as data entry. This shift is happening at the expense of foundational roles that have long been a staple for young professionals looking to start their careers.

Take the tech sector, for example. Once bursting with opportunities for recent grads, it has witnessed a 40% drop in job postings over the last four years. Why? Because many major companies, including Meta, Intel, and Cisco, are investing heavily in AI solutions to replace tasks once handled by entry-level employees. Major layoffs this year are another direct result of these shifts; over 130,000 job cuts have been announced in 2025 alone.

The reasoning behind this pivot is straightforward: businesses are betting on AI as a way to improve efficiency and reduce labor costs. The promise of AI to handle tasks quickly and accurately is enticing: companies can streamline operations, automate repetitive tasks, and free up seasoned professionals to focus on more strategic work. What used to be a vibrant environment for fresh talent now feels more like an exclusive club.

With businesses increasingly opting for cost-effective AI-driven solutions, young professionals are left to wonder where their opportunities went.

Short-Term Thinking and Long-Term Consequences for Organizations

It might seem smart for companies to save money by cutting entry-level positions in favor of seasoned pros. But short-term thinking can backfire spectacularly. 

Fewer entry-level hires mean fewer opportunities for the next wave of leaders to grow and develop. The traditional talent pipeline is at serious risk as companies lean heavily on experienced hires instead of training up-and-coming professionals. While that might offer immediate returns, it will lead to gaping leadership gaps in the future. 

Plus, a lack of new perspectives can stifle innovation. When a company relies solely on experience, it misses out on the fresh ideas and creativity that young talent can bring to the table. The risk is real: organizations might become stagnant and unable to adapt to the fast-paced changes in their industries.

The Impact on Entry-Level Jobseekers

This sounds like a classic Catch-22. Young people need experience to get hired, but they can’t gain that experience without landing a job. A recent survey revealed that 49% of US Gen Z job hunters believe AI has reduced available opportunities. As internships and other entry points become hyper-competitive, young professionals are left feeling lost. 

On top of that, AI recruitment systems that filter candidates often overlook those who lack practical experience. This creates a scenario where the people who can game the system take precedence over those with genuine potential. As a result, we might find ourselves with a workforce lacking in the very qualities companies need to thrive.

The critical skills young people typically gain in entry-level roles, like teamwork, communication, and problem-solving, are essential for future success. With these positions in decline, the opportunity to build these competencies is disappearing. Companies are ramping up hiring of experienced specialists, which may be a workable strategy for now. But where will those specialists come from in future generations?

AI Insights

1. Disney Plus to explore AI videos: CEO Bob Iger is “really excited” about viewers’ potential ability to both consume and create AI content on the platform in the future. What will this involve? We don’t yet know, but as The Verge notes, hopefully it won’t mean Disney Plus is ruined by a slew of Sora-style AI video slop. 

2. Google is rolling out Private AI Compute: The cloud-based platform is designed to enhance AI features on devices while ensuring user privacy, similar to Apple's offering. This new system will allow more complex AI tasks to be processed in the cloud, maintaining a secure environment where sensitive data remains accessible only to the user.

3. Harvard-trained physician launches AI companion: Robyn is designed to be an empathetic, emotionally-intelligent app. Creator Jenny Shao has stressed that it isn’t a general-purpose chatbot, nor is it intended to be a therapy bot for replacing real therapists or clinical practitioners. 

The Supply Aside

📕 Read - The Art of Spending Money

I’ve read all of Morgan Housel’s books, so you can be sure I grabbed a copy of this as soon as it was published. Most guides to money are about earning, saving, and investing. Advice on spending money is much rarer. The Art of Spending Money explores how our relationship with money shapes our decisions. 

It’s true that most of us don’t know how to spend money. We either spend on things we don’t need or save endlessly out of fear. Motivators for spending are usually negative: envy, status, FOMO, and spending to unlock a temporary dopamine boost. No wonder people throw away the vast majority of stuff they buy within six months. 

This book gives advice on how to reshape your relationship with money so it works for you. Forget budgets and spreadsheets - what really matters is self-awareness. 

And what’s the number-one return on investment, according to Housel? Peace of mind.

What Else I’m Reading

• Vanished careers: This lighthearted article explores the decline of various careers historically prevalent in America due to economic shifts and technological advances. Farmers are vanishing, as are miners. Shoemakers and blacksmiths used to be among the most common jobs in America before factory automation. It’s a timely article, given we’re on the brink of a wave of likely career extinctions as AI ramps up. 

• Ten rules for negotiating a job offer: As someone who hires for procurement roles, I’m used to candidates negotiating hard on job offers. But if you’re uncomfortable negotiating, these ten rules are for you. 

• How China took over the world’s rare-earths industry: China has worked to dominate the rare-earths market since the early 1990s. The US, it seems, only recognized the dangers posed by China’s dominance in this area some time around 2021. How did this happen?

📺 Watch - Murdaugh: Death in the Family

As somebody who has followed the Murdaugh case from the beginning, I found Murdaugh: Death in the Family absolutely engrossing. It starts a bit slow, but stick with it - the characters' lives and the drama eventually pull you in, mainly due to some great casting choices. Set against the backdrop of South Carolina's striking landscapes, the show captures both the beauty and the dark undertones of the saga. With a companion podcast that delves into the details of the case and making of the show, this is a binge-worthy watch for any true crime fan. 

👂 Listen - Good Life Project: How to Connect Quickly & Deeply With Anyone

My initial reaction to this podcast title was that “quickly” and “deeply” are mutually exclusive when it comes to human connections. But then I realized this isn’t true - an instant rapport can happen within seconds of meeting someone. On the flip side, I’ve encountered plenty of people who seem near-impossible to form a genuine connection with. 

This episode of the Good Life Project shares advice on how to communicate effortlessly with anyone by instantly establishing trust and connection. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Charles Duhigg, author of Supercommunicators, believes the most compelling communicators have mastered the hidden rules that govern how we connect. Hint: it involves vulnerability, deep listening, and empathy to forge bonds of trust. I found this advice useful both for one-on-one conversations and for giving a speech or presentation.

Guest Submission: Stay in Your Lane But Coordinate At Every Turn: Procurement + TPRM

Guest Submission by Ana Paula Zamorano 

When it comes to internal corporate dynamics, let’s keep it simple: Procurement and Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) aren’t rivals, they’re siblings that should move in lockstep. One shops for the right partner at the right price; the other checks whether that partner won’t burn the house down. When these two compare notes at the dinner table, the whole enterprise runs more smoothly and safely.

Recent headlines keep telling the same story: third-party outages and data leaks don’t stay confined to suppliers, they ripple across entire ecosystems. Take the Change Healthcare cyberattack and ransomware incident at a UnitedHealthcare subsidiary. It rippled through pharmacies and payment systems, racking up multi-billion-dollar costs, a clear reminder that supplier choices and supplier governance are inseparable.

Similarly, a hacker accessed Ticketmaster’s Snowflake cloud account by first breaching a third-party contractor. Companies are only as strong as their weakest link. I’ve seen this too often, when an internal team needs a contract or solution fast, speed takes priority, and Procurement or TPRM processes are seen as bureaucratic and painful.

Pause and reflect on the massive disruptions and costs those shortcuts created. The entire organization should feel accountable for data security. It’s a culture shift.

When it comes to banking, regulators have basically printed the family rules. The Interagency Guidance on Third-Party Relationships—issued jointly by the Fed, FDIC, and OCC, spells out the full lifecycle: planning, due diligence, contract structuring, ongoing monitoring, and termination, with evidence at every step. If Procurement and TPRM act like cousins who never speak to each other, you’ll fail the “show your work” test.

Draw clear swim lanes. Procurement owns demand shaping, category strategy, sourcing events, commercials, SLAs, incentives, and supplier performance levers. TPRM owns inherent risk tiering, due diligence and control testing, continuous monitoring, issue management, and re-assessments. In banking, supplier reassessment falls under TPRM, but Procurement’s inputs—usage trends, service levels, competitive benchmarks, and renegotiation windows turn that review from paperwork into risk-adjusted value. When each stays in its lane but coordinates at every turn, you get both control and value.

To master handoff processes between Procurement and TPRM, use a single intake that triggers both sourcing and risk workflows. When Procurement moves a supplier from down-select to award, TPRM’s questionnaires, evidence requests, and control tests should follow. When TPRM flags a gap, Procurement should instantly see the commercial levers, credits, penalties, controls, or even alternate sourcing options.

Make re-assessments value moments, not inbox clutter. When scope expands—new data types, regions, or throughput, TPRM re-scores risk while Procurement re-prices, adds compensating controls, or tightens exit rights. If risk decreases, trim oversight costs and renegotiate. Then run joint quarterly business reviews: one deck blending control posture, delivery performance, and commercial health so executives and auditors see a single, coherent story.

No matter what industry you’re in, avoid the headline you never want. Keep TPRM and Procurement in lockstep, related by function, united by purpose.

If this resonates with you, if you disagree and have war stories to share, I’d love to compare notes. To continue the conversation on this topic, share your insights and contact me. [email protected]

Charts of the Week

Quote of the Week

Tweet of the Week

The Final Chuckle

Thanks so much for reading. I’d love to know what you think about this issue and how I can make it more useful to you. If you have suggestions or topics you want to see me address, email me at [email protected]!

-- Naseem