Soon after taking office, President Donald Trump called for a rollback, urging "common sense changes" if the mileage requirements threatened auto industry jobs.

However, his administration's report on Thursday projects that relaxing mileage standards would cost 60,000 auto jobs by 2030. Those losses would hit the estimated 200,000 U.S. jobs that deal with making vehicles more fuel efficient, said Simon Mui of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

A Transportation Department spokesperson called the estimate of job losses "rough approximations."

As I understand, cost 60,000 auto jobs here means "loss 60,000 auto jobs", and "Those losses" refers to "60,000 auto jobs", and hit the estimated 200,000 U.S. jobs means those losses will impact on the estimated 200,000 U.S. jobs.

Am I getting it right?

The full source.

1 Answer 1


It sounds like you interpreted it essentially right. "Cost 60,000 auto jobs" means it will result in a loss of 60,000 jobs directly involved with auto manufacturing.

The second part is a little ambiguous. It refers to 200,000 jobs that are either directly or peripherally involved with making vehicles more fuel efficient. It isn't clear what "those losses would hit" means.

One interpretation is that there are 200,000 people in the pool that would be affected, but what the effect would be, or how many of those jobs would be lost, isn't stated. Another interpretation would be that 200,000 would be the total number of direct and indirect jobs that would be lost.

The article is a bit sensationalistic, apparently intended to promote a viewpoint and trigger an emotional response, rather than to lay out a clear, well-supported argument. So the second part could have been written purposely vague.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .