The Lynx’s current brand of play is awfully appealing to those who simply love the game of basketball.

They pass, cut and space on offense, carrying out the age-old adage of sacrificing a good shot for a great one.

Defensively, they bust their tails to grind out every single possession.

The combination of the two sides of the ball make the Lynx, who open their WNBA best-of-5 semifinal series against Connecticut on Sunday at Target Center, one of the best teams in the league and a true championship contender.

Surely, Lynx coach and general manager Cheryl Reeve walks into the facility every morning with a smile on her face, knowing what’s about to play out in front of her. Creating such camaraderie and unselfishness anywhere — let alone within a professional sports team — is no easy feat.

But the task does get exponentially easier when your best player is Napheesa Collier.

The all-world forward was historically good in Minnesota’s two-game first-round playoff sweep of Phoenix. She dropped 38 points in Game 1, and followed it up with 42 in Game 2. The latter tied a WNBA playoff record. The combination of the two set a new league high for a multi-game scoring output in the postseason.

“She’s insane. Y’all been watching?” Lynx guard Courtney Williams asked. “She’s been going crazy. She’s been making history, man.”

The craziest thing about her performances are how ho-hum they appear to be in real time. Reeve is never thinking about the numbers during the game. She’s constantly occupied with what’s playing out in front of her and what should come next. But even the coach caught herself peeking up at the scoreboard in the first half of Game 2 against Phoenix and seeing Collier had already accrued 22 points.

Not too shabby. But it is one of those things you’ll only realize in the moment if it’s shoved in your face. Because it’s not as though Collier’s scoring bursts come via Steph Curry-like shot-making in which she’s pulling up from wild spots on the court or chucking up circus shots over multiple defenders.

No, her excellence is rooted in great positioning, timing and execution. Heading into each game, Reeve said Collier knows the matchup and how she’ll attack it.

“She’s like an amoeba that, if they’re going to let her be in the paint, then she’s going to find herself in the paint. she’s going to screen, she’s going to roll,” Reeve said. “If the paint is going to be more difficult, she understands how to play in movement and  be on the perimeter. And then shoot the basketball. She’s shooting the three well. She just finds different ways to impact the game based on what’s dictated.”

The game could dictate that she relentlessly attacks the paint for 30 points. Perhaps she has to let it rip on five triples. Or maybe Collier has to make a few sacrificial cuts and keep the ball moving to the next teammate. Whatever the case may be, it’s fine with her. Even after scoring those record-tying 42 points, Collier insisted she was merely on the receiving end of great ball movement from her teammates.

“I’m just playing for my team. I’m trying to win a game. I’m trying to take advantage of what the defense is giving me,” she said. “It’s not even like I’m going out there with a point goal in my head. I’m just trying to win the game. At the end of the day, that’s all that matters to me. That stuff is really cool, but if you’re not winning, it doesn’t matter. At the end of the day, all I’m focusing on is making it to the next round, winning our next game.”

The actions back up the words. Collier is willing to do whatever is required for the Lynx to succeed. In the playoffs, that can often mean playing every second of the 40-minute game, putting in maximum exertion throughout and serving as the best player on both ends of the court. And, when it’s all said and done, not caring if she gets any of the credit for her efforts.

But it’s clear she’s the head of the snake. Because the Lynx’s best player moves the ball and makes the right play as the epicenter of the offense, her teammates follow suit. A Collier-centric offensive approach was first featured in the bubble season, when a number of her teammates then had career years — likely stemming from Collier’s presence and decision-making — that would never again be replicated. Minnesota shifted back toward that direction a year ago and has held true to the approach this season, now armed with better personnel to maximize the 6-foot-1 forward’s impact.

On the other end, because Collier defends every possession with a rabid tenacity, everyone else falls in line.

Collier is both one of the two or three best players in the WNBA, and also not above any responsibility on the court. The Lynx are better for it.

Reeve noted Collier’s achievements, which get loftier with each passing day, are not a surprise. This was the stratosphere to which her collegiate success at UConn suggested she one day could ascend.

But, Reeve noted, Collier has “earned” all the flowers that have been tossed her way.

“Just the evolution of Phee, every time she plays,” Reeve said. “The humility, she understands the game, she listens.”

And, in turn, she grows and evolves, and makes sure those around her are doing the same.

Amy Lindgren

Is your job search dragging on too long? Since this isn’t a favorite activity for most people, it seems likely the answer would be yes, regardless of how long you’ve been at it.

You probably won’t find agreement on how long a job search “should” be — or even a consistent answer for how long searches usually go. There’s just too much variation in how people conduct their searches, as well as differences in the markets they target.

Even so, I can provide an answer for how short a search could be, given the right approach. That would be 12 weeks. Or three months. Or of course, 90 days. I’m not teasing; just restating the timeframe from different perspectives. These all being the same amount of time, I’ll use the 12-week model to describe an efficient and productive short-term search.

Beginning with the elephant in the room: Is it really possible to choose an end date for finding a job? Yes, in fact, that’s the whole point of this approach. The end date lets you maintain a pace while also pausing at strategic points to troubleshoot.

If you think there’s a catch, you’re right. In a short search with a determined timeframe, you must take control of all aspects. This means limiting or eliminating online applications and the use of job boards.

Why? Because online processes remove rather than enhance your control: When or whether appropriate postings appear; whether the postings are real; how quickly someone responds to you — if at all; how long the applications themselves will take … it’s almost as if the system were designed to remove your personal agency and make you feel helpless.

Luckily, you won’t be giving up much of consequence when you let go of this process. People are frequently surprised — but not shocked — to learn that online job applications produce far fewer offers than direct contact with employers. I say not shocked for two reasons. First, most job seekers have already experienced the frustrations of an online search. And second, when pressed, nearly everyone can recall having received an offer from a contact.

What’s wonderful about the direct contact approach is that you can control nearly every step, from whom you contact and when to how frequently you follow up and what information you share at each stage. Most importantly? You control the pace, which means you can pour on the steam and achieve results more quickly.

This is another key difference from an online search, where more applications do not correspond to improved results. Explaining why would take too long, so I’ll leave that to another day. For the moment, you’ll just have to believe there’s a reason someone who has sent 2,200 applications online hasn’t had 22 times more interviews and offers than someone who sent 100.

If you’re ready to trade online applications for a process that actually works, read on.

In the direct-contact method (most frequently called a targeted job search), success depends on preparation. Since you’ll be reaching out to actual people rather than responding to ads, you need a list of people to contact. But in order to make that list, you must first identify your job goal, or target — hence the “targeted” job search name.

Here are the preparation steps in sequence: First, choose a job target. Next, identify organizations that likely use people in that capacity. Finally, find and contact individuals who work in your chosen area in each organization, ideally at the management level. Somewhere in the middle, you’ll need to create a résumé focused on your overall job target.

I’ll pause while you figure out which cuss words to use for what I just said. I’m making it sound so simple! It’s not as if you just need to introduce yourself to somebody in your field and ask if they need help, is it?

Well, actually, that is the crux of job search: Making a match between someone who needs help and the worker who can supply it. Going directly to managers simply reduces to its essence what has become a needlessly complex process.

In last week’s column, I explained the importance of approaching the job search like a project. Since a project by nature has an end date, it’s the perfect concept to use. Next week I’ll wrap up this three-part series by filling in the steps for a 12-week search. In the meantime, give some thought to your job target and the places you can imagine doing that work.

Related Articles

Working Strategies: Job search engine breaking down? Look under the hood

Working Strategies: 9 Tips for a Tight(ening) Job Market

Working Strategies: Exploring the wonderful, terrifying world of AI

Working Strategies: Pursuing your labor of love, not loathe, this Labor Day

Working Strategies: Revisiting working from home 4 years later

Amy Lindgren owns a career consulting firm in St. Paul. She can be reached at alindgren@prototypecareerservice.com.

By PAUL WISEMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump has identified what he sees as an all-purpose fix for what ails America: Slap huge new tariffs on foreign goods entering the United States.

The former president and current Republican nominee asserts that tariffs — basically import taxes — will create more factory jobs, shrink the federal deficit, lower food prices and allow the government to subsidize childcare.

He even says tariffs can promote world peace.

“Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented,’’ Trump said this month in Flint, Michigan.

As president, Trump imposed tariffs with a flourish — targeting imported solar panels, steel, aluminum and pretty much everything from China.

“Tariff Man,” he called himself.

This time, he’s gone much further: He has proposed a 60% tariff on goods from China — and a tariff of up to 20% on everything else the United States imports.

This week, he raised the ante still higher. To punish the machinery manufacturer John Deere for its plans to move some production to Mexico, Trump vowed to tax anything Deere tried to export back into the United States — at 200%.

And he threatened to hit Mexican-made goods with 100% tariffs, a move that would risk blowing up a trade deal that Trump’s own administration negotiated with Canada and Mexico.

Mainstream economists are generally skeptical of tariffs, considering them a mostly inefficient way for governments to raise money and promote prosperity. They are especially alarmed by Trump’s latest proposed tariffs.

This week, a report from the Peterson Institute for International Economics concluded that Trump’s main tariff proposals – assuming that the targeted countries retaliated with their own tariffs — would slash more than a percentage point off the U.S. economy by 2026 and make inflation 2 percentage points higher next year than it otherwise would have been.

Vice President Kamala Harris has dismissed Trump’s tariff threats as unserious. Her campaign has cited a report that found that Trump’s 20% universal tariff would cost a typical family nearly $4,000 a year.

But the Biden-Harris administration itself has a taste for tariffs. It retained the taxes Trump imposed on $360 billion in Chinese goods. And it imposed a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles.

Indeed, the United States in recent years has gradually retreated from its post-World War II role of promoting global free trade and lower tariffs. That shift has been a response to the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs, widely attributed to unfettered tree trade and an increasingly aggressive China.

Tariffs are a tax on imports

They are typically charged as a percentage of the price a buyer pays a foreign seller. In the United States, tariffs are collected by Customs and Border Protection agents at 328 ports of entry across the country.

The tariff rates range from passenger cars (2.5%) to golf shoes (6%). Tariffs can be lower for countries with which the United States has trade agreements. For example, most goods can move among the United States, Mexico and Canada tariff-free because of Trump’s US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.

There’s much misinformation about who actually pays tariffs

Trump insists that tariffs are paid for by foreign countries. In fact, its is importers — American companies — that pay tariffs, and the money goes to U.S. Treasury. Those companies, in turn, typically pass their higher costs on to their customers in the form of higher prices. That’s why economists say consumers usually end up footing the bill for tariffs.

Still, tariffs can hurt foreign countries by making their products pricier and harder to sell abroad. Yang Zhou, an economist at Shanghai’s Fudan University, concluded in a study that Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods inflicted more than three times as much damage to the Chinese economy as they did to the U.S. economy

Tariffs are intended mainly to protect domestic industries

By raising the price of imports, tariffs can protect home-grown manufacturers. They may also serve to punish foreign countries for committing unfair trade practices, like subsidizing their exporters or dumping products at unfairly low prices.

Before the federal income tax was established in 1913, tariffs were a major revenue driver for the government. From 1790 to 1860, tariffs accounted for 90% of federal revenue, according to Douglas Irwin, a Dartmouth College economist who has studied the history of trade policy.

Related Articles

With an election looming, the US is approving citizenship applications at the fastest speed in years

Harris heads to the US-Mexico border to try to show that her record is more than Trump criticisms

Prosecutors file sealed brief detailing allegations against Trump in election interference case

Republican-led group sues to block Georgia rule requiring hand count of ballots

Smartmatic, Newsmax reach settlement in 2020 election defamation case

Tariffs fell out of favor as global trade grew after World War II. The government needed vastly bigger revenue streams to finance its operations.

In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the government is expected to collect $81.4 billion in tariffs and fees. That’s a trifle next to the $2.5 trillion that’s expected to come from individual income taxes and the $1.7 trillion from Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Still, Trump wants to enact a budget policy that resembles what was in place in the 19th century.

He has argued that tariffs on farm imports could lower food prices by aiding America’s farmers. In fact, tariffs on imported food products would almost certainly send grocery prices up by reducing choices for consumers and competition for American producers.

Tariffs can also be used to pressure other countries on issues that may or may not be related to trade. In 2019, for example, Trump used the threat of tariffs as leverage to persuade Mexico to crack down on waves of Central American migrants crossing Mexican territory on their way to the United States.

Trump even sees tariffs as a way to prevent wars.

“I can do it with a phone call,’’ he said at an August rally in North Carolina.

If another country tries to start a war, he said he’d issue a threat:

“We’re going to charge you 100% tariffs. And all of a sudden, the president or prime minister or dictator or whoever the hell is running the country says to me, ‘Sir, we won’t go to war.’ ”

Economists generally consider tariffs self-defeating

Tariffs raise costs for companies and consumers that rely on imports. They’re also likely to provoke retaliation.

The European Union, for example, punched back against Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum by taxing U.S. products, from bourbon to Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Likewise, China responded to Trump’s trade war by slapping tariffs on American goods, including soybeans and pork in a calculated drive to hurt his supporters in farm country.

A study by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Zurich, Harvard and the World Bank concluded that Trump’s tariffs failed to restore jobs to the American heartland. The tariffs “neither raised nor lowered U.S. employment’’ where they were supposed to protect jobs, the study found.

Despite Trump’s 2018 taxes on imported steel, for example, the number of jobs at U.S. steel plants barely budged: They remained right around 140,000. By comparison, Walmart alone employs 1.6 million people in the United States.

Worse, the retaliatory taxes imposed by China and other nations on U.S. goods had “negative employment impacts,’’ especially for farmers, the study found. These retaliatory tariffs were only partly offset by billions in government aid that Trump doled out to farmers. The Trump tariffs also damaged companies that relied on targeted imports.

If Trump’s trade war fizzled as policy, though, it succeeded as politics. The study found that support for Trump and Republican congressional candidates rose in areas most exposed to the import tariffs — the industrial Midwest and manufacturing-heavy Southern states like North Carolina and Tennessee.