McCain lashes Democrats for criticizing NAFTA

reply to post by WuTang


Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.

NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric "race to the bottom" in wages and environmental quality.

Courtesy of www.epi.org...

reply to post by Sky watcher


I just had to get in here one more time. As I read you post I actually have the Robert Scott article sitting on my lap in a book, seemingly almost exactly the same as the one you linked, but a year newer.

Scott is one of the leading anti NAFTA economists. Unfortunately he fails to take a lot of things into account when he presents his argument. The main problem most other economists have with Scott's argument is that he doesn't take into account the domestic jobs created by free trade, through domestic capital accumulation. Many other economists (for example Douglas Irwinn, who I am looking at now) suggest that the net result is traditionally above 0 for the US. Many people also take issue with the way Scott calculates job loss resulting from trade, claiming that it unfairly skewers results in his favor (unfortunately some of that math is above my head, so I cannot personally attest to this statement).

Either way, great post, and thank you for inserting some real, tangible, information into this thread.

reply to post by WuTang


So I see, and the rhetoric issue you seems to bring over and over, it doesn't matter the facts, your fact is that is good and that is the end of it.

Well then I guess is nothing else to show here for you, you said NAFTA is good and that is all you need.

Anybody else is in bias mode from bias sources even if they are showing facts.

Originally posted by WuTang
1- NAFTA has nothing to do with liberalized trade with china. I agree with you though that outsourcing started long before.

It is true that NAFTA does not include trade with China, I was speaking more about outsourcing in general. You are saying that any loss of manufacturing jobs is offset by the lower cost of goods, and that other service jobs paid almost just as well, which they do not.

4-COL is rising due to over inflation and two wars, not due to NAFTA (although this ca be argued into a thousand different conlcusions).

I agree that there are other factors driving this, but historically wages have kept pace until recently.

5- Could you point me to the study or article where you found that the service industry cannot offset the loss in MF jobs?

Coming from someone who makes up numbers and doesn't provide your own sources this was good for a laugh, but I will oblige. You have to read the whole article to see how there has been more job losses here in Ohio than has been gained due to NAFTA, but this part is relevant to the loss in wages.

Manufacturing jobs are high-productivity, relatively high-paying positions that tend to generate many other jobs in the economy. So workers who lose these jobs often struggle to find positions with equal pay and benefits. Making things worse, manufacturing workers tend to be older, to have less formal education, and to have skills that may be tough to transfer to other sectors. Whereas the average hourly wage of a manufacturing worker is $17.13, the available replacement wage is often less than $10 per hour on average. The reduced income of displaced manufacturing workers decreases their purchasing power. Consequently, Ohio’s economy as a whole has been hurt by manufacturing job loss.

This is just a summary, but there is a link to the entire report at the bottom of the article.

www.policymattersohio.org...

Though there have been jobs created elsewhere, it is hard for people to not to blame NAFTA for job losses in an area like Ohio.

reply to post by Hal9000


Should one honestly blame NAFTA for these losses, or unions that demand have demanded too much, prompting employers to look for labor elsewhere? Don't moralize me about the sin of looking for workers that will work with no benefits...a job is better than the no job the foreigners would have without outsourcing. Nobody is putting a gun to these people's heads and making them take the job.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by WuTang

 

So I see, and the rhetoric issue you seems to bring over and over, it doesn't matter the facts, your fact is that is good and that is the end of it.

Well then I guess is nothing else to show here for you, you said NAFTA is good and that is all you need.

Anybody else is in bias mode from bias sources even if they are showing facts.

No, there was no rhetoric here. Sky watcher posted a good, academic article. I thanked him and called it a great post. No bias there.

I then went on to explain how another author explained to me reasons why Scott's argument was biased, and not telling the whole story. I guess since I read a guy who doesn't agree and presented his point I must be biased. Doesn't that make sky watcher biased for posting the Scott article in the first place? Scott says I am wrong! I don't see the bias there.

All I am trying to do is promote a discussion about trade liberalization. All I got for two pages was a lot of nonsensical arguments, and yes, biased sources. Your source page was full of articles from the manufacturing industry themselves. Hardly non biased.

My fact is good. Sky watchers fact is good. economyincrisis.com's fact is not good. I usually have a rule that if I know what an article will say before I even know the title and author, it is probably not worth my time.

TO HAL9000:
You make good points. I actually pointed out my source material back on page two, this book. I am reading mainly the articles by Scott and Irwinn, but I have delved into numbers from several others.

It is true that some states are hit for loss, while other see gain. Scott actually charts loss by state, and yeah the manufacturing states such as Ohio, and Michigan, see the largest loss. I also agree that wages not keeping pace with CoL is trouble. Do you have a link to a graph or study charting CoL v Avg Wage (or are you talking min wage v CoL?).

I am sorry that I cannot provide the actual articles, I will look for free online versions if I can. The problem is that I am using my economics textbooks of a few years past, so I can't easily put it in front of you.

WuTang out (for real this time). Hopefully we are all learning here (I know I am).

reply to post by chromatico

I'm not sure what your saying. Are you blaming unions for the job loss? What it sounds like to me is that you think it's ok to take the job from and American and give it to a foreigner that doesn't have a job? Why is it the fault of the American that someone in China doesn't have a job?

reply to post by Hal9000


I'm saying the unions priced the corps out of profitability. And I anticipated what I thought you were going to say about "how its immoral" that a corp would have jobs overseas with no health benefits, for example, with my pointing out that a crappy job is better than no job.

reply to post by chromatico

I would agree that unions were part of the problem, but if you look into the history of unions they have done more for workers safety and conditions than you may realize.

As far as foreign workers go, I still don't see why you think that because someone's native country can't take care of it's own people, that an American worker should suffer.

The Ten Year Track Record of the North American Free Trade Agreement:
U.S. Workers' Jobs, Wages and Economic Security

NAFTA HAS INCREASED U.S.
TRADE DEFICITS WITH CANADA
AND MEXICO
The NAFTA decade has featured greatly accelerated
U.S. trade imbalances with both Mexico and Canada. Large
trade imbalances have serious implications for jobs and
economic growth because large deficits mean that
consumers are buying far more goods produced by foreign
workers than goods made domestically.2 This in turn leads
to high job losses and low levels of job creation. In 2002,
the total U.S. trade deficit was a staggering $436 billion.
Even U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan — a
free trade cheerleader — refers to this huge trade deficit as
an “unsustainable” drag on U.S. economic growth.3 By 2002
combined U.S. trade deficits with both NAFTA partners
accounted for almost 20 percent of this total trade deficit
— $85 billion!
...
More

This and more at this sitewww.citizen.org...

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 12-3-2008 by Gemwolf]

reply to post by Hal9000


On your first point, I agree. Nevertheless, even my grandfather, who was a major labor union pioneer, believed that after about the 1960s unions got too greedy. I'm by no means suggesting abolition of unions, I'm just saying they got too greedy.

I by no means argue what you're claiming I do in the second point.

Thee Unions are changing though from the lack of people joining they have turned to illegal aliens in California. Now they support no background checks,no ICE raids and amnesty. And thats part of the problem in America everything from Unions to NAFTA are being turned against the US

reply to post by Hal9000


Thanks for that post, one of the major promises of NAFTA was that American worker will benefit from job creation at higher wages.

WRONG, as is already a fact that Job stagnation is taking the best of US work market.

www.census.gov...

The trade with Mexico keeps growing as statics shows.

Yes Mexican workers are benefiting but not so the Canadian and America workers, perhaps because Mexico have not problems with the conditions of the jobs they undertake.

Even Canada has its first trade woes in 9 year

Canada records first trade deficit in 9 years

www.thestar.com...

To tell you the truth it seem that beside the wealthy proposers for the NAFTA America and Canada workers are facing the short end of the Agreement.

I think that I made a mistake NAFTA is proving to be toxic to Canada also.

reply to post by JBA2848


Actually they started to die out slowing since the Reagan era. They don't have as much power as they use too.

Still look what is going on with the American worker is becoming a third class citizens with not benefits.

reply to post by chromatico

Well I wasn't sure what you were saying, that's why I asked. I also feel that it is a shame that there others in foreign countries living in poverty, but if we give up our standard of living for someone else then pretty soon no-one will be making a decent wage, and no-one will be able to afford all those cheap foreign goods either.


reply to post by JBA2848

I think you are referring to the ACLU, which is a civil rights union, not a workers union. That's a different can of worms, and yes they have gone too far with amnesty for illegal immigrants.

[edit on 3/11/2008 by Hal9000]

reply to post by Hal9000


Hal I'm personally not worried about wages dipping too low or prices rising too high anywhere, because, as I've previously mentioned before, the free market has all kinds of self-regulating mechanisms in there. The only thing we need to be concerned about is excessive government regulation.

reply to post by WuTang


You are not living in the real world yet are you? The cost of goods is a small fraction of the cost of living. This winter my LP gas heating bill has gone to $500 per month!! People working in the service industry cannot afford anything decent. Sure the cost of cheap plastic mass made goods has gone down.

The cost of food and fuel is going out of control though. I live in Michigan and this state is dieing because of outsourcing. It is dieing dude, wake up.

reply to post by marg6043


But the were supposed to be for the Citizens within each country.If those citizens are not supposed to be there they should fight for the person who should be there. I admire the union I wished there was one in Florida where im at for construction. Only if there for people being legal, getting there fairshare and health/retirement. IM a contractor in Florida and I feel that way.

reply to post by LoneGunMan


Dying because of outsourcing or dying because of the excessive demands of unions?

reply to post by Hal9000


No dock worker unions and the rest are changing in Califronia.