Obama's Fast Track Attack On Women - HuffPo

[WillyT]

Obama's Fast Track Attack on Women
Martha Burk - Money Editor, Ms. magazine; director, Corporate Accountability Project, National Council of Women's Organizations
HuffPo
Posted: 06/08/2015 12:12 am EDT Updated: 06/08/2015 8:59 am EDT

<snip>

The President is asking for "fast track" authority to let the White House be the sole negotiator on the Trans Pacific Partnership, a giant twelve-nation trade agreement between the U.S. and Pacific Rim nations. Fast track passed the Senate in May, and could come up for a House vote as early as this week.

Trouble is, the provisions are secret, and the Obama administration won't tell Congress or the people what's in it. But thanks to a few chapters released by Wikileaks online last year, we already know it's a disaster for U.S. workers -- especially women.

According to the Washington Post, around 600 corporations and a couple of labor unions have seen a draft. A few members of Congress have seen parts of it in a "secure soundproof reading room," where cellphones and note-taking are not allowed. The majority of congressmembers and the public have not, and those members who have been given that extremely limited access are forbidden to discuss it with the public.

The so-called partnership is an insult to all U.S. workers, with many provisions that will hurt women the most. The Communications Workers of America says it will steal majority-female jobs from low wage workplaces like call centers, as well as higher wage sectors such as human resources. And according to Doctors Without Borders, the agreement may well cut off access to generic drugs for people living with HIV/AIDS -- now predominately women and kids.

At the same time supporters in the Senate were beating their chests when they passed fast track for TPP claiming it will create jobs, they also passed a companion measure called the TAA --Trade Adjustment Assistance. And what would that do? Give assistance to U.S. workers displaced by free trade agreements. Huh? Didn't they say the TPP would create jobs? Yeah, but they forgot to mention those much touted new jobs will be in low wage countries paying pennies per hour.

And then there's the collateral damage. The TAA will be paid for by benefit cuts in Medicare, a program women depend on more than men do. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cuts will amount to $700 million. So add health care providers to the list of those against this rotten deal.

The final insult? Under rules...

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-burk/obamas-fast-track-attack_b_7530052.html

[sabrina 1]

1. Who cares about women? I doubt THIS will get a thousand comments, it's just one of those

boring issues that concern women when we all know what women SHOULD be protected from.

This is utterly unacceptable in a democracy.

The authoritarianism of it all, the BULLYING of the people's Representatives is simply STUNNING!

IF it passes, every single member who signs on to give up the authority invested in them by the US Constitution should be targeted for primaries and tossed out as quickly as possible.

We have the Senate list, now let's see who in Congress is working for us and who is working for their corporate bosses.

[marym625]

2. +a kazillion!

Maybe if there were a couple bad words in the agreement, people would take notice and accept how horribly awful this thing is

[sabrina 1]

29. I think it would probably depend on who said the 'bad words'.

[marym625]

30. snicker

I just love you!

[sabrina 1]

39. Love you back!

[rhett o rick]

15. It will be interesting to see who does or doesn't respond. nm

[Bonobo]

124. Quick check confirms a suspicious absence nt

[Art_from_Ark]

16. But the TPP is the "Gold Standard" of trade agreements!

At least, that is how it was described by Madame Secretary of State.

[sabrina 1]

41. But for whom is it the Gold Standard? Did anyone ask that question? Certainly not for women

none of these trade agreements have been good for women. See the working conditions for women and children these Corporations who are pushing for this, create in third world countries.

But I'm forgetting myself and discussing some women's issues that actually cause in credible harm, not to just to the women affected by them themselves but for generations who never get out of the slave conditions they are placed in for profit by the very Corporations that write these agreements.

[Art_from_Ark]

43. It is the "standard"

by which some corporations can make a lot of "gold".

Of course, it will adversely affect quite a few men as well, as these guys (and gals) can tell you

[lark]

44. Doing the wishes of her boss.

I am tired of HRC taking the blame here for this awful bill that's Obama's #1 priority. Yes, Clinton is way too corporatist for me, but this isn't her agreement, it's his. He's the one who's selling us down the river. He's the one that put a lobbyist for a giant corp. as the head of the negotiators and all the other reps. are also from big business, big pharma. Labor and environmental people were not included at all in the negotiating. Minimum wage increase is great, but for what jobs if this only enables more to go offshore - which it does. If foreign companies get to compete for contracts, they will win because they are 3rd world countries and pay their workers pennies a day.

Very good article, very revealing. Thanks.

[Divernan]

23. Yes! Not holding my breath to see same kind of outrage from a play on words!

[WillyT]

89. And You Would Be Correct...

The best example of the difference between social and economic rights EVER!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

3. Always an interesting measure---compare response rates

On news of discrimination against various demographics with news of discrimination against women.



I don't get it. And I don't get what's going on with PBO on this.

[marym625]

4. K&R!

Thanks, Willy. Thanks for keeping us informed on this disgraceful agreement.

Why can't people care as much about this as they do about a word? This is so much worse than any word anyone can use.



my friend

[WillyT]

5. Anytime marym625... Anytime...

[marym625]

6. Just so you know

This is now The Bernie Bounce ->

Hee hee

[WillyT]

7. LOL !!!

[marym625]

8. Glad you like it!

I'm on a mission to make it known.

[passiveporcupine]

24. Thanks

I'll be using it from now on.

Feel the Bern (great campaign slogan too).

[marym625]

25. ain't it though?

Now, every time anyone uses the Bernie Bounce we can thank them for supporting Bernie and Feeling the Bern!

#Bernie2016

[sabrina 1]

73. What a great bounce it's been, in just a few weeks without ANY corporate bribes, or donations as

they call them.

[marym625]

77. Exactly!

That's why it's the Bernie Bounce!

[sabrina 1]

79. What struck me about the title of the article was imo, the mis-use of the phrase 'Feel the Bern'.

'Bernie Sanders feels the Bern'. WE the people are feeling it, he is the source of the 'bern'.

Maybe it's just me, but that seemed to be a misunderstanding of the phrase to me.

[marym625]

80. You are just over analyzing

But if you didn't, you wouldn't be you. And we need you to be you.

[sabrina 1]

81. Lol, that was way off topic. But I was thinking of the MSNBC story re Bernie which your reference to

'Feel the Bern' reminded me of. You're probably right, re over-analyzing. Lol!

[marym625]

82. lol!

See, just another reason to love you.

[sabrina 1]

84. I was reading about Bernie on a woman's right for equal pay for equal work today and thinking that

once again, his long record shows how consistently right he has been for his entire political career.

Focused always on the important issues, voting to back up his words.

Love you too as I said, and as Bernie said 'let me tell you a secret, we are going to win N.H.

[marym625]

85. YES HE IS. YES WE ARE!

And NH will FEEL THE BERN!!



Sweet dreams!

[sabrina 1]

86. NH is appparently already 'feeling the Bern' which is why he told us that little secret! Lol!

[sabrina 1]

34. Well, I think probably a majority of the women on DU DO care about the issues that

that are most important to women globally. But as I've said many times before, DU is not the place for such discussion.

The most important issue facing women, in Somalia, in the US, in Afghanistan, Europe, S.America, if you were to read DU over the past decade or so, is 'offensive words'.

So we go elsewhere.

Thanks Willy for posting something that is a serious issue for women not just here in the US, but in several of the other nations whose governments are pushing this horror of an agreement.

[marym625]

40. yep

Last edited Mon Jun 8, 2015, 08:15 PM - Edit history (1)

And don't forget Brunei. Another country we're working with.

There are a few posters here that post important things about women's issues, fairly regularly. But like you said, there's no discussion. Zilch

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. How about we make a point

and start trying to take over the conversation...

Right now writing an editorial on the freedom act and the third sponsor of it. Not fit for DU though. Them dang eggshells.

[sabrina 1]

49. Yes, in many ways it is our fault. I was on another very big liberal forum before DU and the

conversation there was amazing. We had people from all over the world, issues were the focus, not personalities, even Conservatives were welcome so long as they were respectful, which they were.

The women's forum was amazing, with women from all over the world, the ME, Europe from here, it is a Global world now and what happens here affects a lot of women all over the world.

DU is a whole other place when it comes to women's issues.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. I doubt we can take over HOF, but we can try to

deal with real issues HERE.

I notice some folks are completely missing from THIS conversation. I find that curious. Well, not really, but you know what I mean. There are no words involved I s'pose.

[marym625]

54. I don't want to derail Willy's great post

But I am very interested in your Freedom Act article. I hope you do post it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Will send you a link

not to be posted here by me

[marym625]

57. Thank! eom

[sabrina 1]

74. And yet, this IS a very serious issue for women, not just here, but as these trade agreements that

benefit Corporations always have always been, devastating for women in Third World countries for decades AND for children.

I would expect that anyone who is truly a supporter of women to be outraged over this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. It is the whole group should be stamping feet right about now

but I shan't say aloud what this tells me about their "advocacy."

Maybe Willy should have put a gratuitous bad word in there.



But this silence, which is consent, is quite telling.

[sabrina 1]

78. Telling, but predictable ...

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. Absolutely

[Katashi_itto]

60. It's like bizzaro world here.

[WillyT]

47. You Are Quite Welcome !!!

[deurbano]

48. I can do both.

This is a revolting and unacceptable trade agreement.

Calling a woman a cunt-- or referring to something a woman (who also happens to be a Democratic candidate) has done as cunt-ish--in a pubic Democratic forum is also unacceptable.

Refraining from using the word cunt as a slur in public posts on DU is a pretty low bar, and I can't understand the controversy. No one is banning its use in private life.

Still, I think NYC_SKP should have another chance... but never complain about "cracker" again.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025932415#post9

I'm also for Sanders, and I already voted for him once, when I was living in VT and he was running for governor (1976).

[marym625]

50. okey dokey then

I have no doubt that some can do both. I commented on both. But no threads have had as many comments, at least recently, as the posts about a word. None. So my comment is not out of line.

[deurbano]

56. I can't speak to the motives of others.

But to me, the TPP is this horrible, overwhelming thing that I have very little ability to influence. It seems a little easier to try to make our own "backyard" (so to speak) a bit more civil and less sexist.

I would also say those long threads are not just about the "word," but about sexism, about whether enforcement of DU standards are too harsh, about whether they are applied fairly, about whether the totality of a poster's contribution should be considered... etc. Including plenty of posts from people saying using the word on DU is not a problem.

I don't think your comment was out of line. Just giving my perspective. I'd just like to avoid a repeat of 2008, at least on DU:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/pressing-issues-by-digby-blogosphere-is.html

http://www.salon.com/2008/01/25/hillary_clinton_4/

[WillyT]

58. Hey deurbano... Thanks For Stepping Up... I Agree... We Can Do Both... Yet...

The article points out real damage to women here, and around the world, that may be caused by TPA/TPP.

That's why I put the author's credentials right below the title of the OP, and next to her name.

The fury of many here at a sexist slur, seems to stand in stark contrast to the feared damage of TPP world-wide.

And not for the better.

[deurbano]

69. I appreciate this particular, illuminating OP... and all you contribute. I really mean that.

And I honestly wasn't trying to derail this, but I don't think the responses were just about a word, or just about a sexist slur. To me, the slur was yet another indication of the widespread devaluation of the worth of women... something which tangibly manifests itself in this disastrous trade agreement.

*Not saying the banned poster was deliberately devaluing women.

[WillyT]

71. Great Point !!!

[marym625]

59. I really regret my comment

Not because I think there was anything wrong about it. Just it's now derailing Willy's great post.

I tend to agree with your assessment, to an extent. MANY of the replies on those threads were people chastising others for saying banning a word deteriorates the entire place. That if it is used and it is objected to, alert. Give the person a hide. Chastise them. If a troll, ban. Trolls have been banned for much less. That doesn't mean I encourage the use of the word. It doesn't mean I like the word. But, it is a word. No words should be banned on a democratic site, IMHO. Since I was one that was chastised, I know how much was just that.

I also said that I find personal attacks of any nature abhorrent. But I watched someone call a woman a tool and, although they did receive a hide, they're still here, condemning others who disagree. So the rules seem to be that it just depends on how many people are offended by an insult. I was deeply offended by a friend being called a tool. Much more so than if I had been called it, or the main word in question.

Fight the TPP and the horror of it. Look at Don't Call Me Shirley's reply to this OP and call. Call everyday. Write your Senators and representatives. Share this OP with as many as you can. Pull the offensive parts from the leaked documents and show how they will hurt the American worker, unions, the women around the world; how the currency manipulation will cause the US to suffer even more than from NAFTA, how the corporations will be able to dictate national and international law.

There is so much we can do by getting the information out and explaining it as best we are able, to the people who only listen to the talking points.

We need to pressure those in power and let them know that absolutely no amount of money will get them reelected if they vote for this piece of trash and every piece of trash that falls under the fast track.

I would love to avoid a 2008. I try very hard to be civil. Mostly, I think I succeed. I'm not perfect by a long shot. But I try.

However, I will not be silent when I oppose something. And in my opinion, there is a great deal to oppose when it comes to Hillary Clinton. The fact she remains silent on the TPP is one of those reasons. I know you are for Bernie. I'm just talking about what I will say regardless of anything.

I've gone on too long already. I am happy to discuss this OP further here. But I won't say anything more about "the word" on this post. And my apologies to Willy that I did.

#BernieBounce

#Bernie2016

[WillyT]

62. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - No Apologies Necessary !!!

[marym625]

63. Oh thanks!

You just gave me all kinds of warm fuzzies!

[deurbano]

65. Not trying to derail this at all. Completely agree on all counts about the TPP.

Also, I didn't mean to imply nothing can be done, but you know, this is not my first time putting effort into trying to prevent something desperately desired by those in power (Iraq War, etc., etc., etc.), either, so I try to be optimistic, but sometimes I really have to work at it.

Perhaps I didn't make the case well, but my point was this issue is extremely important and can stand on its own without minimizing other concerns.

[marym625]

68. I realize you were not trying to derail

I meant I did because I am the one that said it.

Yes, I feel you there. We have tried for decades without much luck. But I think we're at a tipping point. A point where people across the nation are fed the fuck up. I believe that the fact Bernie is an independent, regardless of running as a Democrat, will actually help because republicans, the actual real people out there that are not boisterous, that work hard, are as sick of the corpocracy as much as we are. That the third way and the DLC have lost their appeal and the Democrats that aren't boisterous, that work hard, are sick of the talking points and the same old same old.

Bernie will win. Mark my words. And things will slowly, FINALLY, change

[deurbano]

70. I sure hope so! My conservative dad was something of a populist,

and those were the only issues we could actually (sometimes) agreed on. He was an extreme case, and would never go for a Democratic Socialist, but hopefully, the less extreme types will respond.

[marym625]

72. ya never know! maybe he will surprise you!

It's been a pleasure. Have a good night

[sabrina 1]

76. That's a fair position to take, very fair. And it is most likely the position most reasonable

people would take and have taken.

So clearly you are not who people are referring to by any means.

[whathehell]

132. Amazing, that..

some of us can actually walk and chew gum at the same time.

I agree with everything in your post.

[Jefferson23]

9. Interesting. Has NOW taken a position as well? I'm not sure how one advocates for any underserved

group and supports this.



Burk was the former Chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations too.


K&R

[marym625]

11. Only thing I can find quickly on it

On May 1, Brunei, a small country of about 415,000 people neighboring Malaysia, implemented a series of brutal laws targeting women and members of the LGBT community. This strict Taliban-like penal code infringes upon the basic human rights of those who do not conform to its specific gender norms. Under the monarchy of Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, those who wear “indecent clothing,” become pregnant outside of marriage, have abortions, commit “adultery” or identify as members of the LGBT community are all at risk in this new three-phase system of punitive laws. Punishments range from fines and prison sentences to flogging, corporal punishment and stoning to death.

In April, the U.N. issued a statement decrying this gross violation of international law and international human rights, but Brunei has not halted its plans to roll out all phases of legislation by 2015. Given Brunei’s continuing negotiations with the United States on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), these new laws are particularly troubling for activists and organizations committed to promoting gender equity and LGBT rights.

Trade Partner, Brunei’s Penal Code Promises to Flog Women, LGBT Persons

Though it looks like NOW California has more

[Jefferson23]

14. Thank you marym, I am trying to find more too as that statement, although a good indicator they

were very concerned, was from last year.

If I find anything more definitive on the organizations position I will post it here.

[marym625]

18. I just found this. very interesting

Not really directly about the TPP, but still, VERY interesting.

According to Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization of Women (NOW), the president was adopting a sexist tone and stance in his comments about Senator Warren. As O'Neill told The Hill:

"Yes, I think it is sexist," O'Neill said. "I think the president was trying to build up his own trustworthiness on this issue by convincing us that Senator Warren's concerns are not to be taken seriously. But he did it in a sexist way..."

As reported in The Hill, O'Neill claimed Obama's "clear subtext is that the little lady just doesn't know what she's talking about."

The One Detail We Know About the TPP: Obama Won't Reveal What's In It

[CharlotteVale]

10. K&R

[Dont call me Shirley]

12. Call your politicians now and keep calling to oppose this horrid "trade" deal (corporate coup)

Whitehouse Comments: 202-456-1111

United States Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121


TPP IS UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!

Shame shame PO!

[marym625]

19. +1000

[Dont call me Shirley]

20. I'm gonna keep saying it, marym! Thank you!

[marym625]

21. Thank you, Surely!

Check out the posts above about NOW. Pretty interesting.

I will call first thing in the morning. I had been calling daily but got out of the habit. Thanks for the reminder

[Dont call me Shirley]

27. Great posts, marym!

Pretty frightening to think we could be forced through tpp to adopt sexist bigoted laws of crazy greedy sultans.

NOW needs to reassert it's loud national voice!

[marym625]

28. couldn't agree more!

Thanks. I just tweeted Terry O'Neill about NOW's position on the TPP. Doubt I will receive a direct answer but you never know

[sabrina 1]

87. Thank you they DO need to keep hearing from the people, a majority of whom oppose this deal.

A petition with two million signatures was delivered to the Capital Bldg this week telling them that this should not pass.

[Enthusiast]

13. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

Sick of this TPP bullshit!

[Fuddnik]

17. TAA is and has always been a sham.

Some people will get some training in APPROVED fields.

But, the caveat is that the money is given to the states as part of a block grant, not earmarked and a governor can decide to spend it on something else.

This lesson courtesy of my experience with the State of Florida and Jeb Bush.

[Doctor_J]

22. The hof are as a group staunch obamanauts

This post should stir up some cognitive dissonance.

[Divernan]

129. True believers have been immunized against cognitive dissonance.

Their response to reading the OP would be eyes squeezed tightly closed and hands over ears while chanting their mantra: I can't hear you, I can't read you.

Bottom line - no TRUE feminist could defend or support the TPP OR the fast track to jam it down our throats, including defending or supporting ANY candidate for president who refuses, by his or her silence, to condemn both Fast Track and the TPP.

BY THEIR SILENCES SHALL YE KNOW THEM!

Their silence speaks volumes and condemns THEM as the misogynists on this board.

[jwirr]

26. K&R

[whatchamacallit]

31. The sad part is

because it's assumed (though not stated) that Hillary supports the TPP, many of her female supports will try deny the bill's negative effects on women.

[sabrina 1]

37. This should offend every woman in this country. That our government would sign away

their jobs, not great to begin with, we still don't have equal pay for equal work, another thing I find offensive, for profiteering Corporations.

It is simply shameful.

[whatchamacallit]

38. 'tis

:/

[A Little Weird]

32. It doesn't seem the TPP is good for anyone

Except the wealthy elite of course. I am so disappointed in President Obama over this.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Great outreach.

The activists who read "the money editor of Ms Magazine" tend to be immunized and insulated by class from issues facing working class people.

This may be the best way to make the issues accessible to those whose biggest concern is "the glass ceiling" rather than "feeding their family".

[d_legendary1]

35. This ain't no trade agreement. Its a farce!

And the fact that the Prez is on board with screwing the working class shows how much he has fallen. What's the point of passing laws that help women if you're gonna pass a scam that allows companies to sue governments for protecting women and minorities?

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. This will be a disaster

and I do notice that certain readers are not posting here. I find that curious.

To the meat of the article, the cuts in Medicare will be particularly heinous for older women, and working poor women. These are real issues that feminists should take on.

[Thespian2]

45. TPP

is one of the final take-overs by the global corporations...it is detrimental to the health of women...anyone voting for it should be voted out of office as soon as possible...

[MerryBlooms]

46. rec & kick

[DirkGently]

52. "secure soundproof reading room" kind of says it all.

These giant trade deals cannot be secret like this. Whatever the argument is trade negotiations need to be secret doesn't stand up in an era where business interests are using them as giant power grabs from governments and people. There's no benefit of the doubt left to give.

[WillyT]

53. "There's no benefit of the doubt left to give." - EXACTLY !!!

[historylovr]

61. K & R

[cherokeeprogressive]

64. The absence of a particular DUer on this thread is shriekingly loud.

And I know "shriekingly" is not a word, but it gets my point across.

I'm assuming said DUer is currently being given a new list of talking points to put into an OP and then follow it up with 25 replies to his OWN OP...

A soundproof room. Three congresscritters (all goppers) who admit they haven't even been in the fucking room with the draft copy. Two others won't answer the question.

In light of this... how can a person NOT be skeptical of just about everything the government does or plans to do?

[Skittles]

66. ah yes, our Chief TPP Pimp

f*** him

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. As someone I respect greatly is wont to say...

INDEED.

[WillyT]

88. Late Evening Kick !!!

[Recursion]

90. That contains probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard about the TPP

At the same time supporters in the Senate were beating their chests when they passed fast track for TPP claiming it will create jobs, they also passed a companion measure called the TAA --Trade Adjustment Assistance. And what would that do? Give assistance to U.S. workers displaced by free trade agreements. Huh? Didn't they say the TPP would create jobs? Yeah, but they forgot to mention those much touted new jobs will be in low wage countries paying pennies per hour.

Right. Apparently people are simply too stupid to understand the incredibly complex concept that some jobs will be lost and other jobs will be created.

[WillyT]

91. Not Stupid... It's ALWAYS Been The Question...

Which high-paying U.S. jobs will be replaced by low-paying foreign jobs?

And... Conversely...

Which high-paying U.S. jobs will be created by...

Can't even finish that sentence.

[Recursion]

94. What high paying jobs will be created by increasing US exports?

That's really that difficult a question for you to pose?

US exports have risen after every single FTA we've signed. So have imports (and they've always increased by more than exports).

US manufacturing output has always gone up after every single FTA we've signed. US manufacturing employment has always gone up temporarily, and then gone down after a few years (the short version is we manufacture the heavy plant and machinery that other countries then use to make the plastic consumer crap we buy). But employment in other sectors has always gone up by a bigger amount than manufacturing employment went down by.

It's really not that hard:

1. Free trade increases US exports, which creates jobs in the US
2. Free trade increases US imports, which destroys jobs in the US
3. Free trade lowers costs for goods in the US, which creates jobs in the US

Is it really that hard for you to just admit that the TPP would both create and destroy jobs in the US, and that you and the TPP's supporters disagree about the size of those two categories? Is it really that much of a simplistic black & white issue for you?

[WillyT]

97. Yep... Black & White As Hell...

As the unions and middle-class are simultaneously destroyed... the only ones who profit...

Are the banksters, and the investors they rip-off.

The bridges are falling into the rivers, the trains are coming off the rails, the electrical grid, gas lines, nuclear plants are all at risk.

Hell man... the entire Planet Earth is at risk.

Is YOUR HEDGE FUND FIXING ANY OF THIS ???

[Elwood P Dowd]

92. And some people are simply too stupid to understand that......

The jobs lost will be in the United States and the jobs created will be in the countries with the lowest wages and the most corporate friendly laws/regulations. TPP, just another in a long list of corporate approved outsourcing/investment scams masquerading as so called "free trade".

[WillyT]

93. + 1,000,000,000 - Perfect !!!

But... But... But...

It's SO complex... don'tcha know?

[Recursion]

95. Wages and household incomes went *up* after NAFTA, not down

I'd take DU's anti-trade contingent a lot more seriously if they would just own up to that simple, easily verified fact. (I'm not even saying NAFTA caused it -- it didn't, probably -- but I can't even get people to just simply admit that that is what actually happened.)

The service sector, as a whole, pays more than the manufacturing sector. But DU has a manufacturing fetish.

[Elwood P Dowd]

96. The rooster crowed this morning about 4:30 AM.

An hour later the sun came up. Thank God for that rooster.

[Recursion]

98. And if I claimed "the rooster prevents the sun from coming up"

just like people claim "NAFTA hurt the economy", you would have a pretty easy refutation for that, right?

[Elwood P Dowd]

99. It sure as hell hurt the economy for the 700,000 who lost their jobs because of it.

And, that's just only the direct job losses. The spin-off and support jobs lost within the communities with the closed factories (domino effect) are not even counted. Those develop over the next 3-5 years. I personally know or have met at least a dozen people who lost decent paying jobs from 1996 to 2000 because their factories closed and moved to Mexico. None of those people found decent jobs after that. The best they could find were jobs at Wal Mart, Dollar stores, lawn care services, security jobs, etc. that paid only slightly more than minimum wage with zero benefits.

[Recursion]

100. And it was great for the million or so who gained jobs from it

So....

[WillyT]

102. Million Here, Or Somewhere Around The World... Same High Wages As Here, Or Lowered Expectations???

[Recursion]

103. Well, given that median wages and household incomes went *up* during that period

It's a reasonable assumption that the new jobs in the US paid more, or at least many of them did.

[WillyT]

105. Bill Gates Walks Into My Bar, And...

The average/median worth of everybody in that bar goes up exponentially...

We're all worth billions, apparently.. by math...

Bill Gates leaves, and we are still the poor schmucks we were before.

[Recursion]

107. No. Bill Gates walking into the bar doesn't change the median

That's why I talked about the median rather than the mean.

[Elwood P Dowd]

106. And a fake free trade deal like NAFTA didn't have a damn thing to do with incomes going up

during the tech boom and the beginning of the housing boom. Once the tech boom crashed in 2001 and the housing boom crashed in 2007-2008, the fun and games were over. We were left looking around the country with tens of thousands of closed factories, and tens of millions of Americans wishing they had a decent job at one of them.

You are picking a very small window as time goes and attempting to place your BS into that window as the reason for a small blip.

[WillyT]

104. Did Those 700,000 Get A Job Back That Had The Same Wages And Defined Benfits ???

And if not... why not ?

And... Did they get a job back at all ???

[Recursion]

108. Most of them did, yes

The labor participation rate rose and the unemployment rate fell. So, yes, mostly they got jobs, and mostly they were slightly better paying than their old jobs (that's what the median wage and income numbers tell us).

[WillyT]

109. So... Please Explain THIS:

[Recursion]

111. Exactly. The problem long predates free trade.

Now you're getting it.

[Elwood P Dowd]

110. So you know for a fact that all those people who lost their factory jobs found better paying ones

just because your corporate cooked books say they did?

[Recursion]

112. I would be surprised if all of them did

Some workers were hurt by NAFTA and some were helped. The idea behind TAA is to help some of the former become the latter.

China and India had a much bigger impact on US job losses than Mexico or Canada.

[Elwood P Dowd]

113. You keep posting from your list of corporate talking points. Looks like something I would be

reading on a forum at Fox News, Heritage, CATO, or the Business Roundtable.

Now you admit there were job losses, but China costs us more than NAFTA.

[Recursion]

115. I've always said there were job losses as well as job gains

Apparently the fact that both of those are true is confusing to DU.

The tech boom worked the same way: millions of jobs destroyed (travel agents, typing pools) and millions more created.

[WillyT]

114. Wow... (NOT YOUR WORDS) Yet...

Some of the women got raped... but not as much as you'd expect.

See how that goes over ???

[Recursion]

116. People lose jobs every day. You get that, right?

Every day thousands of people lose a job and thousands more get one. NAFTA created more jobs than it destroyed.

[WillyT]

117. No No... There's A Natural Attrtition... But NOT A Governmental Push... Until Recetly...

How is YOUR job safe ???

[Recursion]

118. I work in IT. I've never had a "safe" job

Maybe I sound callous because it's just not an experience I've had, to expect to work in the same place for more than a few years.

[WillyT]

119. I Worked In IT Also... Until 9/11...

And I lost my job, and spent my savings, and ran out my unemployment.

I managed to get a job at the end of that ride, but NOBODY should have to go through that.

Curiously... I now work for the UnEmployment folk.

They liked me for my IT experience.

Yet I cannot get a job in IT there. Yet...

Well... We'll see.

[Elwood P Dowd]

120. Just how do fake free trade deals that close thousands of factories and export millions of

jobs overseas create millions more new jobs out of thin air that pay higher wages with better benefits? I guess the next revisionist corporate talking point will be that NAFTA actually reduced the current account deficit.

[Recursion]

122. Well, heavy manufacturing does pretty well under most FTAs

We manufacture most of the plant and heavy machinery for the rest of the world. Those are good paying manufacturing jobs, and they're helped by every free trade deal we sign. Agriculture does very well, as does extraction and scrapping. Services exports go way up (it's an odd sector but an important one). Our chemical and electronics sectors (hello, Intel) do very well.

[Elwood P Dowd]

123. "every free trade deal we sign" ???

We haven't signed a real free trade deal in decades. All the recent ones are nothing but outsourcing/investment scams with the words free trade tacked on to suck in people. For decades now our USTR, Commerce, Treasury, USDA, and all the other agencies involved with trade have been taken over by corporate lawyers, corporate lobbyists, and corporate bean counters that write the damn things. The liberal groups that oppose these fake free trade deals are always outspent 10-1 and 20-1 when it comes time for Congress to vote on them.

The sectors you mentioned are not coming even remotely close to slowing down the growing and massive trade deficit which is now over 8 trillion dollars total the past 30 years. No need to worry for you though, I'm sure you will find some new revisionist corporate study that says losing trillions in trade deficits is good for us.

As for scrapping and services, that is a joke. Shipping our waste and recycle overseas is now something to brag about? And a single person could generate millions of dollars in service exports with some good old fashion Wall Street paper shuffling. Those two are certainly not going to put a dent in the hundreds of billions in merchandise trade deficits every year.

[Recursion]

125. Umm... we've signed 3 in the past 5 years

Panama, Columbia, and South Korea. Exports to all three increased (as did imports from all three). If you notice, the job market nationwide is doing pretty well right now.

I'm sure you will find some new revisionist corporate study that says losing trillions in trade deficits is good for us.

I know it's an article of faith for you that it's hurting us, but you haven't actually demonstrated that (Australia has run a trade deficit for its entire independent history). It's also an article of faith that the economy is worse now than it was in 1993, but there really aren't any metrics I can think of that show that.

[Elwood P Dowd]

126. Yet our trade deficits continue to grow. It's grown quite a bit with Korea along with

causing a net loss of 50,000 jobs.

What the hell does Australia have to do with anything?

Your corporate talking points are not working here on DU. Why don't you try them somewhere else?

[Recursion]

127. There was not a *net* loss of 50,000 jobs to Korea

There was a *loss* of 50,000 jobs to Korea, and a creation of about 60,000. During a 4 year period in which about 12 million net jobs were created.

What the hell does Australia have to do with anything?

As a counterexample to your unsubstantiated claim that trade deficits are bad for countries. Australia has always had one, and has a decent economy.

Your corporate talking points are not working here on DU

Ah, a sign I've won the argument: vacuous name-calling.

[Elwood P Dowd]

128. Actually, it was 75,000 lost jobs.

http://www.epi.org/blog/u-s-korea-trade-deal-resulted-in-growing-trade-deficits-and-more-than-75000-l

Plus, our trade deficit with Korea increased.

So Australia having a trade deficit equals the US having a great economy because we have trade deficits?

Finally, so you're only here to win an argument? That's what I thought. You don't give a damn about all the people hurt by these corporate fake free trade deals. You just want to push the corporate agenda and win an argument. Goodnight. It's 3:16 Eastern Time.

From the article.........

March 15th was the third anniversary of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS). President Obama said that the agreement would support 70,000 U.S. jobs. This claim was supported by a White House fact sheet that claimed that the KORUS agreement would “increase exports of American goods by $10 to $11 billion…” and that they would “support 70,000 American jobs from increased goods exports alone.” Things are not turning out as predicted. Far from supporting jobs, growing goods trade deficits with Korea have eliminated more than 75,000 jobs between 2011 and 2014.

Expanding exports alone is not enough to ensure that trade adds jobs to the economy. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in the United States, but increases in imports lead to job loss—by destroying existing jobs and preventing new job creation—as imports displace goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers. Thus, it is changes in trade balances—the net of exports and imports—that determine the number of jobs created or displaced by trade and investment deals like KORUS.

In the first three years after KORUS took effect, U.S. domestic exports to Korea increased by only $0.8 billion, an increase of 1.8%, as shown in the figure below. Imports from Korea increased $12.6 billion, an increase of 22.5%. As a result, the U.S.trade deficit with Korea increased $11.8 billion between 2011 and 2014, an increase of 80.4%, nearly doubling in just three years.

<snip>

[WillyT]

101. Did You Catch THIS:

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026785342

[rhett o rick]

130. Thank you Elwood. nm

[WillyT]

121. I Got So Side-Tracked... I Forgot To Mention... The Purpose Of The OP...

But thanks to a few chapters released by Wikileaks online last year, we already know it's a disaster for U.S. workers -- especially women.

From OP.

Care to comment?

[historylovr]

131. I wish I could rec this post again.

There is so much wrong with all these "trade" agreements being shoved down our throats. Now taking from Medicare. Thanks for highlighting this, WillyT. Whether anyone wants to believe it or not, jobs, or the lack thereof, is a women's issue.