Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
31. Every President will face a handful of fortuitous or disastrous events
Thu Feb 13, 2014, 01:08 PM
Feb 2014

Because the world is in a constant state of change. Massive changes in technology and communication made it easier to off shore jobs and save money for investors and owners at the expense of workers. China did not open the floodgates of cheap labor because of NAFTA. They did so because it made sense within the context of their own society and national agenda and the explosive growth of their own modern industrialization. For the same reason, a growling middle class created by that industrialization has increased the cost of their labor and many of these cheap labor jobs are migrating to other parts of Asia and Africa. Technology makes it cheaper to build a new factory in Sri Lanka or Uganda. This process was actually at work in the 60's with the development of Maquiladoras in Mexico that led to the shipment of jobs from the US. China actually poached a lot of those jobs with the promise of even cheaper labor.

I am not fond of Free Trade agreements, but they are not the only historical current that created todays situation. NAFTA is a symptom of the proliferation of International Corporations who chase poverty so they can use the desire of starving people for any kind of work. Once those workers get a glimmer of hope, the Corporation moves on to the next country because it is better for corporate profits to find the lowest wages possible for everyone but executives, the board of directors, investors, and owners.

The real answer is not bitching about NAFTA. The real answer is a world wide labor movement. Unions need to go international for real and fight for better wages in every country because a raise of $.05 an hour here is impetus for an industry to go where they can pay a worker $.01 for every dollar a worker makes here. As long as Corporations can move to take advantage of cheap labor for a fraction of the cost of transportation, this process will continue. Free Trade agreements are only a tiny fraction of that process, and they are not the cause of it.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I tend to agree with a couple of exceptions Armstead Feb 2014 #1
Many jobs created in Clinton years Cicada Feb 2014 #2
ultimately he delivered them to China Armstead Feb 2014 #4
What would you have recommended as a China policy at the time? An embargo? pampango Feb 2014 #14
Protectionism. Armstead Feb 2014 #17
So a modified "US only" embargo? Should we put tariffs on Cuba when the embargo is removed? pampango Feb 2014 #19
"high tariffs serve as a barrier to trade" brentspeak Feb 2014 #48
a pat on the back? reddread Feb 2014 #38
According to the bureau of Labor Statistics, Clinton holds the record for jobs created Agnosticsherbet Feb 2014 #5
Clinton was incredibly lucky Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #6
The dot.com boom which as could be expected inevitably went bust. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #11
Every President will face a handful of fortuitous or disastrous events Agnosticsherbet Feb 2014 #31
Record jobs were created. Wages rose. -- He was just lucky. Democratic presidents just can't win. ;) pampango Feb 2014 #15
+1 JoePhilly Feb 2014 #51
Really? Alkene Feb 2014 #57
Barack Obama and the Republicans are promising the same thing with TPP. pa28 Feb 2014 #3
It did create jobs, and raise wages Recursion Feb 2014 #7
How much of the manufacturing consists of simply assembling parts JDPriestly Feb 2014 #10
It's a simple question, "did employment and wages go up or down after NAFTA"? Recursion Feb 2014 #21
Realy? JDPriestly Feb 2014 #33
OFFS Recursion Feb 2014 #41
You and your silliy facts. JoePhilly Feb 2014 #52
At the cost of wages. joshcryer Feb 2014 #12
Then why did wages go *up* after NAFTA was passed? Recursion Feb 2014 #22
Because most entry level manufacturing jobs were outsourced, leaving older, more skilled workers Romulox Feb 2014 #29
Yup. And the entry-level people found higher paying jobs outside of manufacturing Recursion Feb 2014 #42
At much reduced rates of pay. You seem to forget that the past leads us to this point. Romulox Feb 2014 #71
So Bush and Republicans are at fault and not Democrat? treestar Feb 2014 #67
Those charts don't speak to the 1,000,000 manufacturing jobs lost since NAFTA, MFN China. Romulox Feb 2014 #28
What are you talking about? Recursion Feb 2014 #43
You aren't an honest debater. Manufacturing employment is down by almost 1,000,000. Romulox Feb 2014 #72
"Today the US manufactures more than at any point in our history" LOL L0oniX Feb 2014 #50
How about "Global warming is real. Tell that to the people of Detroit today." pampango Feb 2014 #54
I wouldn't use the phraze "Global warming". It's global climate change. L0oniX Feb 2014 #55
It did not create jobs markme88 Feb 2014 #63
I didn't say "it created manufacturing jobs" Recursion Feb 2014 #65
Ok Let's look at the two charts markme88 Feb 2014 #66
Your chart shows a huge decline in manufacturing jobs over the period Recursion Feb 2014 #68
No markme88 Feb 2014 #69
Ah, so you're posting right wing propaganda on DU Oilwellian Feb 2014 #73
That never passed the smell test and they dropped that claim like a hot potato, switching their meme Populist_Prole Feb 2014 #8
K&R. I agree 100%. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #9
The real power of NAFTA: it lowered wages for 20 years before it was enacted. And manufacturing jobs pampango Feb 2014 #13
Inflation adjusted household income in 1995 -- $50,978 JDPriestly Feb 2014 #34
Great link. Shows that AHI increased more in the 7 years after NAFTA than in the 20 years before it. pampango Feb 2014 #36
But the economy was too weakened by the boom that it went bust. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #37
Why do you think there is a time limit on the benefits? The "bust" was due to pampango Feb 2014 #39
There's nothing magical about manufacturing. Recursion Feb 2014 #44
Congrats on Dumb Post of the Day brentspeak Feb 2014 #46
Poorly paid manufacturing workers in right-to-work states are not going to support our economy pampango Feb 2014 #56
Of course, large-scale manufacturing isn't coming back to the US brentspeak Feb 2014 #59
And only fools believed them. nt LWolf Feb 2014 #16
It seems Ross Perot had it right about that "giant sucking sound". idendoit Feb 2014 #18
As is typical, Perot was a republican politician who used existing trends to fear-monger. pampango Feb 2014 #20
LOL. So--he was right (no way of arguing against *that*!).... Romulox Feb 2014 #24
He could read a chart. And he knew how to scare people. Typical republican. pampango Feb 2014 #26
He was correct, and Al Gore/Bill Clinton/CATO institute/Heritage/Pampango were wrong. Romulox Feb 2014 #27
You saying he was correct does not make him correct. pampango Feb 2014 #35
Nearly a million jobs lost, pampango. Reality...remember? Romulox Feb 2014 #30
Details, details n/t brentspeak Feb 2014 #47
Why institute policies that made the problem worse? Armstead Feb 2014 #32
Don't forget Al Gore's shameful roll in pushing this crap. Romulox Feb 2014 #23
Did they mention WHERE? WinkyDink Feb 2014 #25
K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations! Enthusiast Feb 2014 #40
Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit L0oniX Feb 2014 #45
Thank you. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #49
Hey now! NAFTA created jobs. Le Taz Hot Feb 2014 #53
Record numbers of American jobs were created under Clinton and he is scorned for NAFTA. pampango Feb 2014 #58
Well, then, if you like NAFTA Le Taz Hot Feb 2014 #60
In terms of annual percentage increase, the best job-creation presidencies were: El_Johns Feb 2014 #62
. Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #61
Looks to me like the problem was the tax incentives, not NAFTA. jazzimov Feb 2014 #64
I love a post that blames "Bill Clinton and Republicans"... gulliver Feb 2014 #70
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Bill Clinton and Republic...»Reply #31