General Discussion

DanTex

(20,709 posts)

166. How much of that do you think is attributable to NAFTA, vs other things that happened at the time?

Tue Jan 6, 2015, 02:09 PM

Jan 2015

It's always hard to find causal links in broad macroeconomic data because there are so many things going on, and so little data. For one, as you pointed out, the late 90s was the dot-com boom, and I don't see how to differentiate between the two just from the broad economic time-series data. I think most people would agree that the dot-com bubble had a much greater effect, which means that teasing out the effects of NAFTA (in either direction) is going to be difficult.

For example, the non-supervisory wages chart. Looks like it really takes off around 97, which seems to fit the dot-com story better than the NAFTA story (although there would be a lag of a few years, you'd expect NAFTA effects to gradually take hold, as opposed to all of a sudden 3 or so years after passage).

Honestly, I'm not even convinced that the data you present makes much of a persuasive case that NAFTA had any beneficial impact at all. It may have, but not based on this data.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

296 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why I defend NAFTA on DU, in four charts [View all] Recursion Jan 2015 OP

"U.S. Economy Lost Nearly 700,000 Jobs Because Of NAFTA, EPI Says" MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #1

In a period during which *20 million* jobs were created, Manny Recursion Jan 2015 #3

OK then. We'll go with correlation = causality MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #16

Well, that actually has a causative argument Recursion Jan 2015 #19

You just read Manny's graph upside down. Jackpine Radical Jan 2015 #101

I did, because I was thinking of a different graph Recursion Jan 2015 #103

I thought that would probably be the case. Jackpine Radical Jan 2015 #107

It does, and climate change will only increase that Recursion Jan 2015 #108

All of that is true. Jackpine Radical Jan 2015 #118

It is about causation versus correlation. DanTex Jan 2015 #167

Recursion: Overall SCantiGOP Jan 2015 #193

20 million jobs, most of which don't pay a living wage. hobbit709 Jan 2015 #252

No, see the chart. Nonsupervisory wages went up, as did median income (nt) Recursion Jan 2015 #257

That is less than half the population growth. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2015 #283

What? You aren't overly-impressed with a power-point oblique Rah-Rah for TPP? nt 99th_Monkey Jan 2015 #5

I'm "meh" on the TPP because I think we've already picked the low-hanging fruit there Recursion Jan 2015 #10

You can "Meh" on TPP all you want 99th_Monkey Jan 2015 #15

Well, no, only in some imaginary polemic land Recursion Jan 2015 #17

I think this is where we agree to disagree 99th_Monkey Jan 2015 #18

Thank you; that's been rather missing from DU on this subject Recursion Jan 2015 #22

My 'crusade' can be your 'populist uprising' 99th_Monkey Jan 2015 #30

If we are doing something BLINDLY since no one but the 600 Corporations have been sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #29

Job Loses on both sides of the border FreakinDJ Jan 2015 #28

Unrec tenderfoot Jan 2015 #2

Care to present an argument? Are my data wrong? Recursion Jan 2015 #4

for one thing, the median is not a "typical" income hfojvt Jan 2015 #49

Please consider this observation to counter this utter bullshit on NAFTA... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #123

So, am I wrong that unemployment went down, while median wages went up? (nt) Recursion Jan 2015 #124

(sigh�) MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #129

You are wrong that NAFTA's impact on the economy terminated in 2000. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2015 #284

"flurrying your fingers from across the world?" = from india no less. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #163

Third Way needed to cur some costs, chose to outsource LondonReign2 Jan 2015 #181

"We had already been loosing the manufacturing industries by then late 1980's. NAFTA and GATT pampango Jan 2015 #168

You see? Really, now? MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #169

"We have actually been losing manufacturing jobs since the since the late 1970's" NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #212

Outsourcing and automation. joshcryer Jan 2015 #236

I'm not sure what you mean by 'appear to' peak. These are BLS statistics, so I guess it -did- NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #237

Fair enough. joshcryer Jan 2015 #239

Reagan also intensified the deregulation. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #240

Reagan who? reddread Jan 2015 #287

Reagan expanded the Carter administration's efforts to decontrol and deregulate the economy. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #289

GHWB reddread Jan 2015 #292

They are not your data. JackRiddler Jan 2015 #185

What of manufacturing? joshcryer Jan 2015 #6

I don't think manufacturing is magical, anymore than agriculture is Recursion Jan 2015 #8

That's absolutely true. joshcryer Jan 2015 #12

"Diversified" in inputs or outputs? Because as you point out most of the inputs are going away Recursion Jan 2015 #14

That pie chart is somewhat different from my graph. joshcryer Jan 2015 #20

I noticed that about your chart which is why I looked for mine Recursion Jan 2015 #26

I'm surprised the "information" sector hasnt increased more. Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #27

That is surprising Recursion Jan 2015 #43

If not, you can just make it up. HERVEPA Jan 2015 #130

Having a service-centered economy is a horrible thing. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #54

The trade deficit is a symptom of our consumer society. joshcryer Jan 2015 #57

Germany makes labor a legal stakeholder of businesses Recursion Jan 2015 #69

Many sectors were not consumer driven 4Q2u2 Jan 2015 #151

I have to correct something in your post. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #227

VAT affects consumers, not companies. joshcryer Jan 2015 #228

The VAT works very well in Germany and Austria. They fund all sorts of socially positive programs JDPriestly Jan 2015 #230

I'm all for it. joshcryer Jan 2015 #231

One of the reasons I oppose the trade agreements is that we have no strategy here in America JDPriestly Jan 2015 #232

This is why a progressive tax schedule should be first. joshcryer Jan 2015 #234

If somebody wants to sponsor a Federal VAT in the US I'm on board Recursion Jan 2015 #229

there's no surplus value in robots. also, the corporate tax rate in germany is about 30%. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #290

Why do we a trade deficit while Germany with stronger unions and similar wages has a trade surplus? pampango Jan 2015 #67

You keep reducing left-wing opposition to the TPP to trade. stillwaiting Jan 2015 #81

I was responding to a post about our "our horrible, horrendous, awful, spectacularly outrageous pampango Jan 2015 #145

�"And our manufacturing is at record high levels�" MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #137

�"And our manufacturing is at record high levels�" pampango Jan 2015 #154

What a great disguise� a federal reserve macro data set MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #162

Where are you getting that randomness? joshcryer Jan 2015 #235

I didn't think I had to tell anyone this... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #241

You were responding to a specific dataset. joshcryer Jan 2015 #242

Yes, I did... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #243

I linked how the dataset is compiled. joshcryer Jan 2015 #244

You never read it that fast, or you'd have something to say... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #245

It's a couple of paragraphs: joshcryer Jan 2015 #246

Jeebus H Christ... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #247

You responded to post #168. joshcryer Jan 2015 #254

Yes, you're right, I responded to post #168... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #288

Funny you asked. I happen to know a lot about this. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #208

Thanks for the long, detailed post. pampango Jan 2015 #248

I would like to think we could learn, but the basic philosophy of so many in our country is JDPriestly Jan 2015 #280

Great post JDPriestly! B Calm Jan 2015 #249

I think when you look at things from a macro view upaloopa Jan 2015 #89

Manufacturing -is- magical, and it's because of manufacturing that we employ fewer farmhands today. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #214

Thanks. That's the real story. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #52

I pretty much agree, and there is a lot to be said for a tight asscociation Hoyt Jan 2015 #7

Our very large corporations, banks and farming enterprises need to be broken up. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #55

Did you know breaking them up increases their value? joshcryer Jan 2015 #60

But their worth has nothing to do with destructive ability 4Q2u2 Jan 2015 #106

Then we have to do it, it is good for business! TheKentuckian Jan 2015 #128

NAFTA was/is the TPP-Camel's Nose Under the Tent. 99th_Monkey Jan 2015 #9

Are each of these charts a direct result of NAFTA? How can we tell? arcane1 Jan 2015 #11

Of course not Recursion Jan 2015 #13

If the charts are not directly related to NAFTA, then why use these charts to defend it? arcane1 Jan 2015 #157

Charts on wages, employment and family income are not relevant to debate on NAFTA? pampango Jan 2015 #170

Relevance is a different story. The OP said these charts are not directly related to NAFTA. arcane1 Jan 2015 #173

Indeed, they are only reflective of the wages, employment levels and family incomes after NAFTA. pampango Jan 2015 #175

NAFTA would have worked a lot better if we had not simultaneously pushed MFN status for China Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2015 #21

That's a very, very good point Recursion Jan 2015 #23

Holy fucking shit, man. Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #24

Not really, Warren... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #132

I had no idea that was my purpose. Glad to hear it. Recursion Jan 2015 #146

"what does this flame-like icon gain me?" MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #148

No, I think he's cogently advancing an obviously unpopular argument Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #219

... Cali_Democrat Jan 2015 #25

Correlation versus Causation tkmorris Jan 2015 #31

Lack of correlation proves causation is impossible Recursion Jan 2015 #36

Actually that's not true Depaysement Jan 2015 #53

Two extreme bubbles occured during this period. bluesbassman Jan 2015 #32

But, equally, claiming NAFTA was destructive is ruled out. Recursion Jan 2015 #35

So if NAFTA's destructive tendencies and it's positive contributions cancel each other out... bluesbassman Jan 2015 #50

No. One effect can be masked by another. jeff47 Jan 2015 #155

During the Clinton Presidency, House of Roberts Jan 2015 #40

Excellent point. It was the internet bubble which delayed the effects of NAFTA still_one Jan 2015 #131

So the technology boom caused manufacturing jobs and wages to increase during Clinton's time. pampango Jan 2015 #201

The giant sucking sound - manufacturing jobs JonLP24 Jan 2015 #33

David Simon talks a lot about free trade and its effect on the economy here JonLP24 Jan 2015 #61

David Simon is also puzzingly convinced that the War on Drugs isn't a racial issue Recursion Jan 2015 #88

In the video he describes it as 'war on the poor' but he also says this JonLP24 Jan 2015 #211

Those graphs show correlation, not causation. Ken Burch Jan 2015 #34

Right, but they prove it's impossible that NAFTA caused either job losses or wage decreases Recursion Jan 2015 #37

Most of that has little to do with NAFTA Spider Jerusalem Jan 2015 #38

NAFTA has been a disaster for Mexico, and PRI paid the price for that Recursion Jan 2015 #41

Way to miss the point, or not even be aware of it. Spider Jerusalem Jan 2015 #44

Completely wrong Recursion Jan 2015 #45

You mean "fewer", and I'm not talking about the last 60 years, I'm talking about the last 20. Spider Jerusalem Jan 2015 #47

Well, no. Factories had the option of automating or moving to Mexico and then to China Recursion Jan 2015 #48

I hope DU eventually gets tired Union Scribe Jan 2015 #39

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jan 2015 #42

Thanks. LeftOfWest Jan 2015 #56

If it's any indication... Waiting For Everyman Jan 2015 #58

Sounds about right. joshcryer Jan 2015 #59

Hmm. Waiting For Everyman Jan 2015 #63

Oh, right, alter ego DUers are immune. joshcryer Jan 2015 #96

I remember those days of DU too Recursion Jan 2015 #105

Thank you! There's a definite posting pattern. Lars39 Jan 2015 #62

Yup. And he states openly he doesn't care about inequality. There we go. closeupready Jan 2015 #72

You would rather a more equal, poorer world? Recursion Jan 2015 #73

lol you're not very good at this. closeupready Jan 2015 #75

I'd prefer everyone to be RICHER, actually. HughBeaumont Jan 2015 #126

That's massively increasing their living standards from what they were, don't forget that part. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #178

The bottom 75% did get richer. Is that worth nothing to a liberal? Or is it, "If I'm not richer, pampango Jan 2015 #196

What you don't seem to be getting . . . . HughBeaumont Jan 2015 #263

AFAIK, for people to go from $1/hour to $15/hour they have to go through $2/hr, $5/hr and so on. pampango Jan 2015 #286

With the current system, ronnie624 Jan 2015 #160

Isn't this the kind of thing anarcho-capitalists say?? HughBeaumont Jan 2015 #165

No kidding. Puglover Jan 2015 #97

+1 bahrbearian Jan 2015 #99

I'M Tired of it. HughBeaumont Jan 2015 #127

I know I am... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #134

Yet you have made zero argument treestar Jan 2015 #141

Yes! tenderfoot Jan 2015 #149

I hope DU gets tired of calling Recursion a right-winger, when they're obviously not. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #177

.... tenderfoot Jan 2015 #187

Don't you just hate charts? And people who don't agree you about everything? n/t pampango Jan 2015 #197

Recursion is more than one person? Gormy Cuss Jan 2015 #204

No, that's a third-person-singular use of "they". Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #205

"They" isn't a singular pronoun, thus the confusion. n/t Gormy Cuss Jan 2015 #294

Before trying to grammar pedant, make sure you understand basic grammar. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #295

One should probably read the link before asserting that it proves one's case. n/t Gormy Cuss Jan 2015 #296

Ayup LondonReign2 Jan 2015 #184

Relentless Libertarian push. Ikonoklast Jan 2015 #275

Yes, you're description is more accurate LondonReign2 Jan 2015 #276

Quote from the OP in a pst above. Ikonoklast Jan 2015 #277

K&R for making a brave argument, with data bhikkhu Jan 2015 #46

I strongly disagree that TPP is "no big deal" Art_from_Ark Jan 2015 #51

But it lets Japan expand its agriculture tariffs Recursion Jan 2015 #64

The National Alliance for Protecting the People's Food and Health is not impressed Art_from_Ark Jan 2015 #250

Krugman�s over-confident answers to his own questions proved to be mostly wrong... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #142

Interesting article, but it assumes that its readers agree on some underlying assumptions bhikkhu Jan 2015 #218

You forgot: Manufacturing employment grew after NAFTA until Bush; Democrats are more pro-trade than pampango Jan 2015 #65

I had to look who recommended this thread, B Calm Jan 2015 #66

So when a really good position is presented on something few know much about look at the recs to kelliekat44 Jan 2015 #68

There has never been a good position for NAFTA from the view B Calm Jan 2015 #70

Except for the fact that his wages and employment went up Recursion Jan 2015 #71

Can I ask you what you do for a living? Do you work an overseas job, B Calm Jan 2015 #74

He's admitted he used to be a K Street lobbyist among other things Lars39 Jan 2015 #76

No, I said I worked on K street Recursion Jan 2015 #78

Lol, yea right. Your resume expands daily. Lars39 Jan 2015 #83

Nope, it expands usually every two years Recursion Jan 2015 #84

every 2 years Caretha Jan 2015 #220

You don't work in IT, do you? Recursion Jan 2015 #222

BTW, the food stamp farmer's market thing Recursion Jan 2015 #85

19 recs, 13 replies. joshcryer Jan 2015 #98

Yeah, funny how that works Recursion Jan 2015 #122

It's a distraction. joshcryer Jan 2015 #213

... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #174

I'm a UNIX admin Recursion Jan 2015 #77

You do live overseas, okay! B Calm Jan 2015 #79

So, umm... what's funny about that? I missed my grandfather's funeral because I was stationed here Recursion Jan 2015 #80

I'll leave that up to the working class on DU to get the comedy of it, I B Calm Jan 2015 #82

Stationed by the government? Caretha Jan 2015 #221

I'll have to wait for "a really good position" to be presented to answer that. MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #143

:-^) MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #135

Yes, thanks. I did so after reading this post. Mostly the usual suspects. closeupready Jan 2015 #138

Hmmm...whom to believe, your RW corporate charts or our own eyes? RiverLover Jan 2015 #86

He's right. We really need to stop fighting the last war. NAFTA delivered what was promised. Recursion Jan 2015 #87

My own eyes see the devastation in town after town. Lars39 Jan 2015 #90

Me too Lars39 RiverLover Jan 2015 #92

I see it in TN, Indiana, Kentucky also. Lars39 Jan 2015 #93

Thanks to NAFTA, Indiana lost it last remaining bio degradable cellophane factory B Calm Jan 2015 #100

And I bet the greedy owners blamed the union for wanting more money. Lars39 Jan 2015 #104

YES, after two different wage concessions, benefit cuts and vacation B Calm Jan 2015 #109

Not to mention the tax breaks the company received over the years. Lars39 Jan 2015 #110

SPOT ON!! B Calm Jan 2015 #113

Those tax cuts were suppose to make them more competitive in the NAFTA marketplace, LOL. B Calm Jan 2015 #114

Yes! Glad you remember...seems like all this is being shoved down the rabbit hole. Lars39 Jan 2015 #121

Ohioan here . . . . HughBeaumont Jan 2015 #133

Amen. closeupready Jan 2015 #140

Add all the other states, united... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #147

I saw the same thing, now it's all Autumn Jan 2015 #189

Or rickety tables for a permanent yard sale-flea market on an empty lot on Main Street... Lars39 Jan 2015 #198

It goes down and down. Autumn Jan 2015 #200

Sure does seem that way, Autumn. Lars39 Jan 2015 #202

In other words, rigorous statistical data or anecdotal evidence? N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2015 #179

Good job Caretha Jan 2015 #223

The Trade Deficit is a Direct Measure of Jobs Leaving the US RiverLover Jan 2015 #91

Correlation is not causation. TBF Jan 2015 #94

And 20 million jobs were created (nt) Recursion Jan 2015 #95

And 21 million would have been created without it. (nt) jeff47 Jan 2015 #115

Well, there we are. That's certainly possible Recursion Jan 2015 #116

That sounds like a republican complaint about a Democratic president. pampango Jan 2015 #203

It was an attempt to illustrate the faulty analysis in the OP. jeff47 Jan 2015 #210

And actually, this was a Republican President's deal originally RiverLover Jan 2015 #215

From what sectors and we do not know what we do not know 4Q2u2 Jan 2015 #136

They are trying to rewrite history TBF Jan 2015 #191

All I see from this entire post The2ndWheel Jan 2015 #102

I've always considered you to be a righty ... Trajan Jan 2015 #111

Me too. ~nt RiverLover Jan 2015 #112

lol Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #293

+1 QC Jan 2015 #117

Like others here, he puts his mouth where his money is, probably. closeupready Jan 2015 #144

nor I. tenderfoot Jan 2015 #217

The dot com boom was not caused by NAFTA jeff47 Jan 2015 #119

So your vote is for "total coincidence"? (nt) Recursion Jan 2015 #120

No, my vote is for economies are not as simple as you pretend they are. jeff47 Jan 2015 #125

The median wage is not the "typical wage." It's the midpoint of all wages. Gormy Cuss Jan 2015 #139

I have to say this is a interesting thread ismnotwasm Jan 2015 #150

Remember when DU was, well, just kind of like that? Recursion Jan 2015 #153

Yeah ismnotwasm Jan 2015 #156

Agree completely, this has been worthwhile. eom chieftain Jan 2015 #209

Several of the posts have pointed out that rogerashton Jan 2015 #152

Actually, his argument is utterly lacking in nuance. jeff47 Jan 2015 #159

Perhaps we mean different things by the word "nuance." rogerashton Jan 2015 #176

Choosing only U3, median wage, and poverty is cherry-picking headline numbers jeff47 Jan 2015 #183

Because they're what's important: do people have jobs, and are those jobs making money for them? Recursion Jan 2015 #238

Not when you're claiming the headline is due to a trade deal. jeff47 Jan 2015 #259

That's not true at all Recursion Jan 2015 #260

You are not this dumb. Stop pretending to be. jeff47 Jan 2015 #265

WRT your final paragraph, NAFTA may have been a 'good idea,' but labor KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #158

You see the data without understanding the implications RunInCircles Jan 2015 #161

Interesting description of AT&T... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #171

Nothing good comes from NAFTA Demsrule86 Jan 2015 #164

How much of that do you think is attributable to NAFTA, vs other things that happened at the time? DanTex Jan 2015 #166

If I had to guess, maybe a quarter or so Recursion Jan 2015 #226

Not really. DanTex Jan 2015 #258

For example, here's a shot at making the opposite case using charts. DanTex Jan 2015 #172

Thank you, DanTex!!! RiverLover Jan 2015 #207

Thanks everyone above who debunked this propaganda. Elwood P Dowd Jan 2015 #180

Indeed: The rebuttals turned a BS OP into a good thread Populist_Prole Jan 2015 #188

Yes. Bookmarking to use the info next time they cheerlead for Reaganomics Zorra Jan 2015 #190

And not only that - TBF Jan 2015 #194

Tell me, why the need to relentlessly push right wing points of view here? LondonReign2 Jan 2015 #182

*Sigh* Starry Messenger Jan 2015 #186

That word "liberal" - TBF Jan 2015 #192

Around here it seems to be kind of an inkblot. Starry Messenger Jan 2015 #195

Exactly. nt TBF Jan 2015 #199

What time is it over there in Mumbai India Recursion? You asleep? B Calm Jan 2015 #206

It was about 5:30 am when you posted that, why? (nt) Recursion Jan 2015 #216

I've decided Caretha Jan 2015 #224

Which of my four claims are false? Recursion Jan 2015 #225

And NAFTA didn't have a damn thing to do with any of your claims. Elwood P Dowd Jan 2015 #233

So Clinton was lucky and Bush was unlucky? pampango Jan 2015 #253

"continuously blaming them is a distraction" joshcryer Jan 2015 #255

Well said. "we'll never get into the necessary policy discussions as long as the MSM leads with pampango Jan 2015 #256

Nobody claims that the economic gains of the Clinton era are "proof" that NAFTA was a disaster. DanTex Jan 2015 #264

NAFTA did not 'destroy manufacturing jobs in the US' while Clinton was in office. Then pampango Jan 2015 #269

It's hard to tell exactly how much of the decline is due to NAFTA. DanTex Jan 2015 #270

Then why did both wages and incomes increase? Recursion Jan 2015 #271

Because there was a tech boom, for one. DanTex Jan 2015 #272

Some of the effects were actually pretty quick Recursion Jan 2015 #273

Modulo the tech boom none of those charts show anything. DanTex Jan 2015 #274

He's from Bombay, India, so he probably DOESN'T care about inequality - closeupready Jan 2015 #278

"Back home" is the US Recursion Jan 2015 #291

Your claim that those statistics are due to NAFTA are false. jeff47 Jan 2015 #261

You're reading a lot more causality into my argument than is there Recursion Jan 2015 #262

No, I'm not jeff47 Jan 2015 #266

What "lower overall wages"? Recursion Jan 2015 #267

Try actually reading all of the post. jeff47 Jan 2015 #268

"So, how much money will you make from the TPP passing?" closeupready Jan 2015 #281

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - n/t lapfog_1 Jan 2015 #251

You completely misinterpreted/misrepresented the first chart lumberjack_jeff Jan 2015 #279

yeah, but you forgot to yell "Timber!" reddread Jan 2015 #282

Initially I thought it might be advantageous mmonk Jan 2015 #285