TPP = 650,000 Jobs? Umm, no...

[PosterChild]

3. No, it's a wash....

... here is the scoop from an anti-tpp "study":

trade agreements are on average “a wash” (Krugman 2010). Specifically, in macroeconomic terms the United States had too little spending on domestically-produced goods and services, with total spending (Y) defined as:

Y = C + I + G + X – M

Where C is consumer spending, I is investment spending, G is government purchases of goods and services, X is exports, and M is imports.

While trade agreements lead to higher X, they also lead to higher M, Krugman wrote. Exports support demand for domestically produced goods, so higher X increases employment. However, the growth of imports reduces demand for domestically produced goods, which reduces domestic employment.

The actual effects are noted further on:

Bivens (2007, 2013b) has shown that while the nation as a whole may gain from trade, the benefits are concentrated among college-educated and nonproduction and supervisory workers, and in rising returns to capital.

As noted, we can expect growth in real income, and a wash in number of jobs. Which is why we need to prepare ourselves for the opportunities that will open up through programs like Obama's proposal to make community college more acessable.

http://www.epi.org/publication/trade-pacts-korus-trans-pacific-partnership/