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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: NAFTA passed on Nov. 20, 1993, on the promise of jobs. Oddly enough . . . [View all]alarimer
(17,146 posts)128. The purpose of NAFTA was to free corporations from labor and environmental laws.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, NAFTA caused wages to stagnate and undercut the bargaining power of US workers, far more important than the "McJobs" created by this abomination. To say nothing of the way it undercut Mexican farmers, especially. It was "socialism for capital and free markets for labor." There's a whole lot more at the article.
NAFTA affected U.S. workers in four principal ways. First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico. Most of these losses came in California, Texas, Michigan, and other states where manufacturing is concentrated. To be sure, there were some job gains along the border in service and retail sectors resulting from increased trucking activity, but these gains are small in relation to the loses, and are in lower paying occupations. The vast majority of workers who lost jobs from NAFTA suffered a permanent loss of income.
Second, NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits. As soon as NAFTA became law, corporate managers began telling their workers that their companies intended to move to Mexico unless the workers lowered the cost of their labor. In the midst of collective bargaining negotiations with unions, some companies would even start loading machinery into trucks that they said were bound for Mexico. The same threats were used to fight union organizing efforts. The message was: If you vote in a union, we will move south of the border. With NAFTA, corporations also could more easily blackmail local governments into giving them tax reductions and other subsidies.
Third, the destructive effect of NAFTA on the Mexican agricultural and small business sectors dislocated several million Mexican workers and their families, and was a major cause in the dramatic increase in undocumented workers flowing into the U.S. labor market. This put further downward pressure on U.S. wages, especially in the already lower paying market for less skilled labor.
Fourth, and ultimately most important, NAFTA was the template for rules of the emerging global economy, in which the benefits would flow to capital and the costs to labor. The U.S. governing classin alliance with the financial elites of its trading partnersapplied NAFTAs principles to the World Trade Organization, to the policies of the World Bank and IMF, and to the deal under which employers of Chinas huge supply of low-wage workers were allowed access to U.S. markets in exchange for allowing American multinational corporations the right to invest there.
http://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
190 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
NAFTA passed on Nov. 20, 1993, on the promise of jobs. Oddly enough . . . [View all]
ucrdem
May 2015
OP
After seeing the ridiculous distortions launched here daily for the last 6 months
ucrdem
May 2015
#2
But you keep telling us that we don't know what's in the TPP. I asked where the information
rhett o rick
May 2015
#169
What are you talking about? Of course TPP would repeal NAFTA. Or "replace" if you prefer.
Recursion
May 2015
#145
You do realize that there is no such concept as "implied repeal" in international law, don't you?
OrwellwasRight
May 2015
#189
I've heard all the good stuff after NAFTA was either unrelated or just good luck. All the bad stuff
pampango
May 2015
#4
The dot com boom, remember that, was the reason for the rise in jobs in the 90s. . .
brush
May 2015
#103
Got it. When things go well under a Democratic president after NAFTA, he's just lucky there was
pampango
May 2015
#130
The trend existed for 15 years before NAFTA, reversed course after it, then resumed the pre-NAFTA
pampango
May 2015
#134
This is the most shame-faced lie of them all. The dot-com boom destroyed *millions* of jobs
Recursion
May 2015
#147
Yes, the big three were late to the 'game, complacent in their supremacy in the US market...
Spazito
May 2015
#14
There is almost an insular thinking when it comes to discussion of trade agreements...
Spazito
May 2015
#106
So your answer is to sit around and do nothing and just hope for the best?
OrwellwasRight
May 2015
#115
That was a time when countries like India, China, Japan, etc, were not competative...
Spazito
May 2015
#111
The only period of high tariffs in the US in the 20th century was under republicans from 1920-1932.
pampango
May 2015
#135
Agreed. Tariffs did not cause the depression. They caused tremendous income inequality but not
pampango
May 2015
#137
I think a VAT has a lot to offer. While it raises the cost to consumers of all goods, imported and
pampango
May 2015
#139
"The end of the 19th century saw corporations at their height of influence and power"
Joe Turner
May 2015
#140
Good point. Republican administrations tended to raise tariffs (as with the Dingley Act of 1897)
pampango
May 2015
#162
If past is prologue I'd say this is a pretty good argument for nominating Clinton this time around.
ucrdem
May 2015
#10
Other countries don't have that problem. They have tarriffs to protect their products.
rhett o rick
May 2015
#50
Long and short: the talking point that NAFTA gutted US employment appears to be unsubstantiated. nt
ucrdem
May 2015
#17
So much of what is blamed on NAFTA today was a direct result of technological advance.
NCTraveler
May 2015
#31
Are you sure that Sen Kerry is free to discuss it with her? And even with no "public parts"
rhett o rick
May 2015
#53
Are you saying the computer/tech revolution had nothing to do with jobs being created?
kentuck
May 2015
#59
There's a bazillion ways to deny it but it happened. US jobs went up for 6 straight years
ucrdem
May 2015
#56
Yeah, all those great paying service jobs in the new service economy.
Dont call me Shirley
May 2015
#60
Average hourly wages also rose steadily in that period, in current and constant $:
ucrdem
May 2015
#63
I love peas, but not the constant pay cuts we've been forced to swallow
Dont call me Shirley
May 2015
#65
Not for us, barely a rise in early 2000, then cuts cuts cuts cuts cuts since the crash
Dont call me Shirley
May 2015
#68
Nafta, the repeal of key financial safeguards, CFMA, Cafta, they all have caused the financial
Dont call me Shirley
May 2015
#70
Here is what the working poor look like, bravenak. Breaks my heart.
Dont call me Shirley
May 2015
#78
Time for a progressive mass movement creating democratic workplaces. Make the rich obsolete.
Dont call me Shirley
May 2015
#82
I don't for my purposes here, which are to show that Bill delivered on his promises
ucrdem
May 2015
#72
I've shown that passing NAFTA didn't lead to a net job loss, and that the US economy grew
ucrdem
May 2015
#75
So the stats are wrong and the secret hidden invisible truth contradicting them is sacrosanct?
ucrdem
May 2015
#86
You seem to forget that lack of correlation precludes causation, which is all OP's argument needs
Recursion
May 2015
#157
It's statistical correlation. The measure of the accuracy of a numerical relationship between...
Taitertots
May 2015
#175
Sort of. It's a moment of a random variable derived from two random variables.
Recursion
May 2015
#177
The problem with your argument is, this is the same data used to indict NAFTA as a job killer.
ucrdem
May 2015
#174
The purpose of NAFTA was to free corporations from labor and environmental laws.
alarimer
May 2015
#128
Well, they're wrong about average US wages, which rose, and blaming offshoring on NAFTA is dumb.
ucrdem
May 2015
#141
Everybody needs a scapegoat, and here it's "trade". On other sites it's "immigrants"
Recursion
May 2015
#161
That first chart looks horrifying. What years after NAFTA is NAFTA not responsible for?
Romulox
May 2015
#180
Your "notes" make nothing clear. It's just a naked assertion with no facts or reason to back it up.
Romulox
May 2015
#182
The point is that NAFTA didn't wreck the economy 2001-2009. Bush and Cheney did. nt
ucrdem
May 2015
#184