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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality [View all]
After all was said and done, the only jobs NAFTA actually created were a few online propaganda shill positions:
"Get paid to post pro-NAFTA talking points on the internet! Pay starts at $9.50/hour! Hide behind the anonymous mask of a progressive-type avatar or username while pimping corporate labor-destroying policies that benefit the 1% at the expense of everyone else; no one will know who you really are! We'll provide the talking points; you type in the bull$hit!"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html
NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality
Lori Wallach
Director, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
For NAFTA's unhappy 20th anniversary (last year, 2014), Public Citizen has published a report that details the wreckage. Not only did promises made by NAFTA's proponents not materialize, but many results are exactly the opposite.
Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after "investor-state" tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies.
The study makes for a blood-boiling read. For instance, we track the specific promises made by U.S. corporations like GE, Chrysler and Caterpillar to create specific numbers of American jobs if NAFTA was approved, and reveal government data showing that instead, they fired U.S. workers and moved operations to Mexico.
The data also show how post-NAFTA trade and investment trends have contributed to middle-class pay cuts, which in turn contributed to growing income inequality; how since NAFTA, U.S. trade deficit growth with Mexico and Canada has been 45 percent higher than with countries not party to a U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and how U.S. manufacturing exports to Canada and Mexico have grown at less than half the pre-NAFTA rate.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
56 replies, 5380 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (48)
ReplyReply to this post
56 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Basically, it's consumer economics. Belief that a country can grow economically through
Exilednight
May 2015
#44
Yep. What percentage of those jobs are living wage jobs like the ones that went overseas?
jwirr
May 2015
#26
Tariffs on imports from Mexico averaged 4% before NAFTA. Inequality had been rising since 1969.
pampango
May 2015
#4
So you are saying that NAFTA had nothing to do with job lose in this country? And that is also has
jwirr
May 2015
#28
Well, the "giving a blowjob to Wall Street agreement" didn't focus group as well.
jeff47
May 2015
#25
The question is not each country is capable of producing safe food products. The question is will
jwirr
May 2015
#31
"How is the USDA going to protect us from unsafe foods from other countries?" The same way
pampango
May 2015
#34
It is a matter of trust. As to inside the USA the USDA has the authority to do that. I will turn the
jwirr
May 2015
#35
I don't want them "unlabeled". I want them to be 'labeled' (certified) as safe to eat.
pampango
May 2015
#42
I don't trust everyone with my food either, but their nationality is not the issue. n/t
pampango
May 2015
#46
That is actually one of the big points about TPP. There will be universal labeling standards (which
okaawhatever
May 2015
#48
Do you think that WTO rules would not protect manufacturers in Mexico as they have
pampango
May 2015
#21
The EPI report is deeply flawed. The Congressional Research Service came out with
okaawhatever
May 2015
#7
The EPI study, and the claims made in this "report" are laughable. A sixth grader can see the
okaawhatever
May 2015
#23
No, the report dosn't get bad for NAFTA. I only picked out the parts that directly addressed
okaawhatever
May 2015
#36
Having read several reports how jobs has been lost, I have not seen a sturdy which gives
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#29
It's too bad you are part of the 'social issues don't matter' crowd because some of the strongest
Bluenorthwest
May 2015
#15
Silly. That was 20 years ago. You can't keep blaming the Clintons for that forever.
L0oniX
May 2015
#19
Let's assume for a moment that Public Citizen is right and we lost 1 million jobs to Mexico/Canada.
Hoyt
May 2015
#32
Yes, and Mexico had been losing jobs to China before signing NAFTA. Also, the 1 million
okaawhatever
May 2015
#37