General Discussion

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

25. Well, the "giving a blowjob to Wall Street agreement" didn't focus group as well.

Tue May 26, 2015, 11:43 AM

May 2015

The problem is that labor rights and the environment do not have similar protections in modern agreements.

No. Because labor protections do nothing when the factory leaves the country. The union doesn't do you any good when there's no longer a workplace to unionize.

In addition, a Mexican union isn't going to keep the jobs in the US. Cost of living is so much lower that a Mexican union won't create wage parity.

Those damn Canadians and Mexicans! As long as the food I eat

No, it's not about food.

US companies have to just live with new US regulations, even if it costs the US company money.

Canadian and Mexican companies can demand the removal of US regulations, or demand compensation for new regulations. Meat labeling laws are an example of the former. MTBE regulation in CA is an example of the latter.

NAFTA means it's actually better for your company to move out of the US.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

56 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality [View all] brentspeak May 2015 OP

K&R liberal_at_heart May 2015 #1

Rec! progressoid May 2015 #2

I pledge allegiance to the meme that Bill Clinton destroyed America ucrdem May 2015 #3

Pssst....NAFTA didn't end in 2000. jeff47 May 2015 #14

At the start of 2001 Clintonomics ended and Terranomics began. ucrdem May 2015 #16

No, at the start of 2001 the dot-com bubble burst. jeff47 May 2015 #20

What is Terranomics? Jack Rabbit May 2015 #27

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

+10 ucrdem May 2015 #6

Screw that bullshit Art_from_Ark May 2015 #9

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

RW meme? cui bono May 2015 #53

You're making the mistake of thinking that NAFTA is about trade. jeff47 May 2015 #12

Many will be interested to know that NAFTA was not about trade. pampango May 2015 #24

Well, the "giving a blowjob to Wall Street agreement" didn't focus group as well. jeff47 May 2015 #25

I don't believe that FDR was the "Wall Street" blowjob" kind of guy. pampango May 2015 #33

We aren't in 1936 anymore, and our trading partners aren't only in Europe. jeff47 May 2015 #41

Great post. pampango May 2015 #45

In a sense, you are correct, but in practice .... Exilednight May 2015 #55

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 trust most people but not with my food. jwirr May 2015 #43

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

Universal labeling standards Art_from_Ark May 2015 #52

Yeah, just look at the WTO ruling on the meat labeling. cui bono May 2015 #54

NAFTA made it easy for US manufacturing to relocate to Mexico brentspeak May 2015 #17

Do you think that WTO rules would not protect manufacturers in Mexico as they have pampango May 2015 #21

If you think that's bad... Art_from_Ark May 2015 #5

The EPI report is deeply flawed. The Congressional Research Service came out with okaawhatever May 2015 #7

Had never seen this before. Thanks for posting it. n/t pampango May 2015 #8

That CRS report is over ten years old brentspeak May 2015 #11

The EPI study, and the claims made in this "report" are laughable. A sixth grader can see the okaawhatever May 2015 #23

Except your report stops when the story would be bad for NAFTA. jeff47 May 2015 #18

No, the report dosn't get bad for NAFTA. I only picked out the parts that directly addressed okaawhatever May 2015 #36

Yes, it really does. jeff47 May 2015 #38

Having read several reports how jobs has been lost, I have not seen a sturdy which gives Thinkingabout May 2015 #29

You deal with those by looking at changes in trade between the countries. jeff47 May 2015 #40

These job losses was due to rechnology advancement, I rather think the Thinkingabout May 2015 #49

Right. That's how you exclude those losses from the analysis. (nt) jeff47 May 2015 #50

The screwjob so nice... they want to do it twice. AzDar May 2015 #10

And the TPP will be NAFTA cubed. Baitball Blogger May 2015 #13

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

HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!! WillyT May 2015 #22

Recent book with analysis of how NAFTA effected real ppl Spiggitzfan May 2015 #30

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

It will be nice when Mexico advances similar to us or Canada. North America will be a cool place Hoyt May 2015 #39

Have you ever been to Mexico? a la izquierda May 2015 #56

We must put Mr. and Mrs. Nafta back in the White House!!!!1111 bigwillq May 2015 #47

She won't take credit for that or the TPP . orpupilofnature57 May 2015 #51