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
In reply to the discussion: NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)38. Yes, it really does.
1. The Peso Crisis didn't have anything to do with the farmers. In fact, it happened the same year NAFTA went into effect, before there were agriculture issues.
It started the same year NAFTA went into effect.
Remember the bit about factories not instantly relocating? Macroeconomics isn't instant either.
2. Mexican farmers were given subsidies to help with the effects on NAFTA. Some $20 Billion dollars worth. Farm jobs were lost, that was expected and provisions were made to help them.
Those provisions were the subsidies. The subsidies weren't tied to keeping those workers employed.
3. Yes, the devaluation of the Peso led to companies moving there that hadn't planned to. But again, the Peso Crisis wasn't caused by NAFTA, and even without NAFTA the report finds that companies would have moved there anyway.
Then why work so hard to blame it on the peso crisis? If it truly was irrelevant, why bring it up?
Because it is relevant, and needs to be excused away.
The US has a boom, we added 22.5 MILLION new jobs in this country. When that happens demand increases. Demand for imports grew from every country.
First, that would be true if the US was the only booming country. Far from it.
Second, back in the "old days", we used to actually expand manufacturing in the US. I know, it's a weird thought that we could actually supply our own goods and services.
Mexico's goods were now cheaper than ever due to the Peso devaluation. Mexico had a deep recession losing almost 10% of its GDP. As a result, their imports decreased. The question is, was it a result of NAFTA? The answer is no see point #1.
Except you just declared the peso crisis irrelevant in #3. So which is it? Are you wrong in #1 or #3?
So NAFTA increased imports 9% and increased EXPORTS 15%,
Did you know going from $100B to $105B is a 5% increase? And going from $1 to $2 is a 100% increase?
In other words, the percentage increase alone is utterly meaningless. But it's a great statistic to throw out when you don't have an actual argument.
Note that the author of this article, Robert Scott, refers to job losses as a result of the "trade deficits with Mexico" and not NAFTA.
Because NAFTA has no effect on trade deficits with Mexico.
if a factory in Mexico makes $1 widgets to export to the US, then switches to making $10 wigets Americans have lost jobs. The number of imports hasn't changed, nor has a single American lost a job, but to him there is now a higher trade deficit and his methodology says that increased trade deficit means lost jobs. A sixth grader can see the logic fail there.
As with most NAFTA supporters, the logic fail is your own. As usual, you stop the analysis before it looks bad.
Where did the $10 widgets come from before they were made in Mexico? Most likely in this trade relationship, they were made in the US. And most likely, fewer $10 widgets were made before the factory moved to Mexico, because they were $20 widgets. Those US workers lost their jobs so that more $10 widgets could be made, and thus those workers bought fewer goods and services from businesses in their community. Causing other people to also lose their jobs - no one's buying pizza, so they don't need as many delivery guys.
Again, you can't stop the analysis when it starts to look bad.
Oh, you also forgot to talk about the benefits Canadian and Mexican companies have in the US that are not available to US companies due to NAFTA.
And that isn't surprising at all.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
56 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
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