General Discussion

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

39. The specific jobs were gone anyways

Wed Jun 24, 2015, 10:01 AM

Jun 2015

Offshoring to Mexico started in the late 1970s and didn't particularly speed up after NAFTA.

I agree macro indicators aren't a great way of judging a deal, particularly with trade with Mexico being like 3% of GDP. But like you allude we don't have much on the specifics of displaced workers.

How many jobs were created by lower prices on imported goods? We don't know, but it's non-zero.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A simple question on the TPP [View all] edhopper Jun 2015 OP

What a fantastic question. Do you think anyone in the media will ask it of the President? guillaumeb Jun 2015 #1

I don't think anyone in the media edhopper Jun 2015 #2

Maybe if they want a new job or career? cascadiance Jun 2015 #4

It is additional training for new jobs. yallerdawg Jun 2015 #3

what happened to the auto plant he worked at for 30 years newfie11 Jun 2015 #7

It's edhopper Jun 2015 #8

Yeah but it doesn't do any good! Nt newfie11 Jun 2015 #10

Do you recall Americans stopped buying American cars? yallerdawg Jun 2015 #11

Many America jobs when out of this country newfie11 Jun 2015 #15

The machinist has a new, better paying job. yallerdawg Jun 2015 #18

I'd like to see the employment stats on all the people laid off with Michael Skittles Jun 2015 #19

Well I guess time will tell newfie11 Jun 2015 #21

Sounds like crap regurgitated from a US Chamber of Commerce talking points sheet. brentspeak Jun 2015 #41

You mean just make up shit... yallerdawg Jun 2015 #47

"Few unions" brentspeak Jun 2015 #56

I'm stating a fact. yallerdawg Jun 2015 #58

"I am a strong union advocate." brentspeak Jun 2015 #60

So it is all right to condemn the Democratic president we have? yallerdawg Jun 2015 #61

The really really fantastic part of the TAA is that IT TAKES MONEY OUT OF MEDICARE. djean111 Jun 2015 #5

The Democrats can vote it down. yallerdawg Jun 2015 #6

We can't take money from the MIC newfie11 Jun 2015 #9

That was my opposition to it Recursion Jun 2015 #28

There will always be displaced workers in these kinds of deals. DCBob Jun 2015 #12

I would like to know how much it's going to take from Medicare newfie11 Jun 2015 #16

people here edhopper Jun 2015 #13

Sure why not? NAFTA proved these agreements are wonderful and beneficial. nc4bo Jun 2015 #14

Name a metric by which workers are worse off today than 1993 Recursion Jun 2015 #26

You think edhopper Jun 2015 #33

Notice wages rose more after NAFTA than before Recursion Jun 2015 #35

You are praising edhopper Jun 2015 #36

Its much better than the 0% increase the 20 years previous Recursion Jun 2015 #37

Let's go back edhopper Jun 2015 #38

The specific jobs were gone anyways Recursion Jun 2015 #39

If I remember correctly, our textile industries were decimated as were our steel industries nc4bo Jun 2015 #51

I am on your side edhopper Jun 2015 #52

Sorry ed.....I think I replied in the wrong subthread......ugh nc4bo Jun 2015 #53

I have the same problem edhopper Jun 2015 #54

Apparently some do newfie11 Jun 2015 #17

the TPP pimps / swooners do Skittles Jun 2015 #20

Hahahahahahahahahaha newfie11 Jun 2015 #23

Yes. I'd definitely predict that Recursion Jun 2015 #25

Correlation is not causation edhopper Jun 2015 #27

The job destroying tech boom? Recursion Jun 2015 #29

Or edhopper Jun 2015 #34

Correlation provides some evidence of causation but is not proof by itself. Correlation does even pampango Jun 2015 #40

That isn't an echo. yallerdawg Jun 2015 #31

There is no trade policy - from free trade to Smoot-Hawley - in which an effective TAA is not needed pampango Jun 2015 #22

Because some jobs will be created and others destroyed Recursion Jun 2015 #24

Sure. brentspeak Jun 2015 #42

Not if it's like NAFTA was Recursion Jun 2015 #43

Yes, I've read your bull$hit on these forums brentspeak Jun 2015 #44

You should read those, since they agree with me Recursion Jun 2015 #45

Funny, none of those studies seem to "agree" with you brentspeak Jun 2015 #46

Because I've read their data tables and you clearly haven't Recursion Jun 2015 #49

Your posts keep getting more and more surreal brentspeak Jun 2015 #55

Inequality. QED. re: "Name a metric..." nt Romulox Jun 2015 #63

Not all trade is bad DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2015 #30

Opposing the TPP edhopper Jun 2015 #32

LOL. The US has massive agricultural subsidies for rice growers. You don't know much Romulox Jun 2015 #48

Non sequitur DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2015 #50

Looks like you got "owned" by a simple fact brentspeak Jun 2015 #57

This message was self-deleted by its author DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2015 #59

Nobody "owns" me in irl or on the "internets" DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2015 #62

LOL! nt Romulox Jun 2015 #64

Back at ya, pal. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2015 #65

I just like how you aren't letting facts slow you down. nt Romulox Jun 2015 #66

What facts? nt DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2015 #67

That's the spirit! nt Romulox Jun 2015 #68

I actually pity a person who needs to get on the internet and insult and patronize people. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2015 #69

LOL. nt Romulox Jun 2015 #70

What satisfaction do you get by insulting people from the anonymity of an internet connection? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2015 #71

Your point about free trade in rice was simply misinformed. Pointing that out isn't an insult. Romulox Jun 2015 #72

I never suggested there was free trade in rice, bananas, or anything... DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2015 #73