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: Congress is about to pass a bill they KNOW will cost American jobs. Obama is for this loss of jobs, [View all]Elwood P Dowd
(11,453 posts)64. Let's see what a progressive site says.
http://www.epi.org/publication/nafta-legacy-growing-us-trade-deficits-cost-682900-jobs/
NAFTAs Legacy Growing U.S. Trade Deficits Cost 682,900 Jobs
By Robert E. Scott | December 17, 2013
Former President Bill Clinton claimed that NAFTA would create an export boom to Mexico that would create 200,000 jobs in two years and a million jobs in five years, many more jobs than will be lost due to rising imports. The economic logic behind his argument was clear: Trade creates new jobs in exporting industries and destroys jobs when imports replace the output of domestic firms. Fast forward 20 years and its clear that things didnt work out as Clinton promised. NAFTA led to a flood of outsourcing and foreign direct investment in Mexico. U.S. imports from Mexico grew much more rapidly than exports, leading to growing trade deficits, as shown in the Figure. Jobs making cars, electronics, and apparel and other goods moved to Mexico, and job losses piled up in the United States, especially in the Midwest where those products used to be made. By 2010, trade deficits with Mexico had eliminated 682,900 good U.S. jobs, most (60.8 percent) in manufacturing.
Claims by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that NAFTA trade has created millions of jobs are based on disingenuous accounting, which counts only jobs gained by exports but ignores jobs lost due to growing imports. The U.S. economy has grown in the past 20 years despite NAFTA, not because of it. Worse yet, production workers wages have suffered in the United States. Likewise, workers in Mexico have not seen wage growth. Job losses and wage stagnation are NAFTAs real legacy.
.948
NAFTAs Legacy Growing U.S. Trade Deficits Cost 682,900 Jobs
By Robert E. Scott | December 17, 2013
Former President Bill Clinton claimed that NAFTA would create an export boom to Mexico that would create 200,000 jobs in two years and a million jobs in five years, many more jobs than will be lost due to rising imports. The economic logic behind his argument was clear: Trade creates new jobs in exporting industries and destroys jobs when imports replace the output of domestic firms. Fast forward 20 years and its clear that things didnt work out as Clinton promised. NAFTA led to a flood of outsourcing and foreign direct investment in Mexico. U.S. imports from Mexico grew much more rapidly than exports, leading to growing trade deficits, as shown in the Figure. Jobs making cars, electronics, and apparel and other goods moved to Mexico, and job losses piled up in the United States, especially in the Midwest where those products used to be made. By 2010, trade deficits with Mexico had eliminated 682,900 good U.S. jobs, most (60.8 percent) in manufacturing.
Claims by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that NAFTA trade has created millions of jobs are based on disingenuous accounting, which counts only jobs gained by exports but ignores jobs lost due to growing imports. The U.S. economy has grown in the past 20 years despite NAFTA, not because of it. Worse yet, production workers wages have suffered in the United States. Likewise, workers in Mexico have not seen wage growth. Job losses and wage stagnation are NAFTAs real legacy.
.948
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
115 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
Congress is about to pass a bill they KNOW will cost American jobs. Obama is for this loss of jobs, [View all]
grahamhgreen
Jun 2015
OP
Complicated chess moves. I believe that's what it's called with a side order of kabuki..
nc4bo
Jun 2015
#2
It was also argued that older workers would be affected the most. Provide training for 40+ year old
nc4bo
Jun 2015
#10
Saddest thing is that they laugh at him, while he thinks they respect him:(
grahamhgreen
Jun 2015
#9
He will laugh at them as he rides down the Yellow Brick Road of post-presidential riches.
hifiguy
Jun 2015
#62
Obama's early '07 campaign rhetoric included "Corporations have too much power." Look what happened.
Auggie
Jun 2015
#11
What will the people do who lose their health care benefits if TAA passes?
grahamhgreen
Jun 2015
#45
No way to create jobs in America? Really? No way. Jobs are leaving, get over it? Who RU voting for?
grahamhgreen
Jun 2015
#73
Because they KNOW there will be jobs lost. Beyond that they are counting on wage depression.
onecaliberal
Jun 2015
#24
Because overall good in the long term doesn't mean good for everybody in the short term
mythology
Jun 2015
#42
They don't. They just see Obama and assume that it's bad. Question: Do people honestly believe that
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jun 2015
#32
No. We cannot agree. I don't agree. I don't believe that he's a dumb or evil man who
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jun 2015
#52
Perhaps. And I STILL blame Clinton for the jobs mess we're in. However, I have faith in this preside
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jun 2015
#113
I believe Elizabeth Warren in this battle, and Bernie Sanders. Both were vehemently opposed, as
peacebird
Jun 2015
#84
No, like most of the party he thinks this will cause a net jobs gain like NAFTA did
Recursion
Jun 2015
#87
We've lost 60,000 factories - FACTORIES - since the last costly trade deal. thats a lot of jobs
grahamhgreen
Jun 2015
#48
Labor has always been cheaper in some other countries, yet we kept our jobs here. Do you know how?
grahamhgreen
Jun 2015
#46
If you have tons of green to educate yourself for the higher-end "services", that is.
HughBeaumont
Jun 2015
#104
Wrong. Hillary recently said that she was not in favor of passing the fast track
pnwmom
Jun 2015
#47
I don't know what she thinks now, since it got cloture (with some help from Pelosi.) This is what
pnwmom
Jun 2015
#51
They have no respect for honesty. The appearance of honesty is seen as a tool.
Enthusiast
Jun 2015
#58
I wonder what happened in 2001. Manufacturing jobs fell off a cliff after 2000. Only recently,
pampango
Jun 2015
#92
Damn! PNTR! I should have known it was the fault of a Democratic and not a republican president.
pampango
Jun 2015
#101
Why are acting as if its just us here at DU when its also our Democratic leaders saying the same?
RiverLover
Jun 2015
#91
The majority of Dems in the House & the Senate voted against Fast Tracking trade deals
RiverLover
Jun 2015
#95