Posted on 05/24/2005 7:08:18 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
It really matters where the jobs that Americans lose go. That's what CAFTA is about. It's not about destroying textile jobs in the Carolinas. They're history, anyway--if not this year, then in five years. CAFTA is about keeping work in our hemisphere that would otherwise go to China.
The Central American Free Trade Agreement would cut tariffs on commerce among the United States, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. The Dominican Republic, which is in the Caribbean, also wants to join.
Though President Bush is battling hard for the accord, some observers declare it all but dead. The generally pro-trade New Democrat Coalition has just jumped ship. But new Democrats should think again and back CAFTA. So should old Democrats.
Organized labor doesn't want to hear this defeatist talk about managing losses. That's understandable. But while labor has been dealt a bad hand, it still must play the cards. That means choosing the least bad of bad options.
Some labor critics point to NAFTA as a reason to shoot down CAFTA. The 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement covered the United States, Canada and Mexico. Foes of these accords note, for example, that there were 127,000 textile and apparel jobs in South Carolina before NAFTA. Now there are 48,000.
The truth is, the United States was bleeding these kinds of factory jobs decades before NAFTA. And it's unclear how large a part NAFTA has played in the years since.
Many of these jobs were not sucked down to Mexico but over to China and other Asian countries. And of the lost jobs that can be traced to Mexico, how many would have simply gone to China instead, had it not been for NAFTA? Even Mexico has seen factories move to China.
Labor-intensive industries in America continue to fight a hopeless war against competitors paying pennies-an-hour wages. The futility of it all can be seen in the following numbers, provided by A.T. Kearney, a consulting firm:
It costs $135 to make 12 pairs of cotton trousers in the United States. It costs $57 to make the trousers in China and ship them here. It costs $69 to do so in other parts of the world.
In this business, the United States is clearly out of the running. But many low-wage countries are still contenders with China--especially if they can ship their products here tariff-free.
Americans would be better off if their imports came from Managua, rather than Guangdong. After all, our Latin neighbors are more likely to buy the things we have to sell. That's why farmers producing beef, pork and corn are all for these treaties. So are U.S. companies that make machinery, especially for construction.
Then there are foreign-policy considerations. CAFTA partners would include very poor countries with fragile democracies. More trade with the United States could stabilize them--and reduce the pressures on their people to come here illegally. And if the workers make more money, they'll be able to buy more American goods.
Some Democrats argue that these poor countries compete by exploiting their workers. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., for example, opposes the accord because, he says, "the basic rights of working people in Central America are systematically repressed."
He has it backward. Economic desperation creates the conditions for oppression. Workers are strongest where jobs are plentiful. CAFTA could empower workers and lift them from grinding poverty.
Rather than protect jobs that will eventually leave America, labor and its Democratic allies should protect the people who lose them. Trade Adjustment Assistance is a federal program that offers financial help and training for Americans who lose jobs because of imports.
Democrats complain that the program is underfunded, and they are right. So why not make more money for Trade Adjustment Assistance a bargaining chip to win support for CAFTA?
There's no exit door out of this global economy. Parts of the American economy will do well in it; other parts will not. Free trade in the Americas is about joining with our neighbors in a common defense against China's growing power. Those are the true stakes, and fighting futile battles will only distract us from what matters.
I'm surprised he can take the time off from his lawn mowing and hedge trimming to post here. Maybe he has a crew of illegals working for him.....
Maybe he has a federally-subsidized SBA loan?
More like a federally-subsidized BS loan.
You do understand that your body doesn't know the difference between table sugar or any other carbohydrate. They all end up as glucose and can make you fat if you consume too much and don't exercise.
Are you saying we should tax all carbohydrates like bread, pasta, potatoes, cereal, rice, honey, etc. so people don't eat too much of them and become fat?
Nuts are loaded with both fat and starch. I'll bet you really want a big tax on peanuts so we stop all the deleterious effects consuming them can cause. Milk is also high in sugar. Should we tax it more to reduce consumption?
Just where does your "do gooding" end?
More proof that a small amount of knowledge in a particular area is very dangerous.
More government intervention being advocated by protectionists masquerading as conservatives.
Resulting in the notion that Google is a substitute for critical or serious thought. Is Karl Rove gay? Type in rove+gay. Voila! Proof!
Still didn't read the articles I see. I suppose it really doesn't matter though. As long as they disagree with you they'll just be labeled as liars.
May I remind you that American children got hepatitis from Mexican strawberries and that American citizens died from ingesting Mexican green onions?
Yeah, no American ever died from food borne illness before Mexican produce was imported.
I suppose the ground beef that killed those kids at Jack in the Box years ago was also imported from Mexico? No, wait. It was domestic beef that was responsible for that. Imagine that.
You have made it abundantly clear that you will only believe what you want to believe, facts notwithstanding. Now I know why we get so precious few of them from you.
The source was Mexico. The cause was use of sewage to irrigate row crops which is legal in Mexico.
If you read the NAFTA you will see that food safety standards are considered a "barrier to trade".
Oh, quit the BS.
Source? I am curious, really.
Absolutely correct. Bottom line is, even with the dramatic increase in imported food, our food supply has never been safer.
I'm just waiting for someone to claim that it's the illegals in the restaurants who are responsible for such contaminations. It's got to be them, free trade, WalMart or Bush.
Standards providing more protection to consumers or public health can be challenged as unfair barriers to trade before dispute resolution panels established by both NAFTA and the WTO.
Care to name one?
THANKS.
Prayer and walking as closely with God as we can manage are increasingly crucial, essential and life or death habits, issues in our era . . . imho.
Raw sewage in Mexico was the cause. You are throwing out red herrings to protect the globalists.
Again, I'm simply interested if you are speculating, because my understanding is that the PA Dept. of Health and the FDA were unable to determine to source of the contamination. If you have the info., please provide it.
Oh, no.
We're not seeing a lowered standard of living. We're just seeing record bankruptcies, a nonexistent savings rate, record time between jobs, and if the unemployment rate were really 5%, Bush would have been reelected in a landslide.
Don't forget record household net worth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.