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.
Here is a report of real declining wages in the US:
We currently impose no tariffs on goods imported from CAFTA countries, so there is nothing which prevents US jobs from moving there today or if CAFTA is defeated.
We can do that now.
So, how is your argument not the classic straw man one?
U R correct.
Gosh that sounds scary.
You don't have an important job like surgeon or air-traffic controller, do you?
Do I need to explain that wages falling in one quarter do not prove that wages have fallen since NAFTA?
Inflation rose 3.1 per cent in the year to March but salaries climbed just 2.4 per cent,
See, year to March means January, February and March of 2005. Maybe you have a link that shows real wages from 1994 until 2005?
Good luck, God bless.
So, how is your argument not the classic straw man one?
It's a strawman's argument? I don't suppose you're going to deny hundreds of plants have packed up and moved to Mexico thanks to NAFTA? This agreement is no different, American corporations will be allowed to move to Central America, utilize the cheap labor then flood the US with their products. It's quite understandable why the corporations are so in favor of these deals.
Like I said, your mind is made up on Free Trade. So links can be posted all day that demonstrate falling real wages and the loss of good paying jobs but when someone is in denial such as yourself then it becomes a waste of time.
Whatever it takes. Seriously.
Refer to post #227.
You posted a link to a hippy think tank and a link that showed wages fell in the 1st quarter. There have been over 40 quarters since NAFTA passed.
Listening to you post your feelings is the real waste of time.
This shows real wages since 1994. Please tell us how $7.60 in 1994 and $8.20 now proves that real wages have fallen. And no more hippy links. Try some conservative or government sources.
So go fetch one of those provisions or admit that it's a bogus argument.
Can't even see that $8.20 is higher than $7.60.
Yes they can relocate anywhere they want but there's no guarantee their products will be allowed to flood our markets without a penalty. The Free Trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA allow them to do just that without any backlash. Of course you knew that but it's easier to sell poison pills without pointing that out.
It's a constant source of amazement to me that the far left anti-capitalists like Ralph Nader have allies here at FR.
Here is someone who disagrees with you and offers facts to back it up.
"But what about wages? Ms. Collins mentioned that we had lost many high-paying jobs. But real hourly wages have risen since 1994 for all workers. For all workers, hourly wages rose 38.4% while the Consumer Price Index (CPI) just rose 27.1%, hence the real gain. For manufacturing jobs, hourly wages also rose more than prices, with a 34.1% gain. But a pre-NAFTA comparison is in order. From 1984-1994, hourly wages for all workers rose 33.5%, while the CPI rose 42.2%, indicating a fall in real wages. The same happened for manufacturing jobs with hourly wages rising only 33%, well under the rise in prices. So it looks like workers did better in the years after NAFTA went into effect than before."
Economists generally like trade since it allows each nation to specialize in the goods it can produce most efficiently. The increased output can be traded to other nations for their increased output. In that case, jobs move from one industry to another. For example, although we lost manufacturing jobs, we gained about 2 million construction jobs from 1994-2004, which paid well.In 2004, the average hourly wage for construction workers was $19.23. Construction wages also showed real gains from 1994-2004 while showing losses in the 1984-94 pre-NAFTA period.
Feel free to offer any sources that prove this guy wrong.
Hello? We have no tariffs on CAFTA country imports right now. How many times do I have to tell you that before you acknowledge it?
Hello, without a treaty if we wanted to impose them we could at anytime. It's that risk which makes companies think twice before relocating and dumping American workers.
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.