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.
Speaking of feelings, are you going to be sad when CAFTA fails in Congress as expected? I mean with all those socialists in the GOP voting no and all...
It's better to prevent American workers from selling stuff abroad because it might change the damn rain forest or something.
No way should we let Adam Smith's free markets have a chance. We should restrict people from getting what they want at a competitive price. And we'll make up all kinds of phony arguments to promote this claptrap.
I'm always sad when ignorance defeats wisdom.
You're the one who called for government to impose taxes on foods to reduce consumption. Are you still in favor of this?
must seek allies in Latin America to protect ourselves?
Who said that? Why do we need protection? What I'm saying is wouldn't it be better if we allowed goods now made in China, to be produced in our own back yard by countries with freely elected governments?
You are so concerned about China but will argue against a trade deal that will move production from China to our own hemisphere.
$19.23 p/h average for construction workers? You gotta be kidding me (I did check your link too) Run that over to a construction forum for a laugh.
I suspect Reaganwuzthebest is some sort of union hack.
I'd like to see your evidence for this assertion. You do have some, right?
As I said before we can post links going back and forth all day. The bottom line is many congressmen are voting no on CAFTA because they see with their own eyes the devastating effects of what NAFTA has had on their districts and not what some report tells them.
Feel free to link us to something that disproves the assertion.
The problem is you haven't posted any that prove your point.
Maybe they are, that's not the point. Is it the US government's job to encourage American companies to pack up and leave without the slightest bit of fear there will be retribution if they flood our markets and unfairly compete with domestic companies? That's what these so-called free trade agreements with third world countries are doing.
It's one thing to trade with those who have at least some economic par as you but quite another when the workers of the other countries make a fraction of what Americans do.
First of all if you're going to talk about someone it's polite to ping them to the conversation. But you knew that right?
No I'm not in a union and have nothing to do with them. I'm just one of those uppity conservatives who thinks we should have a middle class and the US government should not be in the business of getting rid of it for the sake of corporate greed.
Just can't prove to us exactly what and where all that devastation is, huh?
Ignorance in congress should come as no surprise.
Free trade agreements are a completely different matter. They don't address those issues.
Oh I'm sorry, what do you do for a living, if you don't mind telling us all?
Sure I'll tell you what I do, after you tell me you what your occupation is. And trust me, I won't be suprised if you're a spokesman for a large corporation that benefits from dumping American workers in favor of $5.00 a day employees.
I'm a financial analyst.
The US can outcompete China anyday. But if we allow our manufacturing base to continue to be drained away then I'm not so sure. It's all a race to the bottom at that point with China ending up as the largest low-wage country.
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.