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.
You can't answer that, can you?
Is this your way of admitting that Reagan lowered tariff rates?
It just kills these people that Reagan initiated NAFTA.
Cognitive dissonance alert.
You can't answer that, can you?
It's been answered 20 times but here goes once more: what CAFTA does is allow those products manufactured in the affected Central American countries to be flooded into the US with no fear for the American companies who relocate there for the cheap labor that there will be tariffs or any other form of retribution for doing so.
To be truthful if I was an American corporation tired of paying domestic workers a liveable wage I'd be in favor of the treaty also.
And where some of them speak spanish. I'm looking for better arguments.
It's quite understandable why you want to ignore the fundamental point given your posts, which was that Reagan was willing to set aside pure, fanatical Free Trade ideology to save American jobs. According to you in a previous post you thought any kind of retribution for dumping was protectionism and therefore evil. Well RR was evil wasn't he?
Sure it has. Right next to your information on real wages. That data is simply all over the place. [chuckle]
So give me a real argument if you have one.
He doesn't. I think he might be an automated response generator.
No what you're looking for is an agreeable audience who will rah rah to the loss of good paying American jobs to countries who are apparently incapable of building up their own economies without the help of the big sugar daddy Uncle Sam. I suspect you're not going to find much of that these days, including in Congress.
Wrong, tariffs as a policy should be used sparingly. In the past sometimes they have worked and sometimes not, however in the case of RR they did and proved my point that protectionism is not always evil and has its place when utilized properly.
Hmm.
It's quite sad that some here would use him as an example of someone who was against free trade.
Revisionist history from the right.
There's no exit door out of this global economy. Parts of the American economy will do well in it; other parts will not.
-----
In other words, assimilate or suffer the consequences.
You refuse to address questions about CAFTA specifically.
You have some vague misguided opinion that trade agreements are bad, probably based on some weird newsletter you get, but you can't articulate real reasons to oppose it.
I've really tried. But you won't answer direct questions.
It's been answered and you know it. Do you deny that with CAFTA American companies will be able to move to Central America for the cheap .90 an hour labor then flood our markets with those finished products and not fear any kind of tariffs or backlash for doing so?
US drops out of world's 10 freest economies list, says WSJ
China overtakes United States as top destination for foreign investment
China commits US$50b of investment to Caribbean, Latin region
CAFTA: The Expanding Trade Deficit with China by Another Name?
Has this not been made clear to you yet?
I really don't like repeating myself if it's clear that you can't understand the english language.
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.