News coming on the NAFTA Rail road along the super-corridor.

KCS company news ^ | Aug 30, 2007

[Exton1]

Check this out later this week, to hear about the NAFTA railroad.

For Immediate release:	For additional information contact:
August 30, 2007	William Galligan - 816-983-1551

KCS' Arthur L. Shoener to Address Morgan Keegan 2007 Equity Conference

/ /

Kansas City, Mo., August 30, 2007 - Kansas City Southern (KCS) (NYSE: KSU) president and chief operating officer, Arthur L. Shoener, will address the Morgan Keegan 2007 Equity Conference at approximately 12:15 p.m. Central Time on Thursday, September 6, 2007. Note the updated time.

Interested investors not attending the conference may listen to the presentation via a simultaneous webcast on KCS' website at www.kcsouthern.com. A link to the replay will be available for 7 days following the event. Presentation materials will also be available on the website.

Headquartered in Kansas City, Mo., KCS is a transportation holding company that has railroad investments in the U.S., Mexico and Panama. Its primary U.S. holding includes The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, serving the central and south central U.S. Its international holdings include Kansas City Southern de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., serving northeastern and central Mexico and the port cities of Lázaro Cárdenas, Tampico and Veracruz, and a 50 percent interest in Panama Canal Railway Company, providing ocean-to-ocean freight and passenger service along the Panama Canal. KCS' North American rail holdings and strategic alliances are primary components of a NAFTA Railway system, linking the commercial and industrial centers of the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

[Smokin' Joe]

One more reason to hold out for a non-CFR candidate for POTUS.

[papasmurf]

So do I.

I’m Praying he does. :)

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can say what you want about Perot, but that mousey little guy was right about that giant sucking sound called NAFTA.

Exactly! He said "NAFTA will cause a giant sucking sound as jobs go south" As this chart shows, he was right!

Skip Navigation Links		Latest Numbers
	U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics
	Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

	www.bls.gov		Advanced Search | A-Z Index
BLS Home | Programs & Surveys | Get Detailed Statistics | Glossary | What's New | Find It! In DOL

	Change Output Options:	From:		To:
	include graphs NEW!

Data extracted on: September 4, 2007 (10:56:29 AM)

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Series Id:     CES3000000001 Seasonally Adjusted Super Sector:  Manufacturing Industry:      Manufacturing NAICS Code:    N/A Data Type:     ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
1993	16790	16806	16795	16771	16766	16742	16742	16741	16768	16778	16800	16815
1994	16853	16862	16896	16932	16962	17011	17027	17082	17114	17144	17187	17218
1995	17259	17264	17263	17278	17260	17250	17218	17241	17246	17215	17207	17230
1996	17206	17229	17192	17204	17221	17226	17222	17255	17253	17268	17276	17285
1997	17298	17316	17339	17351	17362	17387	17387	17451	17466	17513	17555	17587
1998	17621	17627	17637	17636	17624	17607	17421	17564	17558	17512	17466	17449
1999	17426	17394	17368	17342	17333	17294	17319	17288	17281	17275	17283	17277
2000	17285	17285	17302	17299	17276	17297	17325	17287	17232	17215	17204	17181

 

Frequently Asked Questions | Freedom of Information Act | Customer Survey
Privacy & Security Statement | Linking to Our Site | Accessibility

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Postal Square Building 2 Massachusetts Ave., NE Washington, DC 20212-0001

Phone: (202) 691-5200 Do you have a Data question? Do you have a Technical (web) question? Do you have Other comments?

Just look at all the manufacturing jobs we lost in the 7 years after NAFTA.

[blackie]

Check this out!

[mysterio]

But why stop at the year 2000?

Not Seasonally Adjusted Super Sector: Manufacturing Industry: Manufacturing NAICS Code: N/A Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual, 1997,17184,17222,17268,17288,17355,17486,17351,17552,17550,17563,17597,17614,17419 1998,17511,17536,17568,17579,17607,17708,17405,17640,17632,17552,17503,17475,17560 1999,17325,17305,17303,17291,17316,17394,17303,17363,17335,17314,17316,17300,17322 2000,17179,17193,17236,17249,17262,17403,17319,17364,17278,17251,17227,17200,17263 2001,16993,16934,16870,16750,16646,16615,16392,16332,16185,16010,15847,15723,16441 2002,15475,15414,15375,15340,15335,15399,15273,15272,15195,15096,15010,14919,15259 2003,14744,14675,14654,14562,14556,14594,14432,14467,14420,14368,14339,14304,14510 2004,14171,14172,14220,14267,14337,14434,14370,14430,14386,14360,14331,14305,14315 2005,14141,14168,14200,14203,14246,14323,14250,14288,14234,14224,14218,14222,14226 2006,14094,14104,14141,14182,14209,14334,14261,14303,14255,14193,14152,14136,14197 2007,14010,14010,14024,14026,14059,14149(p),14088(p), , , , , ,

[Toddsterpatriot]

But why stop at the year 2000?

I thought the important thing about a giant sucking sound was the speed? If we didn't lose millions of manufacturing jobs in the first year or two after NAFTA, why would we lose them six or seven years later?

[RightWhale]

• right about that giant sucking sound called NAFTA

  That would explain how 30 million Mexicans came north looking for opportunity.

[mysterio]

I thought the important thing about a giant sucking sound was the speed?

You were incorrect.

If we didn't lose millions of manufacturing jobs in the first year or two after NAFTA, why would we lose them six or seven years later?

Because as with everything else, massive changes must be done incrementally or the population will revolt. If every company that was going to go south to use Mexican slave labor did so all at once, the PR disaster might have adversely impacted the bottom line.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because as with everything else, massive changes must be done incrementally or the population will revolt.

So there was no giant sucking sound. I'm glad we agree.

[Designer]

"The Republican candidate better pull his head out.."

I hate to be the one to tell you this, oh, DoughtyOne, but there is one, but only one, Republican candidate who actually is aware of the problem.

You know who he is.

[Designer]

"Sadly Gladly FReepers are waking up to the truth....but do we have a champion who can stop this????"

Yes, and you already know who he is.

[Designer]

"..NAFTA

That would explain how 30 million Mexicans came north looking for opportunity."

FYI: NAFTA is not what it seems, and has not helped the Mexicans anymore than it has "helped" us.

[mysterio]

Do you think corporations should be able to move to Mexico where there are no worker protections and very few pollution regulations and still export their goods to the US duty free?

Would you have us return to the manufacturing conditions of the US pre-Sinclair?

[nicmarlo]

fyi....

Note that the House vote was 234-200 and the Senate vote was 61-38. A treaty requires no House concurrence but does require the concurrence of 2/3s of the Senators "present." [U. S. Constitution - Article II; Section 2]. Two-thirds of the Senate present for the NAFTA vote did not concur. The Bill was passed but no treaty was authorized.

NAFTA is not a treaty.

"As law but not treaty, NAFTA can be altered or repealed with the simple passage of another law. So, when a Congress critter says that their hands are tied, that they are "bound" by NAFTA, it's likely a disingenuous argument. However, in the case that they are speaking out of ignorance, that they actually believe that NAFTA is a not easily altered treaty, then they should be reminded that NAFTA is simply law and that they have the power to create or change laws."

[Credit and thanks given to Colorado Buckeye for this information.]

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 103^rd Congress - 1^st Session

As compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R.3450)
Vote Number:	395	Vote Date:	November 20, 1993, 07:28 PM
Required For Majority:	1/2	Vote Result:	Bill Passed
Measure Number:	H.R. 3450
Measure Title:	A bill to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Vote Counts:	YEAs	61
	NAYs	38
	Not Voting	1

More details on Senate vote here: U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote:

U. S. House FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 575 (Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

      H R 3450      RECORDED VOTE      17-Nov-1993      10:36 PM
      QUESTION:  On Passage
      BILL TITLE: NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

	Ayes	Noes	PRES	NV
Democratic	102	156
Republican	132	43
Independent		1
TOTALS	234	200

More details on the House vote here: Final Vote Results for Roll Call 575

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you think corporations should be able to move to Mexico where there are no worker protections and very few pollution regulations

Do you think the government should be able to tell corporations where they can be located? Who they can hire?

and still export their goods to the US duty free?

NAFTA says they can, so why not?

Would you have us return to the manufacturing conditions of the US pre-Sinclair?

Manufacturing in America gets safer every year.

[nicmarlo]

What manufacturing in America? I think it’s gone down by at least 30% since NAFTA....and all the jobs went with it.

[Toddsterpatriot]

What manufacturing in America? I think it’s gone down by at least 30% since NAFTA....

You have any numbers to back up this assertion? Or are you guessing?

[nicmarlo]

You have any numbers to back up this assertion? Or are you guessing?

You mean how you categorically spout disinformation sans anything to back up all your opinions on every thread to which you post? No, I'm not like you, toad.

Information, as of 2004 (three years ago); it's likely even worse now:

The rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2004 has caused the displacement of production that supported 1,015,291 U.S. jobs since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993.

Jobs were displaced in every state and major industry in the United States. Two thirds of those lost jobs were in manufacturing industries. The proposed Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) duplicates the most important elements of NAFTA, and it will only worsen conditions for workers in the United States and throughout the hemisphere (Faux, Campbell, Salas, and Scott 2001). Since NAFTA took effect, the growth of exports supported approximately 1 million U.S. jobs, but the growth of imports displaced domestic production that would have supported 2 million jobs. Consequently, the growth of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada caused a net decline in U.S. production that would have supported about 1 million U.S. jobs.

Before adopting an agreement such as DR-CAFTA, it is important to understand the following about NAFTA's effect on U.S. jobs:

* The 1 million job opportunities lost nationwide are distributed among all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Those affected most in terms of total jobs displaced include: California (-123,995), Texas (-72,257), Michigan (-63,148), New York (-51,582), Ohio (-49,886), Illinois ( -47,701), Pennsylvania ( -44,173), Florida (-39,987), Indiana (-35,157), North Carolina ( -34,150), and Georgia (-30,464) (see Appendix Table A-1).

* The 10 hardest-hit states, as a share of total state employment, are: Michigan (-63,148, -1.44%), Indiana (-35,157, -1.19%), Mississippi (-11,630, -1.03%), Tennessee (-25,588, -0.94%), Ohio (-49,886, -0.92%), Rhode Island (-4,482, -0.91%), Wisconsin (-25,403, -0.90%), Arkansas (-10,321, -0.89%), North Carolina (-34,150, -0.89%), and New Hampshire (-5,502, -0.87%) (see Appendix Table A-2).

NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. No protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors and against workers and the environment, causing a hemispheric "race to the bottom" in wages and environmental quality.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You mean how you categorically spout disinformation sans anything to back up all your opinions on every thread to which you post?

You missed the facts I constantly post?

No, I'm not like you, toad.

No kidding. You're more like Oprah. All feelings, no facts.

The rise in the U.S. trade deficit

You're using EPI as a source? LOL! What's wrong, nothing good on the CPUSA website?

Now as interesting as your left wing source data about jobs may be, your claim was that manufacturing in America has gone down by at least 30% since NAFTA. You understand the difference between manufacturing output and manufacturing employment? Try again?

[mysterio]

Do you think the government should be able to tell corporations where they can be located?

I think they should be able to locate in Mexico or China if they want to, but they should pay tariffs to export the goods made with slave labor and no pollution controls back to America. If they want to go to Mexico and not pay slave wages and not dump raw industrial waste into the rivers down there, then sure, they should be able to export to the US with a lower or no tariff. The way the deck is stacked now, responsible corporations who pay workers fairly and abide by pollution controls are finding it harder to compete with corporations that increasingly move their production to slave labor nations like Mexico and China.

Who they can hire?

Absolutely. We do it right here in America when we don't let them hire illegal immigrant slave labor.

Manufacturing in America gets safer every year.

Exactly. That's why I think we should encourage manufacturers to stay in America.