OPINION & EDITORIAL
NAFTA not making the grade
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- GOP: Give credit where credit is due (March 6, 2008)
- SAFE bet: Smathers neglects need (March 5, 2008)
- You call this a Union? (March 4, 2008)
- Abuse claims overblown (February 29, 2008)
- ASM should emulate UW-Milwaukee government (February 29, 2008)
Related Stories:
- No need to nix NAFTA (March 5, 2008)
- NAFTA detrimental to Mexican economy (October 31, 2003)
- Obama's corporate crush (March 5, 2008)
- Scapegoating immigrants (April 15, 2005)
- Democrats slow to fight for progress (November 15, 2006)
by Letters to the Editor
Friday, March 7, 2008
In response to “No Need to Nix NAFTA,” March 5, by Nathan Braun:
I came away surprised at Mr. Braun’s reasoning for supporting the unpopular agreement, but it was the conclusion that NAFTA was good for the United States that, frankly, required a rebuttal because of how terribly false it was.
The contention of many NAFTA backers was that any job loss would be made up with increased U.S. exports to Mexico. Sounded great, only the idea was untested, as it would be the first time in which three nations with sizable differences in development, economies and legal and environmental standards attempted to integrate. It was not similar to the European Union trade policy, in which nations invested heavily in their less developed neighbors and insisted they meet common standards for trade and the environment, creating a balanced playing field for the continent. NAFTA attempted to do this type of integration on the cheap, while ignoring the planning and social investment that Europe has used to ensure success in all nations involved.
This may explain the undermining of environmental and labor rights that nearly derailed NAFTA from the beginning. Groups such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace opposed the agreement, as it would allow manufacturers to get away from protection laws by exporting operations to Mexico. Furthermore, corporately funded groups like the Natural Resource Defense Council feared that the U.S. and Canada would have to abandon environmental laws, as corporations would now be able to challenge them as “unfair barriers to trade.”
The fears of these groups came to fruition. In a 2003 study, the Economic Policy Institute found that NAFTA has simply not been kind to the environment. Pollution from diesel trucks in the border region, the decrease of Mexican environmental protection spending by 45 percent, as well as clear-cutting of tropical forests for struggling farmers trying to remain competitive has left a definite mark on the earth.
What is even more concerning is that people are forced to adjust to something that has been so detrimental to their livelihoods and their employers. More than 500,000 American workers were certified for the NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance program for losing jobs because of outsourcing. Since many workers didn’t participate or were not eligible for the program, it’s safe to say the number is significantly higher, due to the fact that even when it covered someone in an aircraft engine plant, it didn’t cover parts suppliers or restaurants who depended on its existence.
These losses may have been acceptable had better paying jobs been created, immigration been controlled or environmental standards been created. In fact, in the same 2003 study by the EPI, NAFTA was found to have caused 879,000 more job losses than gains, as well as the demise of industry giant Bethlehem Steel. NAFTA is also responsible for the current health care crises in the auto industry, especially with General Motors.
Don’t be fooled by Mr. Braun’s assertion that Democrats are beholden to NAFTA since it was President Clinton who signed the agreement. Majority Leader Dick Gephardt and Majority Whip David Bonior — along with many Democrats, Ross Perot supporters and even protectionist Republicans — opposed the agreement.
I hope Mr. Braun and the leading presidential candidates can realize how much of a disaster this trade agreement has been for our country.
Michael M. Johnson
MATC Sophomore, political science and social welfare
theidealvoice@gmail.com
Anonymous (March 7, 2008 @ 7:43am):
Heavily protectionist policies do not create or increase wealth. Do you really think that the US economy would be better off had we protected the New England textile factories for example? The simple fact of the matter is that change happens. We do not live in the same economy as our parents. However, it is also easier than ever to acquire new skills to change careers if one were to be displaced as a result of operations going to a different location. People should start realizing that there is no such thing as an "American" job. If you cant perform the duties of a job better, faster, and/or cheaper than somewhere else in the world, the work will go there. We are not entitled to anything! We have to work harder, faster, smarter, cheaper, and better than the competition (i.e. low cost labour in foreign countries) if we want to keep jobs here.
Anonymous (March 7, 2008 @ 9:05am):
When you get into UW-Madison, maybe we'll considering listening to you. Until then, please write all of your editorials to your schools paper or lack thereof.
-
Germaine Z. Stemme
Anonymous (March 7, 2008 @ 9:56am):
Repeal the 16th ammendment and make the federal government live off of import duties and excise taxes.
Mercantilism for the new Millenium!
The infrastructure required to suppress smuggling would also serve to reduce illegal immegration and infiltration of terrorists. Expand the Navy and the Coast Guard!
Speak softly and carry a big stick!
Beware of foreign entanglements!
Anonymous (March 7, 2008 @ 10:59am):
which is why "Gary Clyde Hufbauer, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, estimates that 90 percent of the people in his profession regard the accord (NAFTA) as a good thing." (from the Chicago Tribume, Feb 28)
Anonymous (March 7, 2008 @ 11:37am):
But then "economist" is not one of the jobs exported to other countries.
Michael Johnson (March 7, 2008 @ 1:34pm):
And when you write your article, then maybe people will listen to you, Stemme. But I hear only real people can write and not the automated message of the blogosphere. MATC does have it's own paper, it's called the Clarion. Maybe if you stop being an elitist, and read it you would have more than just a comment section as your only friend.
To everyone else, even the most optimistic econimists only contributes 1 percent of the U.S. overall economic health. As the EU has showed us, there is a way to have open trade and not ruin people's lives like NAFTA has done. It's hard to say people can switch careers with ease, when they have to pay bills, feed themselves and put kids through college. If only the U.S. invested in the kind of retraining people needed but they don't. If low labor costs means increased immigration issues, a sub standard enviornment, and spite for labor, then you can have it.
Finally, in regards to the ivory tower economists who believe NAFTA is good thing, maybe they should ask the people effected by it. As Lane Kirkland, president of the AFL-CIO said to former Harvard professor and Cllinton Sec of Labor, Robert Reich, "NAFTA is a f**king dis-as-ter. Even a Harvard professor ought to understand that".
Anonymous (March 7, 2008 @ 6:14pm):
What about the impact that the increase in efficiency and technology has had on the manufacturing sector? The EPI study fails to take this into account. For many years now the production of the US manufacturing sector has increased while the number of people employed in manufacturing as a percentage of the workforce has declined.
Anonymous (March 7, 2008 @ 6:20pm):
Thanks Michael, for having the ability to figure out which economists have their assessment of NAFTA clouded by ivory tower elitism. Without you I never would have been able to figure out that all the anti-NAFTA economists you cite, like the ones at the EPI, are actually in touch with real people and that the opinions of any economist who believes NAFTA was good are just part of the evil corporate conspiracy to outsource all of our jobs to Mexico and destroy the lives of average Americans.
Anonymous (March 7, 2008 @ 6:40pm):
Here you have the Most politically ignorant and non-democratic (the political structure, not the party) student comment of 2008:
"When you get into UW-Madison, maybe we'll considering listening to you. Until then, please write all of your editorials to your schools paper or lack thereof.
-
Germaine Z. Stemme"
What a snob...
Toast . (March 7, 2008 @ 7:28pm):
The idea that you can analyze the job losses caused by NAFTA is silly. There are so many other factors that are so intertwined into job creation that putting a number on the impact of any one factor is impossible. First of all the number of jobs created and destroyed in the US each year is in excess of 15 million meaning that the not even a million you claim NAFTA has cost us over 14 years pales in comparison. Also, the Federal Reserve's manipulation of the economy takes into account unemployment and inflation and then adjusts rates accordingly. If suddenly the unemployment rate were to drop because all the jobs you claim NAFTA has cost us were put back into the economy then the Fed would act accordingly in order to control inflation or something of that nature. Unemployment has been at about 5% since NAFTA which is what the Fed trys to keep it at.
Michael Johnson (March 7, 2008 @ 9:17pm):
6:12-Couldn't all those changes be made within the confines of labor and enviornmentaal standards. It don't see companies like Toyota finding themselves in these messes. They invest in themseleves because people like quality products, and they respond to that need. However a company like Saturn builds cars on the cheap in Mexico, and they fall apart. More importantly, much of this efficiency comes from automation. At some point we will have to consider the negatives of leaving in a market economy, but all our jobs can be done by computers. Secondly, if the state provided benefits(like health care) cost would go down. Your average car price has anywhere from 1000 to 3000 dollars included simply for health care benefits.
6:20-Seeing how a number of companies, and funded groups to rally against it, proves that no conspiracy theory is needed. Some companies liked it, a lot however, didn't and made that know to the White House. However, for those that did, one could only wonder why, instead of blaming labor for costs, they made better products that Americans would buy. Toyota seems to get this logic, sell good products, and the customers will make the company wealth.
Toast-the Labor Dept was in charge of the NAFTA-TAA and thats how they kept track. Since no mandate existed to promote it's existence, its safe to say, a lot of people lost jobs but didn't report it. More importantly, let's not look simply at employment rates, but the type of jobs people had to take after NAFTA. No matter the unemployment rate, going from 22 dollars an hr, to say 12 dollars after NAFTA is not a sign of progress, it's a sign of failure. If the job you did for years leaves, and only similar, but lower paying jobs remain, you may get a new job, but it will be harder to survive. Clinton promised a million jobs in 5 years, it was more like 400,000.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
