Nope, I don't blame NAFTA. I blame Bill Clinton for signing it into law.
18
Nocera is curious. Nine times out of ten, I nod along with him: yes Joe, you are so right, um-hmm, that IS wrong, etc. But then comes that tenth column, like this one, and I want to just throttle the guy.
Joe! You are lost in the weeds sir. Keep it simple. Good paying jobs are better than low paying jobs. We outsourced a massive number of good paying jobs in exchange for lower paying jobs, some marginally lower prices, and a large swath of America’s cities and towns reduced to a rust belt. All so that the already rich could become even richer (and trickle down onto the rest of us). It was a very bad bargain for America. Outsourcing of jobs must be stopped, and reversed. Ergo TPP and its ilk must be stopped, and reversed.
You want to restore a strong and vibrant America? Then bring back a buy-American ethos. Let’s create the incentives to bring back all our manufacturing and let’s make all our own stuff here at home once more, and then yes, let’s trade with the world, selling our excess output and importing those additional items we don’t make or make enough of. But no more hollowing out of America.
Joe! You are lost in the weeds sir. Keep it simple. Good paying jobs are better than low paying jobs. We outsourced a massive number of good paying jobs in exchange for lower paying jobs, some marginally lower prices, and a large swath of America’s cities and towns reduced to a rust belt. All so that the already rich could become even richer (and trickle down onto the rest of us). It was a very bad bargain for America. Outsourcing of jobs must be stopped, and reversed. Ergo TPP and its ilk must be stopped, and reversed.
You want to restore a strong and vibrant America? Then bring back a buy-American ethos. Let’s create the incentives to bring back all our manufacturing and let’s make all our own stuff here at home once more, and then yes, let’s trade with the world, selling our excess output and importing those additional items we don’t make or make enough of. But no more hollowing out of America.
32
Those jobs were destroyed by Democrats Bradley and Gephart in 1986. Their bill INCREASED TAXES on new investments in jobs-creating manufacturing equipment.
Then they extended the tax write-off -- how long it takes to get your own money back -- from 8 years to 16-18 years. All our trade competitors are FIVE years, but never underestimate the power of "closing corporate loopholes" to justify stupidity. So the world's highest corporate tax rates are actually less damaging to manufacturing.
Capital-intensive jobs are among our best-paid union jobs, destroyed. Do the math. Destroying our best-paid jobs ALONE was the largest factor in stagnant AVERAGE wages for a quarter century. If only one person must replace a $70,000 job with a $20,000 job, average wages decrease, share of income by the rich increases ...even if nothing else changes.
Now, the President has pushed for "expensing" (instant write-offs) for manufacturing investments ... but only for small business. Decide for yourself how many well-paid union jobs are provided by smaller manufacturers?
(The Investment Credit was Kennedy's solution to 16 years of economic misery, 1945-1961. The "accelerated depreciation" was Reagan's, when Japan had threatened our entire industrial base. )
So Bradley and Gephart put manufacturers back to the immediate postwar years, where we had collapsed from the only industrial base still standing to (see JFK's 1961 SOTU) "among the lowest in economic growth."
Then they extended the tax write-off -- how long it takes to get your own money back -- from 8 years to 16-18 years. All our trade competitors are FIVE years, but never underestimate the power of "closing corporate loopholes" to justify stupidity. So the world's highest corporate tax rates are actually less damaging to manufacturing.
Capital-intensive jobs are among our best-paid union jobs, destroyed. Do the math. Destroying our best-paid jobs ALONE was the largest factor in stagnant AVERAGE wages for a quarter century. If only one person must replace a $70,000 job with a $20,000 job, average wages decrease, share of income by the rich increases ...even if nothing else changes.
Now, the President has pushed for "expensing" (instant write-offs) for manufacturing investments ... but only for small business. Decide for yourself how many well-paid union jobs are provided by smaller manufacturers?
(The Investment Credit was Kennedy's solution to 16 years of economic misery, 1945-1961. The "accelerated depreciation" was Reagan's, when Japan had threatened our entire industrial base. )
So Bradley and Gephart put manufacturers back to the immediate postwar years, where we had collapsed from the only industrial base still standing to (see JFK's 1961 SOTU) "among the lowest in economic growth."
6
Thank-you Mr. Mulroney,
Go Canada Go!
Go Canada Go!
Oh joe, you forgot to mention the trade adjustment part of the deal that Acknowledges US job losses and you forgot to mention the job losses and trade deficit that the bilateral trade deal with S. Korea have delivered in just a couple of years. You also forgot to mention the race to slave labor American corps dig so much. What is the hourly pay in vietnam? And how's about them corps suing governments for damages in secret arbitration tribunals run by corporate shills if they don't like our financial, labor, food safety, labelling, or environmental laws? I could go on and on...big pharma, sopa, outlawing buy local, etc
, etc., etc., etc......a wish list for corporate vultures. Stop the TPP, TAFTA, and TSA.
, etc., etc., etc......a wish list for corporate vultures. Stop the TPP, TAFTA, and TSA.
19
Sorry Joe NAFTA killed jobs in this country. You grossly downplayed what you highlighted as NAFTA's one mistake "taking out workers rights and environmental protections" so there was no level playing field. Need you be reminded of the factory in Sri Lanka as one startling example.
As to China we removed our tariffs and trade barriers, the final nail in the coffin. If you do not protect your own no one else will. TPP will just be another disaster for US industries and US jobs.
As to China we removed our tariffs and trade barriers, the final nail in the coffin. If you do not protect your own no one else will. TPP will just be another disaster for US industries and US jobs.
10
"She told me about all the jobs lost at Kodak. “I think Nafta brought down Kodak,” she said. But of course it didn’t. Kodak’s problems came about because digital photography made film unnecessary and Kodak didn’t shift course in time. She was blaming Nafta for Kodak’s self-inflicted wounds."
I agree with you, yet, we all know the algorithms used in an digital age need tweaked because one can find zealots in both religious and secular sects. We hold those the youngest among us accountable. Maybe they can help tweak adult accountability.
I agree with you, yet, we all know the algorithms used in an digital age need tweaked because one can find zealots in both religious and secular sects. We hold those the youngest among us accountable. Maybe they can help tweak adult accountability.
1
One of the essential elements of globalization is accessing cheaper labor. Or in other terms: increasing profits at the expense of those who make the things that are sold. Mr. Nocera pray tell what is good about that? Any trade agreement that facilitates this process contributes to increasing profits at the expense of those who make those things! Pray tell how is that good? Experience has shown that globalization lays waste to the working class, surely you don't think that is good! Do you Mr. Nocera?
9
Plenty of smart people understand exactly what is going on, and what has been going on with trade for the last 30 years. They should try driving through the little towns in America where blue-collar workers a generation ago had decent jobs, and now those workers' unemployed sons are watching tv and smoking meth.
What I resent is that so many of our leaders are spending all their time and efforts making sure that the 1% make more and more money, and so few are trying to save our country.
What I resent is that so many of our leaders are spending all their time and efforts making sure that the 1% make more and more money, and so few are trying to save our country.
18
This is as obtuse as Mr. Nocera's support of fracking. All things considered, the downside of the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership far outweighs the upside for most American businesses and workers.
9
Back in 1994 I wrote an opinion regarding NAFTA - "Not A Favor To Americans."
Unfortunately, it's truer now than it was then.
[email protected]
Unfortunately, it's truer now than it was then.
[email protected]
5
Back with ye to the business pages Joe. Where your continuing pro-business and pro-carbon based energy columns would be much better received.
12
As a victim of the demise of the textile industry I can point to lower wages in Mexico and cheaper cotton prices overseas as a draw caused by NAFTA. No trade advocating loonie will convince Pennsyvania's once giant and prosperous industry otherwise.
36
Joe,
American workers have not been served well by global trade. The main protection, the price of goods, has undercut American manufacturers. We subjected our manufacturers to wage competition on thousands of goods & our workers have not fared well. The record is clear that the American standard of living has been in decline. The principal evidence is in the type of work & stagnant wages that now prevail in the United States. Our kids are offered a shopkeeper nation. Maybe, it is our destiny to lose in global competition but it does cause one to wonder what patriotism is all about.
Since, now a great job is serving in the all-volunteer force or in government, with jobs in public safety & teaching but wages are not the greatest. Most of our elites seem to land good positions in government or in post government service as lobbyists, This, of course, is a good business in the Washington area. BUT, I think the critics of the TPP & the record of performance on trade should be brought more into the debate.
I have observed at close hand the treatment of Drs. James Powell & Gordon Danby, the INVENTORS of superconducting Maglev, which our government did not support due to new Luddism. The Powell & Danby story, see the Fight for Maglev, is an example of what is wrong with our system. We have a chance to lead the World but another country like Japan, Germany can invest in HSR equipment & capture the US market. Like Senator Sanders, I feel, it just does not make sense.
American workers have not been served well by global trade. The main protection, the price of goods, has undercut American manufacturers. We subjected our manufacturers to wage competition on thousands of goods & our workers have not fared well. The record is clear that the American standard of living has been in decline. The principal evidence is in the type of work & stagnant wages that now prevail in the United States. Our kids are offered a shopkeeper nation. Maybe, it is our destiny to lose in global competition but it does cause one to wonder what patriotism is all about.
Since, now a great job is serving in the all-volunteer force or in government, with jobs in public safety & teaching but wages are not the greatest. Most of our elites seem to land good positions in government or in post government service as lobbyists, This, of course, is a good business in the Washington area. BUT, I think the critics of the TPP & the record of performance on trade should be brought more into the debate.
I have observed at close hand the treatment of Drs. James Powell & Gordon Danby, the INVENTORS of superconducting Maglev, which our government did not support due to new Luddism. The Powell & Danby story, see the Fight for Maglev, is an example of what is wrong with our system. We have a chance to lead the World but another country like Japan, Germany can invest in HSR equipment & capture the US market. Like Senator Sanders, I feel, it just does not make sense.
27
This opinion lacks empathy for the American worker. It's too bad.
We need columnists who are young enough to still feel the pain and anguish of earning a living...to feed a family.
We need columnists who are young enough to still feel the pain and anguish of earning a living...to feed a family.
16
Bemoaning the loss of dull, repetitive manufacturing jobs in the Electronic/Automation Age is like bemoaning the loss of 40-acres-and-a-mule jobs in the Industrial Era. When production technology changes, so too does the occupational distribution of the labor force. Before the industrial revolution, about 90% of the labor force was occupied in farming. The mechanization of agriculture reduced that ratio to around 2%.
Rather than attempting to cling to outmoded means of production and their corresponding jobs, we should be training the work force to perform services compatible with the new technology. At the height of the Industrial Age between 1940-1980, who would have imagined such jobs as video-game and web designers, molecular biologists, optical fiber cable layers, and myriad other jobs related to the conceptualization, design and production of Electronic Age products permeating markets today, none of which existed as recently as 35 years ago.
And for those who raise the objection that not everybody can aspire to high-tech jobs, consider that every high-tech job supports a multitude of low-tech jobs (like truck driver, barber, waiter, bank teller). So the task at hand is to educate and train those who can perform jobs compatible with advancing technology.
As for manufacturing, the factories we should aspire to will be operated by a man and a dog. The man is there to feed the dog. The dog is there to keep the man from touching anything.
Rather than attempting to cling to outmoded means of production and their corresponding jobs, we should be training the work force to perform services compatible with the new technology. At the height of the Industrial Age between 1940-1980, who would have imagined such jobs as video-game and web designers, molecular biologists, optical fiber cable layers, and myriad other jobs related to the conceptualization, design and production of Electronic Age products permeating markets today, none of which existed as recently as 35 years ago.
And for those who raise the objection that not everybody can aspire to high-tech jobs, consider that every high-tech job supports a multitude of low-tech jobs (like truck driver, barber, waiter, bank teller). So the task at hand is to educate and train those who can perform jobs compatible with advancing technology.
As for manufacturing, the factories we should aspire to will be operated by a man and a dog. The man is there to feed the dog. The dog is there to keep the man from touching anything.
3
The TTP is simply Obama's latest and probably last nod to big capital. The bank bail out being his opening shot. These agreements are not about trade. We've had international trade since we were a colony, but we also had laws that restricted the influx of capital and capital goods from other countries. These "protectionist"policies helped home grown industry to prosper and survived in various forms until the advent of finance capital as America's new engine of growth.
And it has produced growth. All economic indicators point to the phenomenal increase in wealth accumulation as a result of loosening or eliminating the restrictions on capital flow.
But none of this is about trade. It's about changing the rules on how the international capitalist system will work. Erasing restrictions on capital flow, even when they might produce harmful environmental, labor or human rights consequences has increased profits and will continue to do so.
The real issue with TTP is will we expand these rules to Asia? Will finance capital operate with almost no restrictions or will the concerns of domestic labor retain some measure of protection?
If anything NAFTA has taught who the real winners and real losers of the TTP will be. By the way, the potential winners, as reported by your own newspaper already control half of all the wealth in the entire world.
And it has produced growth. All economic indicators point to the phenomenal increase in wealth accumulation as a result of loosening or eliminating the restrictions on capital flow.
But none of this is about trade. It's about changing the rules on how the international capitalist system will work. Erasing restrictions on capital flow, even when they might produce harmful environmental, labor or human rights consequences has increased profits and will continue to do so.
The real issue with TTP is will we expand these rules to Asia? Will finance capital operate with almost no restrictions or will the concerns of domestic labor retain some measure of protection?
If anything NAFTA has taught who the real winners and real losers of the TTP will be. By the way, the potential winners, as reported by your own newspaper already control half of all the wealth in the entire world.
13
Nocera makes the mistake of using Kodak's collapse as an example of NAFTA's impact. Kodak's problems were managerial incompetence, East Asian competition, and US foreign policy. Trade negotiators are invariably drawn from those areas in the private sector which will benefit from the agreements themselves. Rarely, if ever, has there been a negotiator from the manufacturing sector. These same negotiators move through revolving doors from so-called government service back to their paymasters who sent them in the first place. Japan is often called “our most important bilateral relationship” by foreign policy elites. It remains, however, a closed and semi-mercantilist economy. Take the auto sector as one example. Economists have pointed out that Japan has no tariff barriers to automobiles entering its market. They concluded, therefore, that the failure of Detroit to sell vehicles in Japan was all Detroit's fault--it just didn't make the right cars for the market. When these same economists learned that there were innumerable non-trade barriers , they expressed astonishment that such barriers existed. These barriers are tolerated by our negotiators not for purely economic reasons but because of the U.S. government's geo-political strategies in East Asia. Japanese goods enter the U.S. market in exchange for Japan's cooperation in Asia. In short, Detroit was sacrificed in pursuit of containing communism and assuring US primacy in the region.
10
Kodak's biggest issue was the move from film to digital production, and how fast it has taken hold. That has nothing to do with the trade agreements whatsoever.
The problem with NAFTA and any other trade agreement was that it should have promoted trade from those countries to build up their own industries. Instead many of these countries poached OUR industries, and OUR manufacturing base with a wholesale move of entire company factories to other countries. That was not the kind of trade, these trade deals were designed to accomplish. And some companies are learning a harsh lesson from these moves as China and others have nationalized and taken over some factories, keeping original designs and innovations and cutting their American owners completely out of the profits. Short term profits have netted long term total losses.
The problem with NAFTA and any other trade agreement was that it should have promoted trade from those countries to build up their own industries. Instead many of these countries poached OUR industries, and OUR manufacturing base with a wholesale move of entire company factories to other countries. That was not the kind of trade, these trade deals were designed to accomplish. And some companies are learning a harsh lesson from these moves as China and others have nationalized and taken over some factories, keeping original designs and innovations and cutting their American owners completely out of the profits. Short term profits have netted long term total losses.
8
There is so much incoherence in the discussion of globalism ( and current events in general). Joe gets it right. Kodak killed itself, just as many others have. Look around the S&P 500. How many were here 50 years ago? Creative destruction is the engine of economic growth.
Are there casualties? Of course. My dad had an 8th grade education and worked for one company all his life, the railroads. Today he would probably need a computer science degree. Commentators say globalism made no one better off. Nonsense. It made goods and services cheaper to buy and it raised wages, just not here. So that complaint smacks a little of nationalism. I have no problem with that, but flip a few pages over in the time and read the antinationalist rant by readers comments about the US and how we are predatory, colonial extractive despots. The law of noncontradiction has been repealed.
The right has its share of fault, also. It too often offers simplistic "free market" solutions that might have worked well 100 year ago in an agrarian society, but fail to take into account complexity. Global commerce is interdependent and complex. Few of us make what we consume. we work for money and trade for needed goods. We need skills skills skills. Obama want to expand commuity colleges, which spend lots of time with remedial courses. Why not fix the high schools instead, which is where the problem is. We have become vicarious competitors. We love watching sports, but no one wants to train.
Are there casualties? Of course. My dad had an 8th grade education and worked for one company all his life, the railroads. Today he would probably need a computer science degree. Commentators say globalism made no one better off. Nonsense. It made goods and services cheaper to buy and it raised wages, just not here. So that complaint smacks a little of nationalism. I have no problem with that, but flip a few pages over in the time and read the antinationalist rant by readers comments about the US and how we are predatory, colonial extractive despots. The law of noncontradiction has been repealed.
The right has its share of fault, also. It too often offers simplistic "free market" solutions that might have worked well 100 year ago in an agrarian society, but fail to take into account complexity. Global commerce is interdependent and complex. Few of us make what we consume. we work for money and trade for needed goods. We need skills skills skills. Obama want to expand commuity colleges, which spend lots of time with remedial courses. Why not fix the high schools instead, which is where the problem is. We have become vicarious competitors. We love watching sports, but no one wants to train.
8
As someone that grew up in Connecticut, I can tell you that the jobs moved to the South (and other low cost states) first before they moved offshore.
Whole industries left and their old brick buildings, built in the 1800's stood empty into the 70's and 80's and even today. Aside from Pratt and Whitney (which had an early global monopoly on jet engines) not much "reinvention" took place.
Whole industries left and their old brick buildings, built in the 1800's stood empty into the 70's and 80's and even today. Aside from Pratt and Whitney (which had an early global monopoly on jet engines) not much "reinvention" took place.
10
Can Mr. Nocera really be unaware that trade barriers are already at a minimum, and that so-called "free trade" agreements are in fact regulatory "reform" contracts written by the companies which seek to benefit from circumventing national laws and democratic governance?
If, for example, U.S. drug companies and entertainment conglomerates insist on still more copyright protections, they can get what they want much more easily in these secretly negotiated agreements, than through actual legislative bodies subject to public scrutiny and the public interest.
Similarly, polluters seeking freedom from local environmental regulation have a great incentive to write rules which invalidate local and national ordinances and for which they can claim compensation in privately constituted "courts" unaccountable to the public.
And this is "free trade"?
If, for example, U.S. drug companies and entertainment conglomerates insist on still more copyright protections, they can get what they want much more easily in these secretly negotiated agreements, than through actual legislative bodies subject to public scrutiny and the public interest.
Similarly, polluters seeking freedom from local environmental regulation have a great incentive to write rules which invalidate local and national ordinances and for which they can claim compensation in privately constituted "courts" unaccountable to the public.
And this is "free trade"?
19
Joe, do you have corporate money going to you? You missed some of the main points. This agreement is about setting up corporate friendly structures so they can over ride a country's laws in world courts.
Here is what can happen: a quietly filed lawsuit was unearthed, exposing the fact that oil and gas company Lone Pine Resources is moving forward with a $250-million North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) lawsuit against Canada. Why is Lone Pine suing Canada? For the "arbitrary, capricious, and illegal revocation of the Enterprise's valuable right to mine for oil and gas under [Quebec's] Saint Lawrence River." Lone Pine is suing Canada over Quebec's timeout on fracking. (I wrote about this when Lone Pine filed its intent-to-sue notice last year.
NAFTA's chapter on investment gives foreign corporations the right to sue a government over laws and policies that corporations allege reduce their profits.
Tell the whole truth Joe, not just the corporate truth.
Here is what can happen: a quietly filed lawsuit was unearthed, exposing the fact that oil and gas company Lone Pine Resources is moving forward with a $250-million North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) lawsuit against Canada. Why is Lone Pine suing Canada? For the "arbitrary, capricious, and illegal revocation of the Enterprise's valuable right to mine for oil and gas under [Quebec's] Saint Lawrence River." Lone Pine is suing Canada over Quebec's timeout on fracking. (I wrote about this when Lone Pine filed its intent-to-sue notice last year.
NAFTA's chapter on investment gives foreign corporations the right to sue a government over laws and policies that corporations allege reduce their profits.
Tell the whole truth Joe, not just the corporate truth.
51
Nope, I think this "global economy" has only benefited the wealthy and corporations, who have exported our manufacturing jobs and fled to other countries to avoid their tax responsibility. Nafta has been a boon to poor countries, and built up the Chinese middle class, at the expense of the average American.
15
It is true trade agreements in the past failed to take into account labor. They also have not mentioned environmental issues and the economic impact they have. We pay a price for cleaner air and controlling global warming. These also need to be addressed while recognizing we are the ones who historically contributed the most to global warming...http://lstrn.us/1gyQYyD
4
Perhaps immigration world wide is being driven by trade agreements that benefit corporation bottom lines, and not the people who work the low paying jobs the agreements bring.
Have you read the TPP Mr. Nocera? It really does not benefit the U.S. nor workers, it benefits the corporations, period.
As jobs have gone to Mexico and our neighbor to the North, we have been left with a vacuum here in this country as far as jobs are concerned. What will the TPP do for the existing jobs in this country, I am wondering.
Have you read the TPP Mr. Nocera? It really does not benefit the U.S. nor workers, it benefits the corporations, period.
As jobs have gone to Mexico and our neighbor to the North, we have been left with a vacuum here in this country as far as jobs are concerned. What will the TPP do for the existing jobs in this country, I am wondering.
16
As Paul Krugman has pointed out, we already have free trade. The amount of actual trade increase from TPP is likely to be zero, or negligible. The TPP is not about free trade, it is about empowering corporations over government, and enforcing patent protection to protect the profits of IP owners.
If there is anything we need, it is *equal* trade. Our strong dollar has resulted in a net loss of jobs for US workers.
The fall in oil prices has provided a short term boost to the US economy, but it will not be enough to restore full employment, nor regain lost ground on worker wages - it would take years of full employment to do that, along with a government willing to let that occur.
Dean Baker has an excellent rebuttal to this column:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/joe-nocera-on-politic...
If there is anything we need, it is *equal* trade. Our strong dollar has resulted in a net loss of jobs for US workers.
The fall in oil prices has provided a short term boost to the US economy, but it will not be enough to restore full employment, nor regain lost ground on worker wages - it would take years of full employment to do that, along with a government willing to let that occur.
Dean Baker has an excellent rebuttal to this column:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/joe-nocera-on-politic...
21
Excellent rebuttal and spot on, except for the mention of the online Piracy Act. No one has the right to steal the work and effort of others just because it's "art" and just because it's online. Poor example in an otherwise great essay.
The overarching issue we face today is that neither the Left nor the Right are willing to get real.On the Right,immigration and big government are responsible for a declining middle class.On the Left,it is either Wall Street or trade agreements like NAFTA.The real issue we need to address is a matching of expertise, skills and their location with the realities of globalization,enabled by innovation (in which we still lead the way) and consistent with our belief in free markets,including the free flow of capital.Kodak died because it was a dodo and attempts to save it by preserving it's business model and it's jobs would have been akin to trying to push water uphill.Yes,it's management and owners are culpable for not recognizing or adapting to change.But the individuals who worked there cannot be exonerated since in our culture personal freedom and choice are closely tethered to personal accountability.
3
My understanding is; Kodak labs discovered and recieved a patent on digital photography. Did not believe it had any future and let if go for peanuts. Their management and corporate culture had a lot of blame in their decline.
4
OKAY, forget about Kodak and NAFTA, is the trade deal good for a few free traders or the bottom 80% of the USA taxpayers? That it is good for the vast majority of Americans or that we were even considered, is the argument that matters.The American taxpayers accept that "free" trade that denies US workers a living wage, is good for the poor in China, but why are our "free traders" getting very rich on investments made they have made in China and India, while the majority of US citizens get poorer. Let's make this deal after we get election reform that puts citizens ahead of special interests and if our negotiators can not end child labor in India or China, then agree to have in the USA. If a child will be abused to get your shirt made, look at them and tell them you re okay with that. or end the sale of such product in the USA.
14
Kodak, Agfa and Fuji Film were all dependent on the silver halide photo business. So which ones successfully made the transition to digital photo or other technology based business? None really, but Agfa and Fuji appears to have done much better than Kodak. Was this do to Nafta or was it due to poor management at Kodak? The people of Rochester should know.
14
It was due to poor management at Kodak. Fuji successfully diversified and is doing well. Agfa also diversified and sold the Agfa Photo consumer imaging segment in a management buyout. It went into bankruptcy after one year.
3
With all of the complaining found in the comments to this article, does it not dawn on anyone that in many industries the unions had driven labor costs to artificially high levels and that that is a big contributor to job losses and the downward pressure on the middle class?
1
If the worker unionizes, and negotiates a living wage, his employer moves his job to China. If he decides to avoid a union, he can work for the wage "competitive" with his overseas counterpart, in an undeveloped country dominated by oligarchs of one sort or another. Either way, he is powerless cog, the modern equivalent of a 19th century wage slave. Welcome to the new, globalized world, Americans formerly known as the middle class. And both political parties have been rewarded with campaign contributions for putting you there.
11
Bill, you are spot on. Anyone who has examined the development of 19th century Great Britain and its subsequent overtaking by the US has the entire program before them right up to and including the part played by agreements to "improve" trade! Add in Piketty and you have the lessons of history to instruct what to avoid. Unfortunately, we elect empty headed non-readers to Congress who are intent on imposing their own religious views and getting re-elected before educating themselves.
2
Has it dawned on you that foreign manufacturing workers are paid pennies on the dollar compared to US workers and corporations can pollute at will overseas?
4
Trade agreements that foist our ludicrous IP laws on our trading partners should be a cause for concern as should any agreement which doesn't require US environmental and employee protection rules. Without that fast track is just a faster 'race to the bottom'.
3
But do workers at those 55 new companies make as much as the old Kodak workers? That's why people hate free trade agreements and "creative destruction." Every time you get laid off and find a new job, it's at a lower salary than the last one.
10
Lower pay...fewer benefits...more copays and deductibles...and oh yeah -- you can kiss that pension goodbye.
6
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Same goes for slavery: even if it is 'inconvenient' to mention that none of this can be accomplished without some measure of institutionalized slavery in 'some other country'.
It is the corporate equivalent of the sovereign's practice of 'extraordinary rendition' in order to extract 'confessions' from 'enemy combatants', most of whom we came to later learn had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.
Americans have developed a profound propensity and capacity to look the other way.
Same goes for slavery: even if it is 'inconvenient' to mention that none of this can be accomplished without some measure of institutionalized slavery in 'some other country'.
It is the corporate equivalent of the sovereign's practice of 'extraordinary rendition' in order to extract 'confessions' from 'enemy combatants', most of whom we came to later learn had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.
Americans have developed a profound propensity and capacity to look the other way.
8
I used to be a firm believer in free trade, but now I am not so sure.
4
Of course NAFTA didn't kill Kodak. Kodak's Rochester work force had already shrunk from a peak of 60,000 down to 39,000 in 1994 when NAFTA went into effect. But Louise Slaughter never was a deep thinker. She's 85 years old now and we really need new representation in Congress. Because of New York State Democratic politics, she has a lock on the office, and she'll probably die there. Now she and Governor Cuomo are talking about the 55 new companies in Kodak Park. Guess what folks - they don't employ 60,000 people. At best, they employ a couple thousand, and I'm being generous. And that, Mr. Nocera, is how globalization is working here in Rochester..
12
Regardless of party theatrics, this is going to happen and the simple reason is that the Oligarchs want them. Wall Street will produce them and it is simply going to happen.
These people, regardless of rhetoric, will do what they are told.
Them who gots the gold, rule.
These people, regardless of rhetoric, will do what they are told.
Them who gots the gold, rule.
7
I've always been confused. Free trade suggests a fair and even market. But many of our agricultural products are subsidized. Doesn't this make for unfair trade? E.g. Mexican peasants can't compete with subsidized U.S. corn…. I wonder where they end up… looking for work?
Can somebody set me straight on this issue? Am I missing something?
Can somebody set me straight on this issue? Am I missing something?
10
Pre-Nafta we had a healthy trade surplus with Mexico. Post-Nafta (cue the great sucking sound effect) we have a MASSIVE deficit. Likewise China's entry into the WTO caused an explosion of our already unhealthy trade relationship.
Machinists, furniture makers, textile workers . . . how many of your neighbors do you need to see out of work before you understand what is happening?
This isn't trade. Those are American companies, multinationals but with largely American ownership and management, filling our stores with Chinese and Mexican products that make it impossible for an American manufacturer to continue to sell its products or pay its employees. It isn't trade, it's an end run around a century of worker/consumer/environmental regulatory safeguards.
No one whose income is increased by globalization (as that of journalists who now reach a worldwide audience through the internet probably is) is in a position to tell the skilled craftsmen thrown out of work by "free trade," (aka global labor price shopping) that they should be happy to see society benefit so much from trade, even though it means they themselves have to make do with $9 an hour retail jobs in the big box stores that replaced (with help from Bain Capital) so many of Main Street's small businesses.
Machinists, furniture makers, textile workers . . . how many of your neighbors do you need to see out of work before you understand what is happening?
This isn't trade. Those are American companies, multinationals but with largely American ownership and management, filling our stores with Chinese and Mexican products that make it impossible for an American manufacturer to continue to sell its products or pay its employees. It isn't trade, it's an end run around a century of worker/consumer/environmental regulatory safeguards.
No one whose income is increased by globalization (as that of journalists who now reach a worldwide audience through the internet probably is) is in a position to tell the skilled craftsmen thrown out of work by "free trade," (aka global labor price shopping) that they should be happy to see society benefit so much from trade, even though it means they themselves have to make do with $9 an hour retail jobs in the big box stores that replaced (with help from Bain Capital) so many of Main Street's small businesses.
76
Nocera is right that all the problems of US workers are not due to NAFTA, but this doesn't change the fact that globalization, trade agreements or not, is being run by capitalists to the detriment of US workers. If there were true "free trade", profits would be cut to the minimum, but US and international corporations have the economic and political power to restrict competition in various ways so that they are getting record profits. Obviously this is increasing inequality, but the availability of quick profits is probably also adding to financial instability.
US workers would presumably like to see their counterparts in China and other developing countries improve their standard of living, but not at the expense of widespread unemployment and wage stagnation in the US, as capitalists and upper managers get rich. The situation requires active management by responsible government officials who will represent the interests of workers, not essentially turning over the management to capitalists and their trade organizations.
US workers would presumably like to see their counterparts in China and other developing countries improve their standard of living, but not at the expense of widespread unemployment and wage stagnation in the US, as capitalists and upper managers get rich. The situation requires active management by responsible government officials who will represent the interests of workers, not essentially turning over the management to capitalists and their trade organizations.
7
"If there were true "free trade", profits would be cut to the minimum"
Exactly. In true open markets honestly run for true competition, a larger market pushes down profits. A worldwide globalized market ought to be bad for profits. Instead, we see abusive profits. It means globalization is not actually producing the true free market competition -- it is rigged for profits.
Exactly. In true open markets honestly run for true competition, a larger market pushes down profits. A worldwide globalized market ought to be bad for profits. Instead, we see abusive profits. It means globalization is not actually producing the true free market competition -- it is rigged for profits.
11
NAFTA was just the warm up to the WTO and PNTR agreements whigh really opened the floodgates, allowing the bulk of US manufacturing to move offshore, almost entirely to China. To say this all can't be blamed on NAFTA is disingenuous and just gives cover to the CEOs and big investors and hedge funds that would gladly offshore every job if it would get them more money. Is Joe Nocera trying to follow Tom Friedman into the lucrative side (primary) gig as shill for the big money?
10
NAFTA had nothing to do with China. US manufactures took advantage of a global practice that started decades before that treaty, as did most developing countries. It also didn't help that consumers insisted that the cost of goods constantly decrease while quality and permanence took a back seat. To give so much credit to NAFTA is too simplistic.
I am glad the Kodak buildings are being filled by new companies. The problem is that the jobs do not pay as well when wages are adjusted for inflation. Not just a problem in Rochester. It is a problem across the United States.
5
I’m puzzle by the number of commentators who insist that treaty negotiations should be transparent and public. Most treaties are considered and discussed in secrecy. When the negotiations are complete the Obama administration will have to present the proposal (transparently and publicly) to Congress. Congress will then vote on the matter. The process is hardly opaque, and its adoption scarcely a certainty.
1
You must work for the Office of the US Trade Representative. If a treaty is going to have far reaching and permanent effects on the lives of every American we should be advised and have significant input. As you well know, "fast track" will put even more pressure on our elected officials from Organized Money to vote for it because there's "more good than bad" in it and voting the monstrosity down would waste all the tme, money and effort that went into concocting it.
10
Sorry, I don’t work for the Feds, nor do I work for a large corporation. I spend most of my time dealing with the ravages of murder, rape and domestic abuse. That, however, is irrelevant. Whether treaty negotiations take years in a public amphitheater or are fast-tracked to Congress, the public is not denied input or consideration, especially in this age of email, Facebook, Twitter and the like. I assume you voted for your congressman and senator, and feel reasonably assured, if pressed, they will give you an ear.
1
It's sadly ironic that progressives, who are so good at stressing that we are all in this together, refuse to accept the fact that the "all" is not limited to citizens of the US. And, in the long run, to so limit the "all" is as destructively tribalistic as the tribalism at which conservatives excel.
And, yes, that means that our nearest neighbors may not necessarily grow fat and happy on protected union jobs in the US. But it's time to turn our attention to seeking to make ALL as fat and happy as this generous planet and a generous human spirit for all humanity will allow.
And, yes, that means that our nearest neighbors may not necessarily grow fat and happy on protected union jobs in the US. But it's time to turn our attention to seeking to make ALL as fat and happy as this generous planet and a generous human spirit for all humanity will allow.
6
"Fat and happy?" How about "survive economically and provide a decent life for their kids?" So you think it's OK for our own government to pursue policies which will provide economic benefits to citizens of other countries (and of course for the fat and happy rich who are orchestrating all this) at the direct expense of our own citizens and to accomplish that by lying to them? I respectfully disagree. The first and foremost duty of the American government is to look out for the American people who really are supposed to be the government.
13
Years ago we were promised that these deals would help the less developed countries we trade with improve their standard of living and be able to afford to buy our products. Some of those countries may have prospered but we have largely stopped making things for them to buy. Now they make what we buy.
17
The existence of a "one world" global society in which all are considered and none exploited is as lovely as it is utopian. All that is necessary is an attitude of abiding respect for all of mankind. It reminds me of Gene Roddenberry's vision created for Star Trek. Unfortunately, we remain as far from this ideal as we are from practical interstellar travel. The nation's of the world still bristle with standing armies (to say nothing of their apocalyptic nuclear arsenals) ready to do battle in order to defend their place in the global economic pecking order. More than 40% of global wealth is held by a microscopic segment of the population, while a tremendous, and all too exploitable billions of people live on less than what many in the USA spend at Starbucks each day. The TRANS-PACIFIC-PARTNERSHIP, serves mainly the interests of that tiny segment of oligarchs (the infamous 1%). It offers the holders of great wealth assurances that nothing will threaten their holdings, even as it allows for more widespread exploitation of the poor to serve these "masters of the universe." Partnership? Unless you are wealthy, I think not!
6
If this is such a wonderful agreement, why is it being negotiated in complete secrecy? The corporations and their lobbyists are closely involved in negotiating it. But the American public will only learn the details at the last minute or after it's implemented. I can only assume it's secret because it will benefit the corporations and hurt the American public.
12
Because according to former Trade Representative Ron Kirk, if the American people knew what was in it it would never pass.
2
If the TPP were such a great deal for the people there would be complete transparency. But there is not and it is an affront to democracy for Obama to request Fast Track approval.
Secrecy breeds corruption and we all know the TPP is full of it.
Secrecy breeds corruption and we all know the TPP is full of it.
13
The availability of manufacturing and low-skilled jobs in this country will continue to decrease as a result of not only globalization but from robotics. The only long-term solution is to reduce the work week from 40 to 37.5 hours or even lower. Companies will complain about the cost of hiring additional workers, etc. but the more leisure time a worker has, the more time such worker will have to spend money and do other things. Simply put, time to bicycle with one's children means more bicycles being made.
6
Absolutely! The 40 hour work week is one hundred years old - time to give American workers a break. A reduced work week can be phased in gradually, but there is no need to stick with that arbitrary 40 hours definition.
3
France tried this in the late 1990s, cutting the standard work week down to 35 hours from 40. The logic was that employers would need to hire more workers to make up the difference. It did not work of course. France has a very high fixed cost per worker (time off and other benefits), and employers found it easier to pay overtime or cut corners than to hire new employees. It's also difficult to get rid of an employee who is not productive or whose services are not longer required, which makes any employee less likely to hire someone, especially a young person or recent immigrant who may not yet have good job skills. In addition, employers have become adept at exploiting various loopholes and workarounds to the 35 hour week. I worked at a French company in NYC around the time this law passed. We had expat employees and interns who were under French labor law, and we had to dance around all kinds of rules because of it. Sometimes employers just lie about how much their employees are really working or ask them to punch out before they are done for the day. I agree that the 40 hour week is somewhat arbitrary, but having the government mandate a shorter week is no magic bullet.
4
I believe the case can be made that dismantling our industrial base, largely due to China and these trade deals, has made us weaker, poorer and dumber. Millions of decent jobs went away, wages & benefits flat-lined or went down, on-the-job training evaporated, problem solving skills atrophied, and the harsh competition for remaining minimum-wage service jobs has decimated the workforce, creating a welfare state. Oh, and that "information age" that was to replace those dirty manufacturing jobs, didn't quite pan out. Other than that, Joe, we're good.
17
Mr Nocera would do a better service to his readers by discussing the serious objections to the TPP: some of its provisions strengthen the ability of corporations to evade environmental and labor regulations; and it favors individual copyright holders over the public interest. Why does a treaty with the simple and worthy goal of reducing trade barriers become a goodie bag of provisions designed to increase the profits of particular business interests?
26
As a professional photographer for many years, I can vouch for the demise of Kodak being Kodak's fault not NAFTA's. But I have seen too many industrial clients under a lot of pressure or out of business because of low wage, environmentally disastrous foreign competition to accept Mr. Nocera's over all conclusion that these trade agreements have been good for this country or the rest of the world, for that matter. NAFTA created a lot of problems for a lot of people and enriched very few.
13
Cut to the chase: trade agreements are predicated on global commerce at the optimal (i.e. lowest) costs to producers and consumers. Something has to give for this model to succeed, and that something is good paying jobs.
No matter how much or well these agreements are negotiated, the losers are workers and midlevel managers in the United States.
No matter how much or well these agreements are negotiated, the losers are workers and midlevel managers in the United States.
10
We still don't get it, do we! Our labor costs are 3X China's and our regulatory costs add a 25% cost penalty. To build high paying jobs here we have to make our total costs competitive with Southeast Asian producers. And we get the freight differential from shipping products halfway around the world and the capital efficiency of a shorter pipeline. No Walmart shopper is going to pay a nickel more for USA made goods vs. Chinese made items.
A dollar less paid for US regulatory compliance is a dollar available to pay higher wages, as the regulations are moderated. US Regulatory costs take away from US wages, when global prices on Walmart's shelves are set by Asian low cost producers.
If we worked smart, we'd submit all 77,000 pages of federal regulations to an independent cost/benefit analysis intended to achieve balance between environmental protection, safety, and the need to reshore millions of lost blue collar jobs in high paying manufacturing industries.
Last time we examined this issue was during the Grace Commission in the 1980's whose recommendations were ignored. At a normal profit of 5% aftax on sales, serious regulatory cost reduction could reshore millions of higher paying jobs at global prices. Some jobs won't come back until labor cost differentials narrow, or low energy costs give the US a secular advantage.
If we worked smart, we'd be way ahead of the current regime, which loads on thousands of costly new regulatory burdens each year.
A dollar less paid for US regulatory compliance is a dollar available to pay higher wages, as the regulations are moderated. US Regulatory costs take away from US wages, when global prices on Walmart's shelves are set by Asian low cost producers.
If we worked smart, we'd submit all 77,000 pages of federal regulations to an independent cost/benefit analysis intended to achieve balance between environmental protection, safety, and the need to reshore millions of lost blue collar jobs in high paying manufacturing industries.
Last time we examined this issue was during the Grace Commission in the 1980's whose recommendations were ignored. At a normal profit of 5% aftax on sales, serious regulatory cost reduction could reshore millions of higher paying jobs at global prices. Some jobs won't come back until labor cost differentials narrow, or low energy costs give the US a secular advantage.
If we worked smart, we'd be way ahead of the current regime, which loads on thousands of costly new regulatory burdens each year.
2
Which regulations would you then propose eliminating? I am waiting for critics of burdensome regularions to identify the ones they feel are needless. And how in this cost benefit analysis are factors such as enviromental impacts, health and human safety weighted? We have plenty of evidence that when left in the hands of private industry revenues, not jobs (with the exception of those at he very top), trump the environment and health and safety too often - which is why we have those burdensome regulations in the first place.
14
"Free trade" is a euphemism for unfair trade. China effectively subsidizes their workforce in a multitude of ways. Their currency is fixed. They don't have robust worker protections. They have universal welfare services. They don't have comparable environmental protections. They will, no doubt, pay for these issues in the future, but for now they can undercut most everybody out there. If a trade agreement would address these inequities, I'd be impressed. But that's not how this works.
7
Great idea, Reality. It will be more exciting when we relax air pollution laws, and we have "don't you dare go outside" days like China. And when food safety is more like the lottery. And building design reverts to lowest possible cost, so more tragedies compete for nightly news air time. And speaking of air time, won't air travel be much more adventurous without security checks and operation requirements?
6
Nocera does not see fit to mention that corporations use trade agreements to extend US copyright and patent law around the world. Making money from legal protections is rent-seeking. Nothing to do with "free" trade in global marketplace--it's all about currying favor from government and then exploiting the advantages to the hilt.
14
The effects of globalization have been difficult for those who were gainfully employed who were left with nothing in dozens of small towns across America. These undeserved effects are documented, and irrefutable. In North Carolina, the classic case was a towel factory (Pillowtex) in Kannapolis which had been there for 50 years - 7,000 jobs lost. Residents of this small town were assuaged after the industry fled with a large "Research campus" and more lanes along I-85 - neither meant anything to them. So the enmity caused by global job flight is very strong across the country. Of course, the Dems get blamed for having caused it all, though it's pointed out here that the lure of cheap labor and no environmental regs abroad (let alone worker safety) was a tsunami that couldn't be stopped.
Despite Obama's continued emphasis on education and training in the face of globalization, the Dems should be wary of this trade agreement and its fall-out. While Obama makes an effort to encourage people who are affected (like the SOTU example) to keep going so they can begin anew, the overall effect to those who are going to be affected by this needs to be gauged. Real remedies (like retraining) need to be provided for those whose jobs will again be displaced, BEFORE the agreement is struck. A failure to do so will alienate people from accepting the consequences, and cause it to be harder for them to change course, even for those flexible enough and willing to put in the effort.
Despite Obama's continued emphasis on education and training in the face of globalization, the Dems should be wary of this trade agreement and its fall-out. While Obama makes an effort to encourage people who are affected (like the SOTU example) to keep going so they can begin anew, the overall effect to those who are going to be affected by this needs to be gauged. Real remedies (like retraining) need to be provided for those whose jobs will again be displaced, BEFORE the agreement is struck. A failure to do so will alienate people from accepting the consequences, and cause it to be harder for them to change course, even for those flexible enough and willing to put in the effort.
7
I would feel much more confident about the prospect of worker retraining if the United States were currently home to the best and most progressive public education system in the world, with test scores and gratudation rates to prove it. Before and after we have witness successful attacks on public education systems across the nation as we look at massive cuts in funding and the transfer to monies from public to private school systems. In Arizona, new Governor Doucey has proposed $75 million in cuts to higher education - we can assume that affected by those cuts will be vocational programs within our community colleges which prepare often low income students for certification and employment in healthcare fields, IT and manufactoring.
3
Whoever thinks NAFTA brought down Kodak doesn't know economic or technical history. Kodak brought down Kodak. Kodak thought the future of photography rested with film, while the rest of the world was moving into digital at unprecedented speed. The revolution in photography from film to digital completely by-passed Kodak because of a huge managerial policy blunder, all the more ironic as Eastman Kodak was the inventor of the first commercial digital sensor that could be used in a single lens reflex camera. Their senior management decided it had no future. Japan took over and that was the end of Kodak as we knew it.
Canada belongs to NAFTA. Our manufacturing sector got hollowed-out as well. But the most recent and devastating hollowing-out in both countries happened as a result of the 2008 financial crisis, which was largely manufactured in the United States of America.
NAFTA or no NAFTA, manufacturing jobs from both countries were shifting over a period of decades to South and East Asia where wages, benefits, employment conditions and environmental, health and safety compliance are much less demanding.
I believe any serious analysis of the results of NAFTA would show it has improved economic efficiency for the three members, notwithstanding some important weaknesses in the agreement - like all trade agreements, it's a result of negotiated compromises; but still better than none. Time is better spent focusing on the real issues in North America.
Canada belongs to NAFTA. Our manufacturing sector got hollowed-out as well. But the most recent and devastating hollowing-out in both countries happened as a result of the 2008 financial crisis, which was largely manufactured in the United States of America.
NAFTA or no NAFTA, manufacturing jobs from both countries were shifting over a period of decades to South and East Asia where wages, benefits, employment conditions and environmental, health and safety compliance are much less demanding.
I believe any serious analysis of the results of NAFTA would show it has improved economic efficiency for the three members, notwithstanding some important weaknesses in the agreement - like all trade agreements, it's a result of negotiated compromises; but still better than none. Time is better spent focusing on the real issues in North America.
6
Kodak is not a good example precisely because, as you say, the company failed owing to management's inability to adapt to new technology.
Far more typical is the American manufacturing company that has closed its doors or moved production offshore because American manufacturing can't compete with countries where labor costs a dollar a day.
You are wrong that globalization is an unstoppable force. Tariffs on the products of low wage/low regulation countries that manipulate their currency, dump their products, and close their own markets would make all the difference in the world.
As to trade agreements, I've seen enough of them to know that they won't protect the American worker. The promises are always lies.
Far more typical is the American manufacturing company that has closed its doors or moved production offshore because American manufacturing can't compete with countries where labor costs a dollar a day.
You are wrong that globalization is an unstoppable force. Tariffs on the products of low wage/low regulation countries that manipulate their currency, dump their products, and close their own markets would make all the difference in the world.
As to trade agreements, I've seen enough of them to know that they won't protect the American worker. The promises are always lies.
22
Always is a hypothetical absolute from uncompromizalandia - indeed it is always false.
Kodak is a great example, just a bad one for trying to illustrate a complex issue as black and white. Kodak's demise was not the failure of management to adapt, trade agreements, worker apathy or unions. Not even just all of the above.
The failure was analysts and pundits predictions about the health and viability of company. A complex set of random circumstances led to the failure. The uncompromising position is *always* the one that fails.
Kodak is a great example, just a bad one for trying to illustrate a complex issue as black and white. Kodak's demise was not the failure of management to adapt, trade agreements, worker apathy or unions. Not even just all of the above.
The failure was analysts and pundits predictions about the health and viability of company. A complex set of random circumstances led to the failure. The uncompromising position is *always* the one that fails.
David, your explanation of Kodak's failure is just plain wrong. Friends who work there tell me of their despair as management failed to capitalize on its lead in digital imaging technology. I have seen this kind of failure occur again and again in technology companies when management (and it is always management) fails to grasp a paradigm shift. You are seeking complexity where there is none.
That is true of globalization as well. Anyone who knows economics knows that there are economic advantages to free trade. Anyone who *understands* economics knows that there are disadvantages as well. That you cannot see those disadvantages is a reflection of the limitation in your understanding, not of an issue that is inherently complex. Events seem "random" to you because you do not understand, but I knew Kodak would fail decades ago and in the early 80's I was pointing out that globalization with the third world would depress wages and reduce aggregate demand. In both cases, I was able to make the call because I had a sound understanding of theory, rather than a head full of half-digested facts.
That is true of globalization as well. Anyone who knows economics knows that there are economic advantages to free trade. Anyone who *understands* economics knows that there are disadvantages as well. That you cannot see those disadvantages is a reflection of the limitation in your understanding, not of an issue that is inherently complex. Events seem "random" to you because you do not understand, but I knew Kodak would fail decades ago and in the early 80's I was pointing out that globalization with the third world would depress wages and reduce aggregate demand. In both cases, I was able to make the call because I had a sound understanding of theory, rather than a head full of half-digested facts.
2
David,
John Ralston Saul's 1992 book Voltaire's Bastards (The Tyranny of Reason in the West) is not an easy read. Understanding that our slavish desire to grow the economy since Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations is fundamental to the world we have created.
We are very adept at growing economies but we are not very good at recognizing the collateral damage inflicted on our species when we only have economic growth as our focus.
We fight wars to protect and grow our economies, millions starve to protect our economies, we destroy our environment to grow and protect our economies.
Mark Twain's Mysterious Stranger to us nothing is so good that someone doesn't suffer and nothing is so bad that someone doesn't suffer. We know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
John Ralston Saul's 1992 book Voltaire's Bastards (The Tyranny of Reason in the West) is not an easy read. Understanding that our slavish desire to grow the economy since Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations is fundamental to the world we have created.
We are very adept at growing economies but we are not very good at recognizing the collateral damage inflicted on our species when we only have economic growth as our focus.
We fight wars to protect and grow our economies, millions starve to protect our economies, we destroy our environment to grow and protect our economies.
Mark Twain's Mysterious Stranger to us nothing is so good that someone doesn't suffer and nothing is so bad that someone doesn't suffer. We know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
2
Globalization by and large is a good thing. The creative destruction of capitalism, such as what happened at Kodak is by and large a good thing. The downside is that workers take all the loss. Workers lose their jobs, their incomes, their homes and sometime their families. Capitalists just cash checks with a difference corporate logo on top.
We knew these would be the effects yet we did nothing to prepare our workforce for this transition. In fact we spent the past 30 years cutting holes in our safety net so that more and more workers fell through.
Our government can help the American people work through these transitions or we can just yell Laissez-faire at them. I for one, would prefer we help.
We knew these would be the effects yet we did nothing to prepare our workforce for this transition. In fact we spent the past 30 years cutting holes in our safety net so that more and more workers fell through.
Our government can help the American people work through these transitions or we can just yell Laissez-faire at them. I for one, would prefer we help.
20
There's really nothing we could do to prepare our workforce once they were thrown to the wolves. What would we teach them to do, stand in an unemployment line? Teach them to live in company barracks?
2
The US NAFTA agreement had 2 glaring deficiencies: the first one noted in the article about taking out the environmental protection aspect (US made products cost more in part to provide the clean air and water we all enjoy, unlike the deadly soup they call air in Bejing). Second, the US has let down the middle class by essentially doing nothing to protect the millions of middle class workers/consumers who descended into poverty during our wholesale shipment of jobs to china this is a classic case of corporate greed shooting itself in the foot: get costs down and profits up by importing inferior Chinese products back to a US. The problem is that this has so decimated our consumer middle class and resulting consumer demand (67% of our economy) that the very market for its products is shrinking. A self inflicted destruction of the hand that feeds.
19
indeed, there have been/still are, in fact, many different kinds of nations known as the US, all due to cultural/economic evolution, sometimes truly more dynamic than at least a few usually prefer or maintain. some like the fact, whether they really understand it very well or otherwise, while others would mainly just try to have everybody agree--at least. only about the future of any such, even if based on a lot of poor and/or controversial history--or even worse.
Stage, when the US middle class elected to buy all those cheaper, China-sourced goods, did they not become complicit in their economic down-grade? Talk about self-inflicted destruction...
Ummmm...China, the country you cite repeatedly as the destination of U.S. jobs, is not part of NAFTA, or indeed any trade agreement with the United States, and it would not be a part of the Trans Pacific Partnership either.
1
It puzzles me to see Republicans eager to cede sovereignty to international courts and similar bodies. I recall John Kerry being called out by George Bush for wanting a "global test" before committing to war with Iraq.
13
Maquiladora => American unemployment.
Don't repeat this error.
Don't repeat this error.
9
You completely neglect the provision in this trade treaty that allows corporations to sue governments for lost profits, if the government enacts new environmental, labor, or other laws. If this treaty had been in place when asbestos was outlawed in the US, foreign asbestos makers would have been permitted to sue (and would have won) the government for the loss of sales years into the future. This treaty, as it's now set up, is bad bad bad news.
26
It's a corporate power grab. It helps corporations end run governments and create their own corporate-friendly laws binding on everyone even though we're not represented in the kangaroo court, have no sat and no right to appeal. If corporations are "persons" then why shouldn't they have to resort to the same ciurt system which has serced us so well for hundreds of years. The idea of an alternate court system would be laughable except it's backed by Organized Money.
8
Nafta was a stupid idea starting the moment it was thought up.
11
Not stupid to the multi-millionaires who would benefit from it.
2
Read John MacArthur's book, "The Selling of 'Free Trade, NAFTA, Washington and the subversion of American Democracy." This has been the blue print for all the corporate corruption that has followed. When I worked at Pharmacia (formerly Upjohn) they had a saying, "We invent it but they make it overseas." And, corporations didn't save what they thought in labor rates: 14% compared to 30% by one reckoning. In addition, it's been a giveaway to foreign enemies, like the Chinese.
In 2011, Obama let Timken build their factories in China instead of Ohio. Timken makes bearings for wind farms, among other things. This is crucial technology. So, instead of buying them here in the US, we are buying them from the Chinese. This betrayal cost Ohio at least 20,000 jobs and risks the jobs of engineers and scientists here after China starts making these bearings. I say no to NAFTA for China.
In 2011, Obama let Timken build their factories in China instead of Ohio. Timken makes bearings for wind farms, among other things. This is crucial technology. So, instead of buying them here in the US, we are buying them from the Chinese. This betrayal cost Ohio at least 20,000 jobs and risks the jobs of engineers and scientists here after China starts making these bearings. I say no to NAFTA for China.
22
China is not a part of NAFTA, and it would not be part of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement, either.
2
Here's an important example of how free trade works in practice, in medicines. Until recently overseas manufacturers got a big advantage because American regulators, the FDA, did far more exacting inspections of American manufacturers, and essentially ignored shoddy practices in the developing world. Our establishment generally favors developing countries, in the spirit of globalism and Davos.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/world/asia/medicines-made-in-india-set...
NEW DELHI — India, the second-largest exporter of over-the-counter and prescription drugs to the United States, is coming under increased scrutiny by American regulators for safety lapses, falsified drug test results and selling fake medicines...
This absence of oversight, however, is a central reason India’s pharmaceutical industry has been so profitable. Drug manufacturers estimate that routine F.D.A. inspections add about 25 percent to overall costs. In the wake of the 2012 law that requires the F.D.A. for the first time to equalize oversight of domestic and foreign plants, India’s cost advantage could shrink significantly...
American businesses and F.D.A. officials are just as concerned about the quality of drugs coming out of China, but the F.D.A.'s efforts to increase inspections there have so far been frustrated by the Chinese government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/world/asia/medicines-made-in-india-set...
NEW DELHI — India, the second-largest exporter of over-the-counter and prescription drugs to the United States, is coming under increased scrutiny by American regulators for safety lapses, falsified drug test results and selling fake medicines...
This absence of oversight, however, is a central reason India’s pharmaceutical industry has been so profitable. Drug manufacturers estimate that routine F.D.A. inspections add about 25 percent to overall costs. In the wake of the 2012 law that requires the F.D.A. for the first time to equalize oversight of domestic and foreign plants, India’s cost advantage could shrink significantly...
American businesses and F.D.A. officials are just as concerned about the quality of drugs coming out of China, but the F.D.A.'s efforts to increase inspections there have so far been frustrated by the Chinese government.
14
I've taken lately to calling myself an egalitarian socialist. And ,frankly ,the more capitalism morphs into a perverse, destructive monstrosity ,spreading pain and suffering, pollution and amoral inequality, benefiting a tiny powerful sliver at the expense of the greater community, the more proudly I wear the label.
19
>
I do not blame NAFTA, I blame the politicians that manufactured it. Though, it is the paradox that has to be appreciated here. Marx knew his Greek myths, and when we discuss Greek Myths paradox is foundational.
"We are for Free Trade, because by Free Trade all economical laws, with their most astounding contradictions, will act upon a larger scale, upon the territory of the whole earth; and because from the uniting of all these contradictions in a single group, where they will stand face to face, will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the proletariat [worker]." “At the present time, the system of protection is conservative, whereas the system of free trade is destructive: it dissolves old nationalities and pushes extreme antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat [ the worker]. In a word, the system of commercial freedom hastens the social revolution.”
Marx
I do not blame NAFTA, I blame the politicians that manufactured it. Though, it is the paradox that has to be appreciated here. Marx knew his Greek myths, and when we discuss Greek Myths paradox is foundational.
"We are for Free Trade, because by Free Trade all economical laws, with their most astounding contradictions, will act upon a larger scale, upon the territory of the whole earth; and because from the uniting of all these contradictions in a single group, where they will stand face to face, will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the proletariat [worker]." “At the present time, the system of protection is conservative, whereas the system of free trade is destructive: it dissolves old nationalities and pushes extreme antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat [ the worker]. In a word, the system of commercial freedom hastens the social revolution.”
Marx
10
Ok, so maybe NAFTA was not the first cause. But it continued a trend. We should have placed tariffs on TVs in the 60s – but we didn’t. But what we don’t need are more global trade agreements. We need trade policy instead. We need to study manufacturing, industry by industry, and then try to claw back parts that are useful to keep as American. Try this example – furniture manufacturing followed sawmills, and has gone on from Maine and Vermont to the Carolinas. Small shops and larger ones built wood furniture of middle to high grade. We have ceded much of this to Asia, and much of what they send us is garbage. We need to use tariffs and quotas to encourage the return of an industry that even to this day employs many folks in rural America – and in jobs that pay well and give far more dignity than does a job at Walmart. Leather and shoe/boot making was another craft that employed and perhaps could again employ many rural folks. These are not glamorous high tech businesses, but they rely an resources that we have – trees, and hides.
So NAFTA may not be the first cause, but it ought to stand as a symbol of a line in the sand.
By the way, less well examined is the effect in Mexico as large-scale food production (from the US) displaced much rural agriculture – farming which was less efficient but provided employment for many. The displaced peasants then moved to the US for jobs.
So NAFTA may not be the first cause, but it ought to stand as a symbol of a line in the sand.
By the way, less well examined is the effect in Mexico as large-scale food production (from the US) displaced much rural agriculture – farming which was less efficient but provided employment for many. The displaced peasants then moved to the US for jobs.
88
When Pres NIXON went to China, I thought the world economic doors were to be forever opened to a new era.
When Pres CARTER established the core international standards of Human Rights, I thought the new economic order could be controlled.
When Pres REAGAN jumped on the de-regulation band wagon, I feared that both economic and human interests could be jeopardized. I watched as U.S. manufacturers moved their heavy capital equipment to Asia.
When Presidents BUSHs' and CLINTON watched and followed, U.S. manufacturing disappeared, but markets seemed to thrive and consumers enjoyed high quality imports at unbelievably low prices.
Now I think the de-regulation drug is wearing off for some in the US, and the pain is now overwhelming for many others. Closing our borders to trade is not the answer. Asking US manufacturing labor to drop their wages to poverty levels is no answer. Dropping environmental standards is not the answer. I DO think that development of the demand side of the economic equation is where we will find the most opportunity, for that embodies pehaps 90% of the customers.
When Pres CARTER established the core international standards of Human Rights, I thought the new economic order could be controlled.
When Pres REAGAN jumped on the de-regulation band wagon, I feared that both economic and human interests could be jeopardized. I watched as U.S. manufacturers moved their heavy capital equipment to Asia.
When Presidents BUSHs' and CLINTON watched and followed, U.S. manufacturing disappeared, but markets seemed to thrive and consumers enjoyed high quality imports at unbelievably low prices.
Now I think the de-regulation drug is wearing off for some in the US, and the pain is now overwhelming for many others. Closing our borders to trade is not the answer. Asking US manufacturing labor to drop their wages to poverty levels is no answer. Dropping environmental standards is not the answer. I DO think that development of the demand side of the economic equation is where we will find the most opportunity, for that embodies pehaps 90% of the customers.
4
Biological evolution disperses reproductive counters. Natural world "niches" that organisms mutate into catalyse life's outward push against the "ecosystem's" pliant boundaries. Evolution's mechanics are mindlessly set up to pursue divergence toward egregious extremes, to fill up "available space". For 4 billion-odd (very odd!) years, the gambit has proved reliable. Life spreads and adapts its way into every nook and cranny, overcoming environmental setbacks...
IT IS no wonder then that we, using our prehensile intellectual pliers---collective, symbolic, metaphor-based language that enables sophisticated, interactive communication among self-aware individuals in a purposive group---have come, in this post-Darwinian age, so easily to confound our mental representations of a sprouting tree with demonstrably comparable biological speciation: evolutionary tree.
Machine art(ifice) largely imitated that tree structure, after the Industrial Revolution began. Ideas for mechanical responses to different human desires, to get work done, blossomed. Successes engendered more refined "economic" "needs". Specifically targeted machines arose, to satisfy needs. Mechanisms branched out, "obeying" the same metaphorical model as natural evolution.
But the DIGITAL revolution alters all subsequent history! It suddenly, unexpectedly makes industrial cultures CONVERGE! AND it reduces MATERIAL requirements, in the process.
KODAK's digital dilemma is irrelevant to your NAFTA arguments!
IT IS no wonder then that we, using our prehensile intellectual pliers---collective, symbolic, metaphor-based language that enables sophisticated, interactive communication among self-aware individuals in a purposive group---have come, in this post-Darwinian age, so easily to confound our mental representations of a sprouting tree with demonstrably comparable biological speciation: evolutionary tree.
Machine art(ifice) largely imitated that tree structure, after the Industrial Revolution began. Ideas for mechanical responses to different human desires, to get work done, blossomed. Successes engendered more refined "economic" "needs". Specifically targeted machines arose, to satisfy needs. Mechanisms branched out, "obeying" the same metaphorical model as natural evolution.
But the DIGITAL revolution alters all subsequent history! It suddenly, unexpectedly makes industrial cultures CONVERGE! AND it reduces MATERIAL requirements, in the process.
KODAK's digital dilemma is irrelevant to your NAFTA arguments!
Can anyone at the NYT talk about FAIR and not FREE Trade? They are not the same.
A number of people have already pointed out how the trade agreements skirt emission laws, worker protections, union/organized labor as well as decrease employment here in the US. So I need not revisit them.
What needs to be looked at - at a macro level, (as Picketty might have observed) is how the capital is diverted out of the US tax code and repopulated into the C-level elites that seem to have a stranglehold on much of Washington; which I believe is why anyone would shill for such a disgraceful economic breaching device.
A number of people have already pointed out how the trade agreements skirt emission laws, worker protections, union/organized labor as well as decrease employment here in the US. So I need not revisit them.
What needs to be looked at - at a macro level, (as Picketty might have observed) is how the capital is diverted out of the US tax code and repopulated into the C-level elites that seem to have a stranglehold on much of Washington; which I believe is why anyone would shill for such a disgraceful economic breaching device.
12
Canada is a member of NAFTA and KODAK had a large plant in Toronto. When KODAK's business began to tumble the Toronto plant was closed. NAFTA didn't save KODAK's Toronto plant as it only provided for flat tariffs on goods made in US, Canada and Mexico to reduce the costs associated with export-import in-transit parts and services flowing across the three nations borders. At the end of the day, the largest beneficiaries of NAFTA were US global enterprises that operated in US, Mexico and Canada and, before NAFTA, had to deal with tariffs and inspections of goods and services passing through two very junior countries in North America - Canada's economy may be large but it is smaller than California's economy and totally dwarfed by the US economy. If you are looking for the reason and source of lost middle class US jobs you would do better by looking at the profits and off-shoring activities of US global enterprises - if you dare to find the truth.
9
NAFTA is a U.S. agreement. It is a 'heads I win, tails you lose' trade law fabricated by US Trade counsel. Canada's largest enterprises in oil, gas and manufacturing sectors are either a subsidiary of a U.S. enterprise or owned/controlled by U.S. residents or funds. STELCO, once Canada's largest steel company that was Canadian-owned had employed ~ 20,000 steelworkers. STELCO was taken-over by US Steel in 2007 before the Financial Crisis. USS immediately cut jobs and took STELCO into bankruptcy in 2013 for which USS was appointed Debtor-in-possession status to wind-up STELCO. USS paid $1 Billion to acquire STELCO and promised the government it would not terminate jobs. The Financial Crisis gave USS the opportunity to close shop and 'acquire' STELCO's $3 Billion annual sales customer list that was "goodwill" developed over 90 years of business - now serviced from Pittsburgh and other USS plants. Canada's Big Automakers are all foreign owned and controlled. Canadians pay much more for 'American cars' than do Americans - after currency exchange considerations. On weekends and holidays you will see line-ups of Canadians driving across into the USA to buy basic household, clothing and other items in US retail stores in Buffalo and other US border cities: Canadian prices of USA owned foreign companies operating in Canada are materially higher than US prices - after currency exchange and travel costs are discounted. And Canada has lower corporate taxes than the USA. Go figure?
7
I worry when I hear the word free, in this case free trade. We all know there Is no free there, it has a cost. To whom, as in who will reap the lion's share and who will get the shaft? Shouldn't be hard to figure out - who wrote the rules?
7
Nafta like all the trade agreements is just sending US job overseas. Then the GOP shills that US workers aren't trained which is the problem of our unemployment in the US.
"Don't Blame Nafta", you got to be kidding me, how many US jobs has it cost us?
"Don't Blame Nafta", you got to be kidding me, how many US jobs has it cost us?
13
Millions. Look at the "free trade" deal with South Korea which only went into effect a couple of years ago. It has ballooned our trade deficit and so far has cost us about 50,000 jobs. This despite the usual government predictions that it would never happen.
4
You used the world "us" and quite correctly. However, for some reason bright successful people (who are not effected) don't seem to be able to stretch there imaginations enough to be part of that us. Heck even Ronald Reagan dictated the terms to the Japanese auto makers with a limit to import that forced their manufacturing plants to be built here. I say a prayer every so often for a return to the days when we had leaders who were Economic Patriots.
2
Back around 1950, I wrote a short story for my college English class entitled "The Last Worker". This was long before the age of computers, robots,etc. In it, the "last worker" sat before a huge panel with blinking lights and buttons, running the whole world. Finally he decided that he shouldn't be the only one working and walked off the job. My point was, and is, that there is no longer enough real work to go around in our over-populated world. I hate to mention that medieval pope's statement that "war, pestilence, and famine" are the solution. We sure are doing well on the first one, anyway.
5
When we became enlightened, we abandoned mercantilism and embraced free trade. Of course, formerly protected Labor lost, but their betters in Capital did ever so well. I guess we must do more of the same. Eventually, all the money will be held by Capital, and Labor can be dispensed with, once and for all.
I guess we can simply use all those extra people as cannon fodder.
Problem solved.
I guess we can simply use all those extra people as cannon fodder.
Problem solved.
14
Joe, I see that you didn't address the role of Nafta in dislocating millions of Mexican farmers, impelling their flight to America. Here's an except from an "Room for Debate" contribution by Laura Carlsen:
"Nafta has cut a path of destruction through Mexico. Since the agreement went into force in 1994, the country’s annual per capita growth flat-lined to an average of just 1.2 percent -- one of the lowest in the hemisphere. Its real wage has declined and unemployment is up."
"Nafta’s failure in Mexico has a direct impact on the United States. Although it has declined recently, jobless Mexicans migrated to the United States at an unprecedented rate of half a million a year after Nafta."
"As heavily subsidized U.S. corn and other staples poured into Mexico, producer prices dropped and small farmers found themselves unable to make a living. Some two million have been forced to leave their farms since Nafta. At the same time, consumer food prices rose, notably the cost of the omnipresent tortilla."
"As a result, 20 million Mexicans live in “food poverty”. Twenty-five percent of the population does not have access to basic food and one-fifth of Mexican children suffer from malnutrition. Transnational industrial corridors in rural areas have contaminated rivers and sickened the population and typically, women bear the heaviest impact."
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-n...
"Nafta has cut a path of destruction through Mexico. Since the agreement went into force in 1994, the country’s annual per capita growth flat-lined to an average of just 1.2 percent -- one of the lowest in the hemisphere. Its real wage has declined and unemployment is up."
"Nafta’s failure in Mexico has a direct impact on the United States. Although it has declined recently, jobless Mexicans migrated to the United States at an unprecedented rate of half a million a year after Nafta."
"As heavily subsidized U.S. corn and other staples poured into Mexico, producer prices dropped and small farmers found themselves unable to make a living. Some two million have been forced to leave their farms since Nafta. At the same time, consumer food prices rose, notably the cost of the omnipresent tortilla."
"As a result, 20 million Mexicans live in “food poverty”. Twenty-five percent of the population does not have access to basic food and one-fifth of Mexican children suffer from malnutrition. Transnational industrial corridors in rural areas have contaminated rivers and sickened the population and typically, women bear the heaviest impact."
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-n...
24
The icing on the cake, as you stated, is we the taxpayers are subsidizing this. Outrageous!
1
The problems with the TPP are that it has been negotiated entirely in secret, with Senators not yet being able to find what's been negotiated, and that what few details which have been leaked indicate that instead of being a ' treaty ' as normally defined, the agreement is mostly a grab bag of corporate wish list items that could not be gotten through the U.S. Congress otherwise.
Case in point - such a ' treaty ' is the only way that foreign corporations could hope to be able to set up a separate tribunal from U.S. courts that would decide any conflicts between U.S. consumer/health laws and what foreign corporations (or foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations) wanted to sell here, making U.S. law subservient to the separate tribunal.
And that's just a single objectionable example of what's in the secret ' treaty '.
Case in point - such a ' treaty ' is the only way that foreign corporations could hope to be able to set up a separate tribunal from U.S. courts that would decide any conflicts between U.S. consumer/health laws and what foreign corporations (or foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations) wanted to sell here, making U.S. law subservient to the separate tribunal.
And that's just a single objectionable example of what's in the secret ' treaty '.
11
Living in the Rust Belt, I can easily state that Joe is cherry picking data to support his conclusion. Joe, please do not tell me that NAFTA had nothing to do with GM/Ford/Chrysler moving production to Mexico, along with the parts suppliers that support these plants. In fact, many of the Chevy Silverado pick up trucks (e.g. Like a Rock, Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet) are made south of the border, costing Americans thousands of manufacturing jobs. It is a fact that although US car sales are increasing, the industry has added almost no jobs in the US. Which always makes me wonder, if the middle class dissolves, who is going to buy all this stuff?
And for those who smugly think that the victims of globalization are factory workers so who cares, think again. A significant amount of legal work is now done in India and when you take a medical test in midtown Manhattan, the results are often diagnosed also in India. No matter how rosy your current situation, globalization is coming to getcha.
And for those who smugly think that the victims of globalization are factory workers so who cares, think again. A significant amount of legal work is now done in India and when you take a medical test in midtown Manhattan, the results are often diagnosed also in India. No matter how rosy your current situation, globalization is coming to getcha.
22
Aside from concerns about environmental and labor protections, there is the issue of lawsuits.
Suppose a country's own environmental standards exceed what is in the TPP. If the TPP lets a large company sue a small country if the country insists upon enforcing its own standards, that must be blocked.
By allowing companies, but not members of Congress, to have access to and to comment on, drafts of the TPP, it is not surprising that these Democrats are wary of what they are being asked to approve.
Suppose a country's own environmental standards exceed what is in the TPP. If the TPP lets a large company sue a small country if the country insists upon enforcing its own standards, that must be blocked.
By allowing companies, but not members of Congress, to have access to and to comment on, drafts of the TPP, it is not surprising that these Democrats are wary of what they are being asked to approve.
13
The information technology revolution will reduce labor requirements for a generation or more. Recently it has eliminated jobs for check-out counters, legal research, medical testing and bank tellers.
Traditionally competition converted these labor savings into lower consumer prices, partially restoring reduced worker wage-based purchasing power. More recently, the reformation of monopolies and the rise of multinational corporations have restricted competition and increased profits at worker expense.
Currently monopolies have an advantage over small businesses with respect to their effective tax rate and cost of per capita healthcare, shipping, procurement and marketing. Trade agreements have given them the ability to reduce labor costs rapidly by outsourcing jobs at the expense of American workers. The resulting glut of American workers has resulted in the rapid growth of the working poor which require massive taxpayer subsidies to reach a living wage.
Over the past four decades, these factors have reduced worker's share of the economy by $1.5 trillion a year with most of these savings flowing into corporate earnings. This growth in inequality is not sustainable as wage-based demand constrains our economic engine. Until we correct this defect, the nation's of the globe will continue to drift towards dictatorship , repression and war.
Traditionally competition converted these labor savings into lower consumer prices, partially restoring reduced worker wage-based purchasing power. More recently, the reformation of monopolies and the rise of multinational corporations have restricted competition and increased profits at worker expense.
Currently monopolies have an advantage over small businesses with respect to their effective tax rate and cost of per capita healthcare, shipping, procurement and marketing. Trade agreements have given them the ability to reduce labor costs rapidly by outsourcing jobs at the expense of American workers. The resulting glut of American workers has resulted in the rapid growth of the working poor which require massive taxpayer subsidies to reach a living wage.
Over the past four decades, these factors have reduced worker's share of the economy by $1.5 trillion a year with most of these savings flowing into corporate earnings. This growth in inequality is not sustainable as wage-based demand constrains our economic engine. Until we correct this defect, the nation's of the globe will continue to drift towards dictatorship , repression and war.
17
Every other historical time period of globalization has done so, I see no particular reason why this will not be the case in this particular version of globalization.
1
I'm glad you got back on track by the end, the opening concerned me because NAFTA had no effect on Kodak. They did try to build digital products early, and some were admirable, but most were a year late and a few features short. They maintained most of their film market share against Fuji. Their Ektagraphic slide projectors were the heart of the A/V market, and the Carousel was the heart of the home market.
I still shoot mostly with a Kodak DCS-760, originally a $7,000 camera ($2K for Nikon's best pro film body, $5K for Kodak's electronics). Nikon did much better in the switch to digital but even they aren't the success they were for a half century starting with GIs coming home from the Korean war with the superb Nikon S2 and the Life Magazine shooters that depended on the Nikon F.
I don't think there is a market for slide projectors, I have twenty grand (original cost) worth of projectors and lenses that I can't give away.
The only part of their business decline that related to trade was in film, and they didn't do too badly there. Many of us preferred the Fuji films, if nothing else it was easier to remember the differences between Velvia, Provia, and Astia (and the consumer-focused Sensia) than the umpteen flavors of Ektachrome. But both companies competed world wide and Fuji didn't benefit from NAFTA.
I may be biased, we do well by trade here in Washington, what with Boeing and Paccar (Kenworth trucks), Microsoft, Amazon, and Starbucks. But I still miss film.
Van
I still shoot mostly with a Kodak DCS-760, originally a $7,000 camera ($2K for Nikon's best pro film body, $5K for Kodak's electronics). Nikon did much better in the switch to digital but even they aren't the success they were for a half century starting with GIs coming home from the Korean war with the superb Nikon S2 and the Life Magazine shooters that depended on the Nikon F.
I don't think there is a market for slide projectors, I have twenty grand (original cost) worth of projectors and lenses that I can't give away.
The only part of their business decline that related to trade was in film, and they didn't do too badly there. Many of us preferred the Fuji films, if nothing else it was easier to remember the differences between Velvia, Provia, and Astia (and the consumer-focused Sensia) than the umpteen flavors of Ektachrome. But both companies competed world wide and Fuji didn't benefit from NAFTA.
I may be biased, we do well by trade here in Washington, what with Boeing and Paccar (Kenworth trucks), Microsoft, Amazon, and Starbucks. But I still miss film.
Van
4
I don't see globalization changing in the near future. For American workers to be more competitive globally, we need to be more educated, or we need to collectively stop buying cheap plastic junk made elsewhere, or there needs to be some sort of global minimum wage (which, frankly, is never going to happen). Education seems to be our best bet.
3
People aren't voluntarily going to stop buying less expensive products, especially people who are unemployed or working minimum wage jobs.
1
Unfortunately the "best bet of education" is not that promising.
Per http://www.stemedcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BLS-STEM-Jobs-...
"Employment in occupations related to STEM—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—is projected to grow to more
than 9 million between 2012 and 2022. That’s an increase of about 1 million jobs over 2012 employment levels.
Note, an increase in 1 million jobs in 10 years or about 100K incremental jobs per year.
The emphasis on "education", frequently associated with large student debt, is becoming a "let them eat cake" statement from the elite when one views the actual new jobs expected to be created in the USA.
And these statistics are from the US government Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Per http://www.stemedcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BLS-STEM-Jobs-...
"Employment in occupations related to STEM—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—is projected to grow to more
than 9 million between 2012 and 2022. That’s an increase of about 1 million jobs over 2012 employment levels.
Note, an increase in 1 million jobs in 10 years or about 100K incremental jobs per year.
The emphasis on "education", frequently associated with large student debt, is becoming a "let them eat cake" statement from the elite when one views the actual new jobs expected to be created in the USA.
And these statistics are from the US government Bureau of Labor Statistics.
1
Joe, you give one example of an industry that was transformed, Kodak. But surely you know what the wages are in all the countries that will be covered by TPP.
What I object to most in this potential trade deal is the secrecy and the fast-tracking (although I'm not sure what fast tracking really means since I've been hearing about this legislation for several years now).
I'd be for far more transparency to allow debate on the law's provisions, and allow the Democrats to poke holes if there are any (and how can there not be, when the law is being written by multinationals?).
Yes, that's right: multinationals are writing our laws now, or at the very least, dictating content that then goes out in the closed door sessions. And you can't tell me that if the companies that stand most to benefit in all ways (including more jobs exportation) are doing anything except to advance their own profits, then I have a bridge to sell you.
What I object to most in this potential trade deal is the secrecy and the fast-tracking (although I'm not sure what fast tracking really means since I've been hearing about this legislation for several years now).
I'd be for far more transparency to allow debate on the law's provisions, and allow the Democrats to poke holes if there are any (and how can there not be, when the law is being written by multinationals?).
Yes, that's right: multinationals are writing our laws now, or at the very least, dictating content that then goes out in the closed door sessions. And you can't tell me that if the companies that stand most to benefit in all ways (including more jobs exportation) are doing anything except to advance their own profits, then I have a bridge to sell you.
109
most who made ordinary, every-day buggy whips have long been dead; the remaining are fairly young, and serve a boutique market (or Hollywood, etc.). but for a while (a good funny movie for this?), maybe the quick demise of a Fraternal Order of Brothers for the Betterment of Buggy Whip Makers (and the (quaint?) distaff group) might have been slowed to an agonizing rear-guard action--if such had no investment masterminds retained in their interests on Wall Street and beyond, and related strong funding for worker education and re-training, etc. of course, pressured by right to work activists, "Big Labor" and Congress combined cut away at certain crucial prerogatives then gutted by law, rules, rulings, and regulation. about first to be gutted were certain funds for...politics, with rationalizations galore about propriety, etc...
nowadaze, voters can easily vote against their own interests--just as easily as they can vote for them. and anyway, many elections don't really change lives except those of any running for votes. hacks also qualify fairly easily for mortgages in many regions of the country, but really, not many receiving minimum wages and well-known government subsidies--no matter any hard work, etc. yet many ambitiously mortgaged properties enslave "owners" to a strange sort of severe wage/salary slavery, with staggering obligations that true and maintained political and economic ignorance easily promote.
nowadaze, voters can easily vote against their own interests--just as easily as they can vote for them. and anyway, many elections don't really change lives except those of any running for votes. hacks also qualify fairly easily for mortgages in many regions of the country, but really, not many receiving minimum wages and well-known government subsidies--no matter any hard work, etc. yet many ambitiously mortgaged properties enslave "owners" to a strange sort of severe wage/salary slavery, with staggering obligations that true and maintained political and economic ignorance easily promote.
The only opinions I trust on this secretive Trans Pacific Partnership agreement are from the true public servants that represent the interests of Americans by the name of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Also, of course, if the majority of Republicans are in favor, I know it is a suspicious trade deal.
From what I've gleaned from articles quoting Harvard professor Warren, she points out that Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and out sourcers are salivating at the chance of this deal coming to fruition.
Meanwhile small-business owners would have to compete with overseas companies that are allowed to dump toxic waste in rivers without any Environmental Protection agency looking over their shoulders and are free to hire workers without any benefits for as little as $1.00 per day.
Bernie Sanders is opposed because the trade agreements only favor corporations who are interested in getting a better deal on labor in other countries as well as selling their products in other countries. There aren't any job protections included in the agreement, in fact, factories and manufacturing plants are in danger of being moved overseas in order to benefit from lax environmental protections in underdeveloped countries and exploiting poor workers in low wage countries who are competing for American jobs. Globalization is a great deal for pharmaceutical companies and for the stock holders who will profit from their new markets. TPP is a bad deal, don't believe the hype.
From what I've gleaned from articles quoting Harvard professor Warren, she points out that Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and out sourcers are salivating at the chance of this deal coming to fruition.
Meanwhile small-business owners would have to compete with overseas companies that are allowed to dump toxic waste in rivers without any Environmental Protection agency looking over their shoulders and are free to hire workers without any benefits for as little as $1.00 per day.
Bernie Sanders is opposed because the trade agreements only favor corporations who are interested in getting a better deal on labor in other countries as well as selling their products in other countries. There aren't any job protections included in the agreement, in fact, factories and manufacturing plants are in danger of being moved overseas in order to benefit from lax environmental protections in underdeveloped countries and exploiting poor workers in low wage countries who are competing for American jobs. Globalization is a great deal for pharmaceutical companies and for the stock holders who will profit from their new markets. TPP is a bad deal, don't believe the hype.
17
The two `experts' who Mr. Nocera consults for allegedly objective opinions on NAFTA and the TPP work for
(i) the Council on Foreign Relations, an establishment think tank whose board of directors is chock full of members of the 0.1% - trade lawyers, lobbyists, private equity moguls - who profit from the devastating effects of trade pacts:
http://www.cfr.org/about/people/board_of_directors.html
and (ii) the supposedly `left-leaning' Progressive Economy, which is in fact a Third Way retread whose website is essentially an advertisement for the TPP and whose board looks like a C-list version of CFR's board. (An executive at The Limited, which imports huge amounts of clothing from Asia? Really?)
Shame on Mr. Nocera, who should know better.
(i) the Council on Foreign Relations, an establishment think tank whose board of directors is chock full of members of the 0.1% - trade lawyers, lobbyists, private equity moguls - who profit from the devastating effects of trade pacts:
http://www.cfr.org/about/people/board_of_directors.html
and (ii) the supposedly `left-leaning' Progressive Economy, which is in fact a Third Way retread whose website is essentially an advertisement for the TPP and whose board looks like a C-list version of CFR's board. (An executive at The Limited, which imports huge amounts of clothing from Asia? Really?)
Shame on Mr. Nocera, who should know better.
15
Not blaming Nafta is like not blaming water for the flood. It was the rising tide of the investment class fattened off squandered tax revenue that broke the dam. That unions were swept away too is worrying.
There are many things blame for the failures in our nation. Picking one and forgetting the rest is gouging out ones eyes.
There are many things blame for the failures in our nation. Picking one and forgetting the rest is gouging out ones eyes.
8
"...other factors were taking place at the same time as Nafta: the growth of container ships, the lowering cost of communications, the rise of global industries. With or without trade deals, globalization is an unstoppable force."
If you have open markets. But perhaps some protectionism isn't a bad alternative to the brave new world of a permanent low-wage part-time work force, shopping for cheaply-made electronic trinkets from China at Walmart.
If you have open markets. But perhaps some protectionism isn't a bad alternative to the brave new world of a permanent low-wage part-time work force, shopping for cheaply-made electronic trinkets from China at Walmart.
9
There is a certain grim irony in the fact that factory workers in the 1990s knew exactly what impact NAFTA and similar agreements would have on their jobs and the economy while the political classes and Ivy League economists couldn't suss it out.
12
It wasn't that the political classes and Ivy League economists couldn't suss it out. They couldn't be bothered. They had no skin in the game. Nor do they now.
2
They had to know. They just lied.
1
How many columns over years has Nocera and others written to expose the lack of concern for US workers? Profits and private enterprise comes 1st and defending workers is too 'Leftish', untrendy. We’re advised to wait for Trickle Down, still.
The loopholes are set up to be the main thing. So they took workers' rights out of the 'equation'? What was the equation? Only business profits were left, exalted above all. And why not? Due to our unique corrupt election system, congress actually shares in the profits reaped by sending our jobs away and wrecking livelihoods—of the voters who elect them.
‘You’d need a heart of stone not to be sympathetic'....? Stoney hearts thrive in our politics, carefully disguised and explained away in our news media.
What clinches our exploitation is that our wealthy donor election campaigns serve to nicely nullify the opposition party, such as it is. Even if they want to oppose, who will get the financing?
Inescapably, only public financing and repealing of Citizens United can start the process of reversing the US theft of the middle class.
Discussion of campaign reform is conspicuously missing from the NY Times op ed pages, despite groups in many states working towards it.
Some nations have mitigated globalization’s effects with stronger unions, h/c for all, retraining or apprenticeship programs, and low cost college. All downgraded here. These seem to exist where there are publicly financed elections. We need examples.
The loopholes are set up to be the main thing. So they took workers' rights out of the 'equation'? What was the equation? Only business profits were left, exalted above all. And why not? Due to our unique corrupt election system, congress actually shares in the profits reaped by sending our jobs away and wrecking livelihoods—of the voters who elect them.
‘You’d need a heart of stone not to be sympathetic'....? Stoney hearts thrive in our politics, carefully disguised and explained away in our news media.
What clinches our exploitation is that our wealthy donor election campaigns serve to nicely nullify the opposition party, such as it is. Even if they want to oppose, who will get the financing?
Inescapably, only public financing and repealing of Citizens United can start the process of reversing the US theft of the middle class.
Discussion of campaign reform is conspicuously missing from the NY Times op ed pages, despite groups in many states working towards it.
Some nations have mitigated globalization’s effects with stronger unions, h/c for all, retraining or apprenticeship programs, and low cost college. All downgraded here. These seem to exist where there are publicly financed elections. We need examples.
10
Nafta or other trade agreements don't have to be the sole, or even main, cause of manufacturing job loss to be a significant cause. In the end, the question is whether these agreements are good for American workers and not just American businesses.
14
Mr. Nocera writes that under NAFTA "worker rights and environmental protections . . . were never effectively enforced. . . Those negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership expect to rectify that error this go-round."
Joe, Joe, Joe. Do you really think that worker rights and environmental protections will be effectively enforced under TPP ? Even if the words are put in the treaty or agreement, the chance of enforcement is zero. Zero.
I admire you, Mr. Nocera, and I don't mean to question your sincerity. But it is beyond ludicrous to argue that TPP will have any positive effect on working conditions or the environment, either abroad or at home. Speak out in favor of the TPP if you must, but put aside the labor/environment argument. It is baloney. And everyone knows it's baloney.
Joe, Joe, Joe. Do you really think that worker rights and environmental protections will be effectively enforced under TPP ? Even if the words are put in the treaty or agreement, the chance of enforcement is zero. Zero.
I admire you, Mr. Nocera, and I don't mean to question your sincerity. But it is beyond ludicrous to argue that TPP will have any positive effect on working conditions or the environment, either abroad or at home. Speak out in favor of the TPP if you must, but put aside the labor/environment argument. It is baloney. And everyone knows it's baloney.
14
"They are also aiming to pry open the Japanese auto and agricultural markets to American producers, and include protections for a free and open Internet. It has, in other words, a lot more potential to do good than harm."
What "other words"? You have not supplied them. Next time bring some analysis and statistics.
What "other words"? You have not supplied them. Next time bring some analysis and statistics.
4
Deng Xiaoping was negotiating for 'special economic zones' as far back as 1979. Why does 1979 seem to figure in so many economic questions, anyway? Maybe that's when Capital got whiff of that swarming mass of Chinese labor just ripe for the picking. NAFTA may not have helped as far as off-shoring goes, but it probably doesn't deserve the condemnation it gets. I'm sure there are industries that would beg to differ. But because of the controversy NAFTA generated, it would be foolish to fast track the TPP. Our lawmakers need to scrutinize this deal up, down and sideways. As far as jobs affected by the TPP go, I think China™ has more to worry about with other Asian countries and their abilities to undercut China's bottom line (all assisted by Capital and the TPP). I can't see the TPP making things any better for the working man here in our country. Capital is always going wherever it can get the job done cheaper without anyone looking over it's shoulder. Same old, same old.
5
At the signing of NAFTA president clinton in his signing speech said
"I believe we have made a decision now that will permit us to create an economic order in the world that will promote more growth, more equality, better preservation of the environment, and a greater possibility of world peace. "
We all know where that currently went too. Growth maybe for everybody else but the manufacturing jobs of the United States. Equality? for whom? Did president Clinton want us to become equal with the third world south american citizens that are illegaly crossing our borders? Was he talking income equality with third world neighbors? Better preservation of the environment? Well we know where that went too jusk ask the Chinese and the Indians between there gasping of air how that's working out. And World peace?? no comment on that one.
What I don't understand is how a democratic president stood up on a pedestal and shouted to the world " Please take our jobs Please" I just don't get it. And here we go again with making more trade agreements that never benefits the workers of our country.
"I believe we have made a decision now that will permit us to create an economic order in the world that will promote more growth, more equality, better preservation of the environment, and a greater possibility of world peace. "
We all know where that currently went too. Growth maybe for everybody else but the manufacturing jobs of the United States. Equality? for whom? Did president Clinton want us to become equal with the third world south american citizens that are illegaly crossing our borders? Was he talking income equality with third world neighbors? Better preservation of the environment? Well we know where that went too jusk ask the Chinese and the Indians between there gasping of air how that's working out. And World peace?? no comment on that one.
What I don't understand is how a democratic president stood up on a pedestal and shouted to the world " Please take our jobs Please" I just don't get it. And here we go again with making more trade agreements that never benefits the workers of our country.
26
Free trade is just one aspect of a global economy that has zero concern for the welfare of people. The Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul in his 1992 best seller Voltaire's Bastards (the Dictatorship of Reason in the West) understood the unintended consequence of efficiencies and the need for constant growth would be the disaster we now see engulfing our working class and much of our middle class.
Senator Sanders is indeed correct but an explanation of why he is correct requires a thorough examination of the World economy and how it became the master and the citizens became the slaves.
While the masters of the universe held their meeting in Davos I am sure no one asked what would be the affects of continuing to grow the world economy on the billions of little cogs in the economy whose well being is a byproduct of economic expansion.
Senator Sanders unlike his GOP comrades did not issue a blanket no way all he asked was to see the agreement and have time to examine.
For too many economic expansion is the goal and no amount of human suffering will dissuade the followers of Adam Smith that the invisible hand may cause more damage than any benefits that might be encompassed.
Maybe it is time to revisit 19th century Britain where Adam Smith and his The Wealth of Nations reigned supreme and the starvation of millions of Irish was simply fodder for Ireland's economic engine. We have made the economy our God and its sacrificial demands are destroying us.
Senator Sanders is indeed correct but an explanation of why he is correct requires a thorough examination of the World economy and how it became the master and the citizens became the slaves.
While the masters of the universe held their meeting in Davos I am sure no one asked what would be the affects of continuing to grow the world economy on the billions of little cogs in the economy whose well being is a byproduct of economic expansion.
Senator Sanders unlike his GOP comrades did not issue a blanket no way all he asked was to see the agreement and have time to examine.
For too many economic expansion is the goal and no amount of human suffering will dissuade the followers of Adam Smith that the invisible hand may cause more damage than any benefits that might be encompassed.
Maybe it is time to revisit 19th century Britain where Adam Smith and his The Wealth of Nations reigned supreme and the starvation of millions of Irish was simply fodder for Ireland's economic engine. We have made the economy our God and its sacrificial demands are destroying us.
15
Two canards that never seem to die, no matter how many times they are proven wrong: lower taxes on the very rich trickles down to benefit the rest of us and free-trade somehow helps American workers. Both are ingrained in Republican theology. Which is why free trade is always mentioned as an issue on which " we can work with the President to get things done." And why Democrats are right to oppose it.
30
President Clinton, Democrat, pushed through NAFTA and President Obama, Democrat, is pushing through TPP. Your conclusion; its the Republicans fault.
4
No, my conclusion is, any time time the chicken supports Col. Sanders, it's bad for the chicken.
2
President Clinton did not "push through" NAFTA. It was already through when he took office. He did sign the bill though. There is blame to be shared but, in this case it was largely the Republicans.
Nafta is totally at fault. First it exported jobs north and south, but mostly south for cheaper labor. Second it opened the door for more free trade agreements during the first decade of the 21st century and now the really big one across asia. It amazes me that any thinking person can believe that Nafta did nothing to cause worker pain in the US. You only cited one company, what about entire industries. And maybe NAFTA, being the birth mother of free trade helped in no small way to seriously damage unions which was then protecting workers. Now they can only try to given their seriously deminished state. Yes, I blame NAFTA.
16
This is terribly misguided. Jobs is the least of it. Arrangements like TPP mean that corporations and not nations are sovereign. Private corporations can obliterate locally enacted laws and tell governments what to do. Corporations are people, and some of those people are world dictators.
24
Nafta was indeed the predicted "sucking sound". But since we seem to be stuck with globalization, it must, this time, work to our benefit. First and foremost is the opening of foreign markets. Japan in particular has stonewalled that for years. Second, any trade must be tied to other international efforts, particularly fishing and whaling, and existing environmental treaties. No I am not a tree hugger but enough is enough on these fronts. Wage levels must be set so that our industries not only remain conpetitive, but it becomes advantageous to return manufacturing to our shores. That is where the middle class came from and it is there to which it must return.
Finally, the President is no dictator. Take it or leave it is not an option.
Finally, the President is no dictator. Take it or leave it is not an option.
5
The negotiation process for the TTP is profoundly undemocratic. The negotiators are operating in secret with the notable exception of the large multinational corporations and lobbyists with an interest in this treaty who are actually helping to write it.
Meanwhile "fast track" authority would require an up or down vote from Congress with no opportunity for amendment.
TTP, and TTIP which is the treaty being negotiated between the EU and the US, are more than "trade" agreements; they will have wide ranging and profound effects on public services and regulation in the public interest. Our governments would be ceding sovereignty to the multinationals and I don't think that is much of an exaggeration, especially if the investor-state dispute resolution provision is included. This provision will allow corporations to sue governments for potential lost profits if regulations are seen to interfere with business.
Living in the UK I strongly oppose TTIP. It is impossible to support this treaty with what is known about it so far.
Joe, please read Bernie Sanders' letter to the US Trade Rep. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/sandersustrletter.pdf
The first thing that needs to happen is complete transparency of the negotiations. The EU, in response to widespread public scepticism, has actually published some of the proposed texts for TTIP, along with some fact sheets. This needs to go much further, with all negotiation texts available to the public.
Meanwhile "fast track" authority would require an up or down vote from Congress with no opportunity for amendment.
TTP, and TTIP which is the treaty being negotiated between the EU and the US, are more than "trade" agreements; they will have wide ranging and profound effects on public services and regulation in the public interest. Our governments would be ceding sovereignty to the multinationals and I don't think that is much of an exaggeration, especially if the investor-state dispute resolution provision is included. This provision will allow corporations to sue governments for potential lost profits if regulations are seen to interfere with business.
Living in the UK I strongly oppose TTIP. It is impossible to support this treaty with what is known about it so far.
Joe, please read Bernie Sanders' letter to the US Trade Rep. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/sandersustrletter.pdf
The first thing that needs to happen is complete transparency of the negotiations. The EU, in response to widespread public scepticism, has actually published some of the proposed texts for TTIP, along with some fact sheets. This needs to go much further, with all negotiation texts available to the public.
23
It would be the demise of US federalism. The US government is negotiating in things it does not have the constitutional right to do - because they are reserved to the states - except by so expanding the Commerce clause that it puts a joke to the whole idea of federalism. Of course this isn't being discussed. The Senate which is to represent the interests of the States in a republic federalist government should be up in arms on this!
3
Please, they're not "negotiators," they're "stakeholders."
1
All free trade does is let capitalism chase the cheapest labor it can find without any restrictions; that's called managing your expenses and every good manager does it. There is no economic reason to "make in America" unless it helps the bottom line. There is a recognized and effective way to move manufacturing jobs back to the US. Tariffs make imported goods cost the same or more than US goods, and they have been used many times in our history. Then make American companies pay a premium for goods they manufacture offshore and import at the expense of American labor. And finally, "incentivize" American manufacturers to "make American" with grants and tax breaks. But don't expect Wal Mart prices for your t-shirts and flip-flops because the price of most goods will go up. Would you rather have cheap, imported manufactured goods, or blue collar American making a living wage? I would gladly opt for the latter. And don't expect companies like GE to take it laying down when they have foreign labor and US markets to fatten their wallets.
123
Maybe the CEO's and other management would also have to consider reducing their own salaries to a mere 100 times what their employees earn.
2
Uh, let's see. since NAFTA has been in force, thousands of jobs have been shipped south of the border. And they haven't been replaced. More are going to go away soon after the agreement to let Mexican truckers drive their rigs deep into the US. What am I not seeing? I have not seen any statistics that show that the trade agreements have been a net plus for either the US or the other parties to the treaty.
These free trade agreements appear to be nothing more than a bill of rights for multi-national corporations. We ship jobs to Mexico which profits for a while. Environmental and labor norms are ignored, people are sickened and exploited and when they decide to fight, the company picks up stakes and abandons the factories and their workers.
The TPP is just another step on the race to the bottom.
Congress is given the power advise and consent to treaties. This so-called 'Fast Track Authority', is an abdication of Congressional prerogative and responsibility. It should be rejected on principle alone.
These free trade agreements appear to be nothing more than a bill of rights for multi-national corporations. We ship jobs to Mexico which profits for a while. Environmental and labor norms are ignored, people are sickened and exploited and when they decide to fight, the company picks up stakes and abandons the factories and their workers.
The TPP is just another step on the race to the bottom.
Congress is given the power advise and consent to treaties. This so-called 'Fast Track Authority', is an abdication of Congressional prerogative and responsibility. It should be rejected on principle alone.
109
Nocera may be right about the relative impact of NAFTA and other trade agreements on loss of U.S. jobs, but we're suspicious when the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement gets more support from Congressional Republicans than from Democrats. These agreements seem to be designed to facilitate the operations of large international (or would be international) corporations with little regard for workers and their jobs. Sen. Sanders is nobody's fool, and his knowledge of how these agreements affect our economy and workers' welfare carries weight with those of us who are progressives.
And although we don't have an explicit trade agreement with China, the mere existence of agreements like NAFTA set the scene for the corporate "race to the bottom" in seeking the cheapest possible labor with the fewest restrictions on worker rights or environmental concerns. Yes, we have more goodies available at cheaper prices (adjusted for inflation) than ever, but what if you don't have the income to pay for them? Tariffs have been done away with in these agreements, and tariffs do raise the cost of imported goods, but they also serve as protection for domestic jobs. Maybe we should consider bringing tariffs back, rather than signing on to new agreements that are basically only good for corporations.
And although we don't have an explicit trade agreement with China, the mere existence of agreements like NAFTA set the scene for the corporate "race to the bottom" in seeking the cheapest possible labor with the fewest restrictions on worker rights or environmental concerns. Yes, we have more goodies available at cheaper prices (adjusted for inflation) than ever, but what if you don't have the income to pay for them? Tariffs have been done away with in these agreements, and tariffs do raise the cost of imported goods, but they also serve as protection for domestic jobs. Maybe we should consider bringing tariffs back, rather than signing on to new agreements that are basically only good for corporations.
84
The biggest problem with free trade is that it can lead to loss of a country's resilience. Regions like the Mideast that have grown their population and economies bases on finite resources like oil at the expense of agriculture are in a heap of trouble. A country should never outsource products necessary to their survival. No county should ever position itself where it's survival is at the mercy of 'free' trade.
4
It would be interesting to see if free trade would still be attractive if the additional carbon that they encourage had to be paid for by the producers.
5
Okay, Joe.
So how do you propose we get all those jobs back, and keep the ones we have, with this trade agreement?
I don't see any real policy in this column, only the idea that with enough empty buildings, someone who used to work at the company that once owned them will come along and start a new company doing something new. That's kind of tooth-fairy thinking, not policy.
The reason we have these trade agreements is usually because the billionaire class determines that they can make more money in a new market, so they hire their lobbyists to make lawmakers think its a good idea.
THe people who come up with these ideas don't do so because it will be good for the American working class.
As for rectifying the errors of NAFTA in this new agreement, that's overly optimistic. There will be banks of lawyers and accountants hired just to find new loopholes in the new law. Trade agreements are written by the lawyers and politicians of both sides, and both sides try to get something into the agreement that they can take advantage of.
I don't trust this bill. I'm surprised that you take it so easily on face value.
So how do you propose we get all those jobs back, and keep the ones we have, with this trade agreement?
I don't see any real policy in this column, only the idea that with enough empty buildings, someone who used to work at the company that once owned them will come along and start a new company doing something new. That's kind of tooth-fairy thinking, not policy.
The reason we have these trade agreements is usually because the billionaire class determines that they can make more money in a new market, so they hire their lobbyists to make lawmakers think its a good idea.
THe people who come up with these ideas don't do so because it will be good for the American working class.
As for rectifying the errors of NAFTA in this new agreement, that's overly optimistic. There will be banks of lawyers and accountants hired just to find new loopholes in the new law. Trade agreements are written by the lawyers and politicians of both sides, and both sides try to get something into the agreement that they can take advantage of.
I don't trust this bill. I'm surprised that you take it so easily on face value.
21
It's worse than you know HDNY! NAFTA was pushed by Bill Clinton and Al Gore over the objections of environmental activists who worried Mexico would ignore what few environmental laws they had to get jobs. Bill said, "Oh, we will insist that they follow American standards." Yea, right. Look where NAFTA, the blue print for export of American jobs got us. We are now breathing in the fumes from Chinese coal plants fired up to support their manufacturing.
7
They won't have to find the loopholes. They're the ones putting them there.
4
If it is inaccurate to find direct and single causation, and NAFTA is just a symptom of globalization, then it would be also inaccurate to see such a trade agreement as not a factor at all, it seems to me -- maybe trade agreements facilitate forces already in play, but I have a hard time believing they are irrelevant. I think it's not that we need to say the attribution to NAFTA is wrong and it's this other thing instead, but rather we should be saying that there are many contributing factors, let's see how NAFTA fits into that dynamic.
7
Free trade agreements have winners and losers in each country that participates.
They certainly help the citizens of that poorer nation: often ones that are better educated yet make 5-10x less than their US counterpart. These are the true 99% and they have gained more in the past 20 years than at any point in history.
Conversely, the very same blue collar workers in the US with lower educational levels are harmed as their wages are artificially inflated because they are really in the top 1% of the world.
The other big winner is consumers in the US who can buy good for much lower prices.
We do need strong environmental and worker safety protections in these agreement.
They certainly help the citizens of that poorer nation: often ones that are better educated yet make 5-10x less than their US counterpart. These are the true 99% and they have gained more in the past 20 years than at any point in history.
Conversely, the very same blue collar workers in the US with lower educational levels are harmed as their wages are artificially inflated because they are really in the top 1% of the world.
The other big winner is consumers in the US who can buy good for much lower prices.
We do need strong environmental and worker safety protections in these agreement.
3
Obviously, you've never traveled abroad. You also haven't lost a job due to NAFTA, and obviously won't lose one because of this proposed agreement. However, the representatives who have the best records of trying to protect American jobs tell you that this will be harmful to the workers they represent, and you chose to believe the people who are most likely to profit from this agreement, people who already have more money than they know what to with. It is likely that you also oppose affordable health care for all Americans or free community colleges. We are living through a strange period of political madness in this country, and it is all rather sad. We are citizens of a once great country in decline, mostly through the organized efforts of its wealthiest.
8
You left out the real winners, the super-rich and multinational corporations. Do you really think it's appropriate for our government to enter into treaties which benefit citizens of foreign countries at the expense of our own citizens and to lie about it?
4
Capitalism loves innovation and cheap labor.
We have innovation and that is why Apple starts here and China has cheap labor and that is why Apple manufacturing jobs go there.
Unless we protect American jobs with tariffs , as we did in the 19th century, many jobs in the US are doomed if not already extinct.
More immigration will not solve the above problem.
We have innovation and that is why Apple starts here and China has cheap labor and that is why Apple manufacturing jobs go there.
Unless we protect American jobs with tariffs , as we did in the 19th century, many jobs in the US are doomed if not already extinct.
More immigration will not solve the above problem.
12
The point has already been made, and accurately, that Kodak was going to lose those jobs no matter what. The businesses taking its former space have nothing to do with its downsizing.
Globalism is not really such a terrible thing, and we need to abandon isolationist viewpoints instead of holding on to the dream that somehow the country can escape it. In the long run, the objective of globalism is to level the playing field around the world.
Globalism is also inevitable because the world has become so much smaller due to technology. Now that you can send documents electronically, conference call from computer, and monitor supply lines via GPS in real-time, there's no reason for companies to not participate in the global economy.
But leveling the playing field will take a century or more. In the meantime, it's up to our government to stop worrying about American jobs and start worrying about American workers' rights as employees of international companies.
Globalism is not really such a terrible thing, and we need to abandon isolationist viewpoints instead of holding on to the dream that somehow the country can escape it. In the long run, the objective of globalism is to level the playing field around the world.
Globalism is also inevitable because the world has become so much smaller due to technology. Now that you can send documents electronically, conference call from computer, and monitor supply lines via GPS in real-time, there's no reason for companies to not participate in the global economy.
But leveling the playing field will take a century or more. In the meantime, it's up to our government to stop worrying about American jobs and start worrying about American workers' rights as employees of international companies.
1
Economists are the high priests of globalism, including immigration. They are well rewarded for their service to global corporations: corporate boards are filled with them, along with out of work politicians.
'Every job an immigrant takes creates 3.7 new jobs' - that sort of thing is always in demand.
Many 'name brand' economists make far more from corporations than from their day jobs.
The modern corrupt network of government, academics, and rent-seeking corporations which has come close to destroying the world financial system [2008] is well explained in 'Predator Nation.' 2012 by Charles H. Ferguson.
---
Case in point:
'Laura D'Andrea Tyson (born June 28, 1947) is an American economist and former Chair of the US President's Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration. She also served as Director of the National Economic Council. She is currently a professor at the Haas School of Business of the University of California, Berkeley.' [Wikipedia]
Not especially known for corruption, in 2011 she had four corporate directorships that paid her $784K a year. Other income not required to be stated by Berkeley.
I remember she wrote an editorial for increasing H1-B quotas in the last attempt to do so, probably 2007, that was pure industry talking points.
Could lucre have turned the head of our simple schoolmarm? Who knows.
'Every job an immigrant takes creates 3.7 new jobs' - that sort of thing is always in demand.
Many 'name brand' economists make far more from corporations than from their day jobs.
The modern corrupt network of government, academics, and rent-seeking corporations which has come close to destroying the world financial system [2008] is well explained in 'Predator Nation.' 2012 by Charles H. Ferguson.
---
Case in point:
'Laura D'Andrea Tyson (born June 28, 1947) is an American economist and former Chair of the US President's Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration. She also served as Director of the National Economic Council. She is currently a professor at the Haas School of Business of the University of California, Berkeley.' [Wikipedia]
Not especially known for corruption, in 2011 she had four corporate directorships that paid her $784K a year. Other income not required to be stated by Berkeley.
I remember she wrote an editorial for increasing H1-B quotas in the last attempt to do so, probably 2007, that was pure industry talking points.
Could lucre have turned the head of our simple schoolmarm? Who knows.
19
I think we misuse the term Free trade as we do with Free market. The concept of free means that the trade or market is free of undue forces, is fair and honest. I think the corporations and hedge funds definition is anything that limits their objectives. I don't see how one can say that we are in a free market when we import products manufactured by slave/child/subservient labor. It is not free as it does not compete honestly with our values, laws and vision of the world. Globalization is not the future it is the end.
28
Completely agree with this view. The NAFTA is anything but "free" for Mexico. Its workers cannot freely obtain jobs in the US (an viceversa). Mexico cannot freely send trucks with merchandise through US highways. The American agricultural sector is probably one of the more subsidized in the world, while the Mexican government practically wiped out subsidies for small farmers in Mexico, leaving them to compete in a terrible uneven field. The fructose lobbyists in Washington will not let Mexican sugar into the US. Mexican tuna, avocado, and many other products face similar situations. The Mexican mining sector was opened to international investment without an appropriate legal framework, and the result is pollution and exploitation at the hands of foreign companies, particularly Canadian ones, which could never get away in their own country with the practices they apply in Mexico. I could go on an on. Each country has suffered different losses from these agreements, which should be named for what they really are: efforts to eliminate some barriers and tariffs. However, the idea of a totally free commerce and flow of goods/people is still very far away in the future.
1
Globalization may continue into the indefinite future, but it is not an unstoppable force. Look at political and cultural trends in Europe, for example. Nationalism is on the rise, and politics still determine national policies. A party that wants to reverse globalization within its country's borders can do so if it gets enough votes. Additionally, the possibility of a collapse of the global system cannot be ruled out. As the costs of an ever more complex global system rise, so too rises the odds in favor of its ultimate collapse.
9
The policy question is not whether we can say that a particular trade agreement caused harm, but whether we can say that our overall trade approach did good, both on the consumer side and on the jobs/industrial capabilities side.
One point to be made is that if trade is made completely "free" then standards of living around the globe will be driven to a weighted average value which is vastly below the standard of living here. Standards in other countries will come up, but ours is definitely going down under "free" conditions.
Our policymakers should be asking whether trade agreements slow the slide of our standard of living towards the global mean or not. The weight given this question with respect to trade agreements is and has been too low. We need to raise the weight of it and bias agreements towards slowing the slide and maintaining industrial capacity here. Terms that protect US jobs and industrial capabilities are crucial to our ability to maintain our standard of living.
If people argue protectionism, we can say that we are just maintaining a higher standard for others to aspire to.
One point to be made is that if trade is made completely "free" then standards of living around the globe will be driven to a weighted average value which is vastly below the standard of living here. Standards in other countries will come up, but ours is definitely going down under "free" conditions.
Our policymakers should be asking whether trade agreements slow the slide of our standard of living towards the global mean or not. The weight given this question with respect to trade agreements is and has been too low. We need to raise the weight of it and bias agreements towards slowing the slide and maintaining industrial capacity here. Terms that protect US jobs and industrial capabilities are crucial to our ability to maintain our standard of living.
If people argue protectionism, we can say that we are just maintaining a higher standard for others to aspire to.
15
Mr. Nocera has not convinced me that American jobs won't be lost to the TPP. Beyond that, according to the leaked chapters of this "trade" agreement, most of the chapters have **nothing to do with trade.** Instead they do things such as give corporations the right to sue for anticipated lost profits if legislation is passed that might, for example, regulate pesticides or tobacco use; that these cases are judged by a panel made up largely of corporate lawyers who, when not serving on the panel, may be prosecutors in the cases; provisions that extend patents in alarming ways, including some that would lower access to generic medications so badly needed in the 3rd world; serious environmental concerns; serious food and product safety concerns, and much more. It is not the job of these mega-corporations to protect my grandchildren's future--that's my job, and also the job of our elected representatives.
40
TTIP seems mostly about bringing down regional and locals laws in order to protect corporate gains.
The information we have so far about the arbitration regulations seem to create a situation in which a corporation can bring down local laws because it feels so.
And that is way off any definition of free trade there ever was.
That is brutal colonization.
The information we have so far about the arbitration regulations seem to create a situation in which a corporation can bring down local laws because it feels so.
And that is way off any definition of free trade there ever was.
That is brutal colonization.
8
To say that some hundreds of thousands of jobs have vanished in the US because of some free trade agreements is easy.
To prove that these jobs would have stayed in the US is rather impossible.
Still, most of these jobs, e.g. the ones at Kodak. have disappeared because of technology advances or because other workforces are more efficient, cheaper, more educated or simply because another country has moved and advanced further than the US has.
So what some people want is to protect their own turf by controlling foreign countries and economies.
And that is not what Free Trade means, that is protectionism.
You can only win if you are the best, if you try to enforce things, they will not work in the long run, maybe, but only maybe, they will will work in the short run.
After that, you will lose anyway to the better opponent.
To prove that these jobs would have stayed in the US is rather impossible.
Still, most of these jobs, e.g. the ones at Kodak. have disappeared because of technology advances or because other workforces are more efficient, cheaper, more educated or simply because another country has moved and advanced further than the US has.
So what some people want is to protect their own turf by controlling foreign countries and economies.
And that is not what Free Trade means, that is protectionism.
You can only win if you are the best, if you try to enforce things, they will not work in the long run, maybe, but only maybe, they will will work in the short run.
After that, you will lose anyway to the better opponent.
1
Corporate America seems to love communism when there is a buck to be made. I always thought capitalists hated communism, hum.
5
correction: digital photography cooked kodak's goose,it was not NAFTA
2
While it was before nafta, the NY rep is correct that "free" trade legislation did, in fact, play a role, and an important one, in Kodak's demise. You need to go back to the late 1980s and into the 1990s in Kodak's trade battles with Fuji Film dumping product in the U. S. market undercutting Kodak's domestic market and then Japan having unfair and uncompetitive trade policies that kept Kodak out of Japan. Fuji also dumped product in other markets around the world, too. This hurt Kodak's profitability and hampered Kodak's ability to maintain investment in R&D. Did not help Kodak was a public company and subject to the wall street mania at the time of short-term investor profit and not long-term investment growth in the business. As well as coupled with poor management and leadership. But the unfair and illegal trade actions of Japan and Fuji and the U. S. government's refusal to defend against dumping (preditory business actions that historically are in US domestic law unfair and uncompetitive trade practices) is a classic case study of how such trade practices set conditions for the long-term economic damage to a company and US R&D. kodak was one of the US's best R&D firms. Loss of Kodak is the same as a major US university closing it's physics, engineering, chemistry depts. A huge loss for the US. It is not all about just a single product line. This is how unfair trade and anticompetitive practices have hurt the US economy over the last 40 yrs.
1
As a general matter, more trade means more prosperity all around. But it can have its Kodak moments.
The problem with truly free trade is that every little true protection that keeps companies from innovating in the interests of not needing to risk or invest becomes as transparent to empowered global competition as an emperor suddenly naked on Fifth Avenue and 57th Street at High Noon on a sunny Saturday. It becomes a target, one quickly stuck with a lot of arrows. And if our companies don't see it and react fast enough, we will lose middle-class jobs.
But nobody innovates the way we do, and we shouldn't fear this if we're allowed the same opportunity to launch arrows as anyone else. Of course, if you're Louise Slaughter and you represent entrenched interests you're going to take a dim view of better mousetraps NOT invented by your guys.
The problem with truly free trade is that every little true protection that keeps companies from innovating in the interests of not needing to risk or invest becomes as transparent to empowered global competition as an emperor suddenly naked on Fifth Avenue and 57th Street at High Noon on a sunny Saturday. It becomes a target, one quickly stuck with a lot of arrows. And if our companies don't see it and react fast enough, we will lose middle-class jobs.
But nobody innovates the way we do, and we shouldn't fear this if we're allowed the same opportunity to launch arrows as anyone else. Of course, if you're Louise Slaughter and you represent entrenched interests you're going to take a dim view of better mousetraps NOT invented by your guys.
Cross the border into Mexico - within spitting distance are large factories that bear names that once graced factories in the USA. They were not built to ship goods to Central America.
21
What free trade means is American workers are supposed to compete with foreign workers who make as little as 50 cents and hour. That's the real motive behind it for the capitalists.
50
Some have eyes to see, yet are blind! NAFTA is a major factor, second is high labor costs, third is growing expectation of benefits, and the final is government over regulation.
If the Trans Pacific Partnership is such a wonderful deal for American workers, why has the administration chosen to carry out the negotiations in secret with the input of major corporations and without the input of Congreess?
72
Playing with words. Its not Nafta but free trade that has gutted our manufacturing base. Steel, textiles, furniture, autos and on and on our manufacturers and jobs have been sold out overseas to the lowest bidder and gutted labor and environmental protection as well.
15
Okay Mr. Nocera. I challenge you to look at those 55 businesses replacing Kodak. How many people do they employ? What are their wages like? How about health insurance, vacation time, overtime? What level of sales do they have compared to Kodak?
Then please look at the TPP and European trade deal and see how they gut all worker and environmental protections and allow corporations to set up their own panels to decide if your laws impinge their lust for profit. If their group decides it does then they can get damages from the offending government without having to deal with those pesky court systems.
Sound too extreme? Then read the proposals and then look at the plethora of lawsuits, based on free trade agreemants, that the tobacco companies are waging against the Australian governments plain packaging laws. How about the hedge fund suing the government of Costa Rica because it won't approve their gold mine that will pollute oné of the country's main rivers? Suing in Government courts is no longer good enough, now the corporations want their own arbitration panels to decide the matters.
If you want to write about trade deals, please take the time to read them first.
If you want to write about how wonderful it is that 55 companies took the place of Kodak, then put a little depth into it and tell us how wonderful the lives of the new workers are in comparison.
Then please look at the TPP and European trade deal and see how they gut all worker and environmental protections and allow corporations to set up their own panels to decide if your laws impinge their lust for profit. If their group decides it does then they can get damages from the offending government without having to deal with those pesky court systems.
Sound too extreme? Then read the proposals and then look at the plethora of lawsuits, based on free trade agreemants, that the tobacco companies are waging against the Australian governments plain packaging laws. How about the hedge fund suing the government of Costa Rica because it won't approve their gold mine that will pollute oné of the country's main rivers? Suing in Government courts is no longer good enough, now the corporations want their own arbitration panels to decide the matters.
If you want to write about trade deals, please take the time to read them first.
If you want to write about how wonderful it is that 55 companies took the place of Kodak, then put a little depth into it and tell us how wonderful the lives of the new workers are in comparison.
86
Even if you're right, the fact remains that real wages remain stagnant for the vast majority after thirty years. Call it what you will, it's not pretty.
6
Correct. But if we can't agree on the true cause, we can't agree on a solution.
1
Life and business are dynamic. For example, the more energy alternatives to the combustion of coal we humans can find, the better. However, there will still be those voices in coal production regions bemoaning the loss of jobs in the coal mining industry.
How many workers do the 55 companies that exist in the former Kodak building employ? At what wages?
Globalization is probably inevitable, but still represents a race to the bottom with respect to wages and quality of life for the American middle class. In the meantime, our political class, composed of prominent Democrats as well as Republicans, is richer than ever.
Protectionism may not be the answer, but we'd better find what is.
Globalization is probably inevitable, but still represents a race to the bottom with respect to wages and quality of life for the American middle class. In the meantime, our political class, composed of prominent Democrats as well as Republicans, is richer than ever.
Protectionism may not be the answer, but we'd better find what is.
15
The problem is the lack of any effective US government response to global competition. Joe is correct that the forces of globalization would, even absent FTAs, have gutted American manufacturing. The problem is not Republican support for free trade but Republican opposition to any attempts to ameliorate the impacts on the US worker. Putting up tariff walls would ultimately put our nation into a globally non-competitive state (think of the US auto industry in 1980). We can't go there. But we could be doing a lot more to make ourselves competitive - just look at Germany for some ideas.
In addition, FTAs aren't just about low tariffs, but are also being used as a tool to undermine the rights of citizens to pass such food safety and environmental laws as they deem appropriate. One example is the recent WTO decision that US meat cannot be labeled for country of origin as this unfairly discriminates against meat from our trading partners. Yes, such laws can have an unfair trade aspect but I support our rights under a democracy to decide for ourselves. Similarly, the Europeans should have the right to protect their food and motion picture cultures if important to them. Free trade is fine but it has been taken too far, and our government is doing almost nothing to help citizens adapt and compete.
In addition, FTAs aren't just about low tariffs, but are also being used as a tool to undermine the rights of citizens to pass such food safety and environmental laws as they deem appropriate. One example is the recent WTO decision that US meat cannot be labeled for country of origin as this unfairly discriminates against meat from our trading partners. Yes, such laws can have an unfair trade aspect but I support our rights under a democracy to decide for ourselves. Similarly, the Europeans should have the right to protect their food and motion picture cultures if important to them. Free trade is fine but it has been taken too far, and our government is doing almost nothing to help citizens adapt and compete.
34
Yes Thomas like the Germans; hollowing out labor laws, rewriting the social contract, hiding behind the Euro. Today a new study showed that more than 16% of full time German workers live in poverty conditions (Data from the German Office of statistics), in the northern Landers the number is 24%. Yes Thomas, like the Germans . . .
1
Germany does not practice free trade. They are a modern mercantilist state! It was the Whigs and then Republicans who were the historical defenders of the US worker. Read Lincoln and Henry Clay on need to protect US worker and his high pay relative to rest of the world. It was high trade barriers that let Henry Ford pay his workers above world levels! It was the demise of the progressive side of Republican party (think Teddy Roosevelt Republicans) that the party moved to representing corporate and now fully formed oligopolist power. The Democrats, outside of FDR, have rarely ever been strong supporters of American workers. The cold war and ideological fight against communism hid the fact that there really was no political party that truly supports American workers. The TTP now makes that very clear. And BTW no free trade treaty has ever provided the economic benefits to the US worker or consumer it's proponents promised. Again, that is none, zippa, nada, not a one. No economist has demonstrated otherwise, including that they truly reduce consumer prices while maintaining quality. That is not to say there are no benefits to such deals, it is just those benefits do not rise to the promised levels. Indeed, one can view trade deals like every other special interest legislation. They only benefit a select few. In that respect one of the interesting things about them is the spatial impact on the selective winners and the vast losers.
2
I read that TPP is not only for the primary benefit of corporations, but being driven and written by their lawyers and Lobbyists. Corporations may sue the governments of treaty members if the laws of these countries cause the corporations to lose profits. If for example a Chinese energy company does not like a US strict environmental law, they may sue us for damages. If this is accurate, TPP is an outrageous further step toward global corporations taking over from nation states. Insanity.
61
That "Chinese" company could also be a foreign subsidiary of an ostensibly American company.
2
Joe might as well be writing this for the WSJ. That is his real audience. He smugly announces in his last sentences that this is the way globaism is suppose to work! Yes, it is working the way big corporations like it and they don't give a hoot about America or American workers. They care only about how their businesses are doing world wide. That is what globalism is. And these corporations have to be coerced into paying reasonable taxes to boot and many never will with their clever CFO's hiding their loot in the Cayman and bogus off shore companies. Sanders and Slaughter are correct. Joe Nocera is not. The TPP is a secret agreement put together by large corporations to benefit large corporations. Members of congress learned about its contents from Wikileaks!
164
Indeed, NAFTA and the other free trade agreements that I administer as part of my Federal law enforcement duties at Customs are not to blame for the haemorrage of jobs from America. Greed is. The Chinese leveraged their cheap, often compulsory, as in slave labor, with its sordid siblings of child labor and prison labor, with brilliant economic success. Customs has never been permitted to visit Chinese manufacturing sites to verify that slave conditions, children working at early ages, and prisoners, are not being exploited. And Congress has lost all its negotiating leverage when we decided to go forward with our World Trade Organisation membership condition, dictated by China, that we drop our quota/visa requirement for Chinese origin textiles and apparel in 2008. In my own family, my sibling who is CFO of a manufacturing company in Pennsylvania, has seen profits explode since he eliminated most of his American production and sourced the company's products in China. There's no going back once the plutocrats taste the opium of easy money.
44
Amazingly, there is not a word in your column about what is certainly one of the most deleterious effects of NAFTA: the massive wave of illegal immigrants who have entered this country because of the weak Mexican economy. One of the selling points of NAFTA when it was being debated was that free trade would so improve the Mexican economy that illegal immigration would slow to a trickle, thus saving American jobs and wages which would otherwise have both been adversely affected. We all know how that worked out. The immigrants were used as a gigantic whipsaw to depress wages even further than they already were, leading to a raft of related consequences that were all eagerly sought after by American businesses, e.g, the ruin of labor unions, to cite just one thing. You are being dishonest when this issue is not mentioned, even in passing.
65
Over the past 30 years Southeast Asian entrepreneurs (with government support) have built a multi $Trillion dollar supply chain that lands products in the US at a 30% to 50% lower cost than Made in USA. Their labor costs are about 1/3 of ours and their regulatory cost is minimal. World prices for $Billions of products are set by these Asian low cost producers. You could produce them here (and sell at competitive prices) with about a 40% loss on each dollar sold (instead of a normal 5% profit), or you must produce offshore and make your 5% profit that way at Walmart rollback prices. It isn’t greed that drives offshoring, instead its economic survival.
Our distressed middle class buys products frugally. They buy Asian products at Walmart’s rollback prices and wouldn’t pay 30% to 50% more for a Made in US label…period. Utopian notions about US consumers paying huge premiums for Made in USA or Southeast Asians imposing major regulatory costs on their producers are silly.
We have lost 10 million high value manufacturing jobs so far, and millions more are exposed.
This is a primary cause of income inequality among our 75 million blue collar workers. We could keep on telling our blue collar workers the "Big Lie" that federal regulation is FREE! According to the SBA, the cost of fed regulation now exceeds $2Tn annually. Maybe truth-telling is someone's moral obligation.
Are low paying Amazon distribution warehouses, Walmart, and fast food franchises, our strategic goal?
Our distressed middle class buys products frugally. They buy Asian products at Walmart’s rollback prices and wouldn’t pay 30% to 50% more for a Made in US label…period. Utopian notions about US consumers paying huge premiums for Made in USA or Southeast Asians imposing major regulatory costs on their producers are silly.
We have lost 10 million high value manufacturing jobs so far, and millions more are exposed.
This is a primary cause of income inequality among our 75 million blue collar workers. We could keep on telling our blue collar workers the "Big Lie" that federal regulation is FREE! According to the SBA, the cost of fed regulation now exceeds $2Tn annually. Maybe truth-telling is someone's moral obligation.
Are low paying Amazon distribution warehouses, Walmart, and fast food franchises, our strategic goal?
10
I agree that NAfTA should have included workers' and environmental protections, and that these terms should be incorporated into the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other global trade agreements.
My agreement with Nocera, however, ends there. NAFTA has accelerated the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs and future trade agreements, without safeguards, will do the same. While free trade is a powerful concept, more must be done to keep manufacturing jobs in America. Access to American consumers is critical to financial success, but that access should be continent on supporting the U.S.-based employment that will allow American workers to keep consuming.
Selling out American workers is not only disingenuous, it is dangerous and venal.
My agreement with Nocera, however, ends there. NAFTA has accelerated the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs and future trade agreements, without safeguards, will do the same. While free trade is a powerful concept, more must be done to keep manufacturing jobs in America. Access to American consumers is critical to financial success, but that access should be continent on supporting the U.S.-based employment that will allow American workers to keep consuming.
Selling out American workers is not only disingenuous, it is dangerous and venal.
51
C'mon, Joe. Are all you corporate journalists required to take a vow to genuflect at the "free trade" altar in order to keep your sinecures? "Free trade" is responsible for the off shoring of jobs, the deindustrialization of America, wage stagnation, income inequality, the destruction of economic mobility and unions, the loss of tax base for our state and local governments and the destruction of the middle class. It also helps corporations end run governments including our own in special kangaroo trade courts. What's not to like?
123
Yes, and please include in your list environmental degradation and absolutely no worker rights in the countries that now supply our markets. And the pollution that has been allowed in china and mexico affects us, every day. We had an obligation to lead, on those fronts, and NAFTA, just like this new trade deal, drops the ball entirely and incredibly irresponsibily.
21
EJS....'corporate journalists required to take a vow to genuflect at the "free trade" altar in order to keep your sinecures?'
Your phrase hits the spot. Nocera is quite dependable.
Even Krugman in his Jan 19th blog says he is in general a free trader. And he's the 'conscience of a liberal'. He thinks many of the evils (that he laments) may be caused by things other than free trade deals like Nafta.
But so what, if there are some other causes as well for our wealth gap, etc.? So favor free trade?
We need a truth telling liberal on the op ed page.
Your phrase hits the spot. Nocera is quite dependable.
Even Krugman in his Jan 19th blog says he is in general a free trader. And he's the 'conscience of a liberal'. He thinks many of the evils (that he laments) may be caused by things other than free trade deals like Nafta.
But so what, if there are some other causes as well for our wealth gap, etc.? So favor free trade?
We need a truth telling liberal on the op ed page.
6
In reply to Meredith - - Krugman's early work clearly demonstrates that traditional free trade theory dies Not operate in an oligopolistic environment. The TTP clearly shows that the global economy is an oligopolistic environment! Krugman and other economists need to wake up and get out of the "territorial trap" of bounded nation-state analysis.
1
There is only one reason that more trade agreements are called here the one thing Obama might get through this Congress -- they are so very Republican in their destructiveness of American economic life in favor of our elite.
Trade agreements are the major form of the laws which have been so badly done that they export our prosperity instead of the products of our prosperity.
They are the laws which have been written by and for the wealthy elite. They are written in secret from everyone but those wealthy elite, who "consult," and then they are presented as take in or leave it without even discussion of those terms or alternatives or choices made.
Trade can be good. It ought to be. That does not mean that every trade law is well done, nor that all trade terms in bad laws are automatically good.
Our economy is distorted, sick, not serving Americans. Bad trade agreements are a big part of the reason.
Good trade agreements would be welcome. None such are proposed. What we've got is Republican dream lists of how to savage Americans.
Trade agreements are the major form of the laws which have been so badly done that they export our prosperity instead of the products of our prosperity.
They are the laws which have been written by and for the wealthy elite. They are written in secret from everyone but those wealthy elite, who "consult," and then they are presented as take in or leave it without even discussion of those terms or alternatives or choices made.
Trade can be good. It ought to be. That does not mean that every trade law is well done, nor that all trade terms in bad laws are automatically good.
Our economy is distorted, sick, not serving Americans. Bad trade agreements are a big part of the reason.
Good trade agreements would be welcome. None such are proposed. What we've got is Republican dream lists of how to savage Americans.
95
Here's a simple example of the rise in income (and wealth) inequality in the US.
Mr. Boss employs 10 Americans (10X $50k = $500k) to make $1M worthj of products. His raw materials cost $300k, so Boss takes home $200k each year. (1M - (500k+300k) = 200k)
Mr. Boss then shifts manufacturing to China, so 2 Americans at $50k = $100k, plus 8 Chinese at $10k = $80k. Shipping costs $20k (Thank you Uncle Sam for cheap oil and safe sea routes). Now Boss takes home 1M - (180k+20k+300k) = 500k. Boss makes $300k more each year, i.e., 150% raise in income.
Meanwhile the US govt borrows from China to give tax credits, unemployment, SNAP, etc... so the 8 laid-off employees can buy the products Boss makes (say iPhone/iPad covers) and live like they did before on lower incomes doing "contract" work. The Federal Reserve mashes all of the data and shows how Americans have become more productive, 2 are doing the work of 10, and the cheap cost of iPad covers show productivity improvements, and offsets increase in price of bread, milk and veggies.
Obviously I am setting up a super-simple scenario, sadly the reality is pretty close to what is going on. Someone with the resources needs to crunch the numbers and follow the money. All the "debates" and talking points are a distraction and luxury of the elites in the courtier class.
Mr. Boss employs 10 Americans (10X $50k = $500k) to make $1M worthj of products. His raw materials cost $300k, so Boss takes home $200k each year. (1M - (500k+300k) = 200k)
Mr. Boss then shifts manufacturing to China, so 2 Americans at $50k = $100k, plus 8 Chinese at $10k = $80k. Shipping costs $20k (Thank you Uncle Sam for cheap oil and safe sea routes). Now Boss takes home 1M - (180k+20k+300k) = 500k. Boss makes $300k more each year, i.e., 150% raise in income.
Meanwhile the US govt borrows from China to give tax credits, unemployment, SNAP, etc... so the 8 laid-off employees can buy the products Boss makes (say iPhone/iPad covers) and live like they did before on lower incomes doing "contract" work. The Federal Reserve mashes all of the data and shows how Americans have become more productive, 2 are doing the work of 10, and the cheap cost of iPad covers show productivity improvements, and offsets increase in price of bread, milk and veggies.
Obviously I am setting up a super-simple scenario, sadly the reality is pretty close to what is going on. Someone with the resources needs to crunch the numbers and follow the money. All the "debates" and talking points are a distraction and luxury of the elites in the courtier class.
108
Yup, and down here in Boca we see plenty of the Ferraris, Lambos, and Bentleys driven by bosses from the second scenario (or their Bain Capital equivalents).
8
excellent distillation of what has happened....except you left out the part where the Boss hires 4 H-1B foreign workers, who will work for cheap in order to be in the U.S., and has his current American workers train the new H-1B workers before he fires them. (The President and Congress are planning to INCREASE the number of H-1B workers in current legislation, unless you call to complain).
9
I believe the same type of cars are driven by the Hollywood establishment. Why no mention of that?
As robots get cheaper and cleverer, they will displace human labor. This labor will have to turn to doing things that cannot be robotized, and if there is not a sufficient market for these things we will have surplus people.
We do not know what to do with surplus people except keep them busy and distracted learning something that they are promised will make them no longer surplus, and if that doesnt work then learning something else.
Our robots are our new slaves, and they displace free labor. But since they do not consume and the people they displace did consume, there will be less and less need for robot production. But since the robots are our slaves and are doing most of the work, their output can belong to us only if they are our slaves and not the slaves of owners. Robots must be owned by us all rather than by some of us. We will be able to live from their labor, and working will become a choice rather than a necessity.
This means the end of capitalism and free enterprise as we know it. Capitalism's response to the problem is to automate before the competition, and then be amazed that few can afford what the robots make and the surplus people are getting restless.
We do not know what to do with surplus people except keep them busy and distracted learning something that they are promised will make them no longer surplus, and if that doesnt work then learning something else.
Our robots are our new slaves, and they displace free labor. But since they do not consume and the people they displace did consume, there will be less and less need for robot production. But since the robots are our slaves and are doing most of the work, their output can belong to us only if they are our slaves and not the slaves of owners. Robots must be owned by us all rather than by some of us. We will be able to live from their labor, and working will become a choice rather than a necessity.
This means the end of capitalism and free enterprise as we know it. Capitalism's response to the problem is to automate before the competition, and then be amazed that few can afford what the robots make and the surplus people are getting restless.
11
That is a very long term sort of vision that is becoming not so distant anymore. I'm glad you raised it.
We are actually beginning that transition, albeit beginning that transistion blindly.
If politicians won't talk about it, it will just happen anyway.
If we won't make good choices, we'll just get whatever grows out of selfish choices of those who are doing it out of sight.
This could be a great new future. It could also be a complete disaster, settled by civil disorder.
We are actually beginning that transition, albeit beginning that transistion blindly.
If politicians won't talk about it, it will just happen anyway.
If we won't make good choices, we'll just get whatever grows out of selfish choices of those who are doing it out of sight.
This could be a great new future. It could also be a complete disaster, settled by civil disorder.
10
This is the only accurate and genuinely realistic comment I've read thus far. Kodak was whittled down due to technological advancements. It had nothing to do with trade agreements. Companies, whether small or large, understand that making things cheaper and faster with automation increases their bottom line...and thus prevents them from going under. The real issue is what to do when less people are needed to do the same amount of work. No company wants to pay a person if they don't need to.
That is the real problem in all of this - the lack of jobs not because of offshoring but because of progress.
That is the real problem in all of this - the lack of jobs not because of offshoring but because of progress.
3
A most profound and disturbing concept: surplus people.
Thinking back to earliest forms of human society (and economics), no person was surplus. In fact, groups required a critical mass to first survive with some consistency, then to allow for specialization of roles, and finally for some roles to focus on things not directly required for survival.
As human numbers grew, in a positive feedback loop with improving technology, each fundamental change in the workforce, e.g. agrarian to manufacturing, still required large numbers of workers. Now, however, the drive to develop "labor saving devices" has impacted every aspect of work and life.
This is not necessarily evil, unless you think owning home appliances is evil since they displace servants to do your cooking and cleaning. Of course, automation is incredibly disruptive, and how we plan for and deal with change will (as always) determine our individual and collective futures.
And the future for surplus people looks pretty grim.
Thinking back to earliest forms of human society (and economics), no person was surplus. In fact, groups required a critical mass to first survive with some consistency, then to allow for specialization of roles, and finally for some roles to focus on things not directly required for survival.
As human numbers grew, in a positive feedback loop with improving technology, each fundamental change in the workforce, e.g. agrarian to manufacturing, still required large numbers of workers. Now, however, the drive to develop "labor saving devices" has impacted every aspect of work and life.
This is not necessarily evil, unless you think owning home appliances is evil since they displace servants to do your cooking and cleaning. Of course, automation is incredibly disruptive, and how we plan for and deal with change will (as always) determine our individual and collective futures.
And the future for surplus people looks pretty grim.
1
As Clyde Prestowitz, former counselor to the Secretary of Commerce and noted trade expert said yesterday, "Over the last 35 years, the U.S. has brought China into the World Trade Organization and concluded many free-trade agreements, including one with South Korea three years ago. In advance of each, U.S. leaders promised the deals would create high-paying jobs, reduce the trade deficit, increase GDP and raise living standards. But none of these came true. In fact, the U.S. non-oil trade deficit continued to grow, millions of jobs were offshored and mean household income has hardly risen since 2000. And economists overwhelmingly agree that rising U.S. income inequality is being driven in part by international trade."
96
Finally. But Prestowitz has been a free trade apologist for the last 20or more years. Those of us who grew up in the de-industrializing Midwest and who have studied trade policy over those years have tried to get them to get this, as we knew this already. But, he made his living deliberately not seeing the elephant in the room.
I think you have the wrong man. Clyde talked about Japanese mercantilism in the 80's and has been on the side of strong U.S. penalties for dumping for 30 years. His book "The Betrayal of American Prosperity", is one of the best books on the fallacy of free trade ever published.
2
These agreements are not really about trade, of course. They are about capital, and they are negotiated with only capitalist interests in mind.
They put into place a global corporate infrastructure parallel to what has traditionally existed among national government that usurps the power of those governments to make their own rules within their own borders.
Want to enact "buy American" (or Canadian, or Japanese) requirements, or environmental rules, for a particular project? Sorry, but you could be on the hook to compensate some corporation for the income it might otherwise have had.
The potential for the TPP to do more good than harm is precisely that - potential. That could have been said of earlier agreements while they were being negotiated, but given their track record and the fact that the same interests are pushing the TPP, I would not be optimistic. It doesn't inspire confidence that the TPP is being negotiated in the closest of secrecy even from lawmakers, and that there will be no opportunity for those lawmakers to demand changes - only to say yes or no.
In other words, we are supposed to trust our government before the event, and global corporations once the TPP is in force, to do the right thing. Sorry, but "trust me" is not good enough, especially when the latter are busy making the most profit for the least cost.
They put into place a global corporate infrastructure parallel to what has traditionally existed among national government that usurps the power of those governments to make their own rules within their own borders.
Want to enact "buy American" (or Canadian, or Japanese) requirements, or environmental rules, for a particular project? Sorry, but you could be on the hook to compensate some corporation for the income it might otherwise have had.
The potential for the TPP to do more good than harm is precisely that - potential. That could have been said of earlier agreements while they were being negotiated, but given their track record and the fact that the same interests are pushing the TPP, I would not be optimistic. It doesn't inspire confidence that the TPP is being negotiated in the closest of secrecy even from lawmakers, and that there will be no opportunity for those lawmakers to demand changes - only to say yes or no.
In other words, we are supposed to trust our government before the event, and global corporations once the TPP is in force, to do the right thing. Sorry, but "trust me" is not good enough, especially when the latter are busy making the most profit for the least cost.
107
There is nothing even remotely "left-leaning" about the Progressive Economy front group that Joe Nocera cites in this column. It's a subsidiary of the decidedly right-leaning Global Works Foundation, founded only last year by National Association of Manufacturers consultant Wayne Palmer. The NAM is notorious as one of the most powerful anti-regulatory corporate lobbyists in Washington. And why not? It's heavily funded by the Koch Brothers, who'd love the TPP to pass so they can spread their pollution at no cost to themselves and for much obscene profit. Before that, Palmer lobbied for Astra Zeneca. Before that, he was chief of staff to Rick Santorum, one of the more notorious right wing politicians of our oligarchy.
But to show how bipartisan the push for the corporate TPP is, the Palmer underling (Ed Gresser) quoted by Nocera hails from the center-right Democrat Leadership Council. The founder of the DLC is none other than Nafta champ Bill Clinton.
How strange that Nocera can shill for the TPP without even knowing what's in it. President Obama is demanding fast track authority from Congress to negotiate the terms, sight unseen, for an up or down vote. What little has been leaked is good for the Kochs and the other multinationals and bad for the rest of us. It's been called Nafta on Steroids. Actually, it's more like Capitalism on Crack. Public Citizen has all the dirt that the ruling class racketeers don't want you to know about:
http://www.citizen.org/trade/
But to show how bipartisan the push for the corporate TPP is, the Palmer underling (Ed Gresser) quoted by Nocera hails from the center-right Democrat Leadership Council. The founder of the DLC is none other than Nafta champ Bill Clinton.
How strange that Nocera can shill for the TPP without even knowing what's in it. President Obama is demanding fast track authority from Congress to negotiate the terms, sight unseen, for an up or down vote. What little has been leaked is good for the Kochs and the other multinationals and bad for the rest of us. It's been called Nafta on Steroids. Actually, it's more like Capitalism on Crack. Public Citizen has all the dirt that the ruling class racketeers don't want you to know about:
http://www.citizen.org/trade/
271
They've taken the name "progressive" on the same way they've now arrogated credit for the recovery the opposed at every step.
8
There is nothing in the TPP that will benefit the average American. Joe's column contains a host of carefully crafted detours around the facts and a few "what, me worry?" conclusions that bring to mind claims by Gohmert, Ryan and Romney. We most certainly do have trade deals with China, and they work to China's advantage, not ours. The TPP will have plenty of protection for corporations, including being able to sue governments, but will NOT have any protections for workers or environmental concerns, at least none that couldn't be undone by those lawsuits. This is smoke and mirrors which will wind up being toxic clouds and shattered glass for most of us.
18
"Linking those job losses to the existence of Nafta is a leap the Democrats — and progressives in general — have made."
Seriously, Joe? Are you trying to rewrite history?
"But China, where millions more manufacturing jobs have migrated — and with which we have a huge trade deficit — doesn’t even have a trade agreement with the United States."
Joe, aren't you being disingenuous when China has received the designation of Permanent Normal Trade Relations, i.e., free trade privileges?
For information on the TPP, see Public Citizen's website: http://www.citizen.org/TPP
The TPP is about much more than trade. Foreign tribunals will give multinational corporations the right to sue a government if domestic laws reduce their 'future' profits.
Leaked chapters of the TPP reveal it will (1) weaken health, food safety, labor, environmental, and financial regulations, (2) increase drug prices and limit access to generic drugs, (3) undermine internet freedom, and (4) ban Buy America policies and increase the outsourcing of jobs.
If the TPP is a good deal the Obama administration would not be pushing for fast track authority. And it would not be negotiated in secret, keeping Congress and the public in the dark, while allowing lobbyists to write corporate-friendly policy.
Seriously, Joe? Are you trying to rewrite history?
"But China, where millions more manufacturing jobs have migrated — and with which we have a huge trade deficit — doesn’t even have a trade agreement with the United States."
Joe, aren't you being disingenuous when China has received the designation of Permanent Normal Trade Relations, i.e., free trade privileges?
For information on the TPP, see Public Citizen's website: http://www.citizen.org/TPP
The TPP is about much more than trade. Foreign tribunals will give multinational corporations the right to sue a government if domestic laws reduce their 'future' profits.
Leaked chapters of the TPP reveal it will (1) weaken health, food safety, labor, environmental, and financial regulations, (2) increase drug prices and limit access to generic drugs, (3) undermine internet freedom, and (4) ban Buy America policies and increase the outsourcing of jobs.
If the TPP is a good deal the Obama administration would not be pushing for fast track authority. And it would not be negotiated in secret, keeping Congress and the public in the dark, while allowing lobbyists to write corporate-friendly policy.
222
Moreover, China is a member of the WTO so the statement that the US has no trade agreement with China is absolutely false.
I hope no one takes this column seriously - these two new free trade deals will be the death blow to any restoration of middle class jobs in the developed world and will in the long run lead to civil unrest, wars and more of the same chaos we are already seeing as a result of the neoconservative - neoliberal policy that has guided the US government for the past 35 years.
I hope no one takes this column seriously - these two new free trade deals will be the death blow to any restoration of middle class jobs in the developed world and will in the long run lead to civil unrest, wars and more of the same chaos we are already seeing as a result of the neoconservative - neoliberal policy that has guided the US government for the past 35 years.
10
There is another part of TPP and the European one that is even worse -- the right of corporations to sue sovereign governments, including our own, if they feel regulations, including environmental regulations, are reducing their profits. It is a terrible idea to give up a countries sovereignty to local and foreign corporations.
178
I'm glad someone is pointing this out.
6
"But then her tone brightened. She told me about all the new companies — 55 in all, she said — that had taken space in the old Kodak buildings. Some were even run by former Kodak engineers.Which, of course, is precisely the way globalization is supposed to work."
It's great the engineers are running startups. That's a beautiful thing.
But what Nocera left out is the fact that manufacturing jobs were lost and not recovered by the startups. The need for semi-skilled labor has lessened to the degree that all the road building pork barrel projects in the world won't return us to the post war prosperity of the 1950's.
It's great the engineers are running startups. That's a beautiful thing.
But what Nocera left out is the fact that manufacturing jobs were lost and not recovered by the startups. The need for semi-skilled labor has lessened to the degree that all the road building pork barrel projects in the world won't return us to the post war prosperity of the 1950's.
25
Well, a new road might or might not be considered pork barrel depending on just where it is being built, but there's also a tremendous amount of road repairing, bridge repair and replacement, gas and water line repair or replacement, and a host of other infrastructure projects that we need badly. Retrofitting of both houses and commercial buildings to make them more energy efficient is yet something else we need badly. The tenor of your comment would indicate that you think all of these things are unimportant and don't need to be done. Why is that?
7
The evacuation of manufacturing from the US took off after the election of Ronald Reagan. Evidently businesspeople don't like Republican government as much as they purport to.
21
The rise of foreign based manufactured durable goods began in the early 1970's. Business people who provide finished products understand they have to compete with foreign suppliers. Off-shoring manufacturing has is based on the fact that labor is a global commodity.
The foreign made goods have enjoyed success.
Apparently Democrats don't like US and union made goods as much as they purport to.
The foreign made goods have enjoyed success.
Apparently Democrats don't like US and union made goods as much as they purport to.
5
From the leaked docoments I have seen, the protections for plluters, labor law violators and financial law violators are quite strong. They can sue any sovereign government whose laws and regulations impede their profits for the difference between what they would have made with them and without them. So it's just a way of getting around regulations companies don't like, and improves their competetive position against domestic firms that must follow the law. It is private law for the big transnationals.
138
Imagine, exploiting and putting millions in danger (including children) and demanding the right to degrade the planet with impunityall in the name of profits? Transnational corporations have no morals, they are a grotesque exercise in pure greed.
30
Oh yes, the ugly head of the reactionary federalist legal theory of "takings" writ on the global stage.
Whether NAFTA or other trade agreements caused these job losses, particularly in the manufacturing sector, has been debated for over two decades; it is clearly not the sole culprit. Globalization has a far greater role. That genie cannot be sent back into the bottle, simple as that.
The best strategic response to combat such job losses is better education and worker training, not blaming or lamenting. And it is here that I see the Democrats and Republicans part ways. The Democrats, especially President Obama, have been calling for improving access to education. Most recently, in his SOTU address, President Obama called for free community college education. The Republicans, OTOH, have been deriding such proposals from the get go.
The bottom line: The Democrats, while not always right in their opposition to such trade agreements, have a policy initiative that offers a strategic response to globalization and the resultant job losses. The Republicans, who tend to favor such trade agreements, do not have the best interest of American workers and instead focus only on the profit potential for their corporate base.
Score - Democrats 6/10, republicans 0/10.
The best strategic response to combat such job losses is better education and worker training, not blaming or lamenting. And it is here that I see the Democrats and Republicans part ways. The Democrats, especially President Obama, have been calling for improving access to education. Most recently, in his SOTU address, President Obama called for free community college education. The Republicans, OTOH, have been deriding such proposals from the get go.
The bottom line: The Democrats, while not always right in their opposition to such trade agreements, have a policy initiative that offers a strategic response to globalization and the resultant job losses. The Republicans, who tend to favor such trade agreements, do not have the best interest of American workers and instead focus only on the profit potential for their corporate base.
Score - Democrats 6/10, republicans 0/10.
25
"The Democrats, especially President Obama, have been calling for improving access to education"
And that will not begin to address the loss in manufacturing jobs requiring semi-skilled labor.
"The Democrats, while not always right in their opposition to such trade agreements, have a policy initiative that offers a strategic response to globalization and the resultant job losses. "
There's nothing strategic to the Democrats' response. They want to raise taxes, build some roads. They will also purchase imported durable goods (and clothing and building materials) just like Republicans, but unlike the Republicans, the Democrats won't face up to the fact the US can't return to the good old days of the post war years. Soon we'll hear stories about how FDR and his big blue ox single handedly built all the factories in the US.
And that will not begin to address the loss in manufacturing jobs requiring semi-skilled labor.
"The Democrats, while not always right in their opposition to such trade agreements, have a policy initiative that offers a strategic response to globalization and the resultant job losses. "
There's nothing strategic to the Democrats' response. They want to raise taxes, build some roads. They will also purchase imported durable goods (and clothing and building materials) just like Republicans, but unlike the Republicans, the Democrats won't face up to the fact the US can't return to the good old days of the post war years. Soon we'll hear stories about how FDR and his big blue ox single handedly built all the factories in the US.
2
It isn't clear there is a link? Really?
Company A closes its doors in the US and begins operations in China. Company B sends some of its workers to China to train workers' replacements.
Bain Capital made much of its dough offshoring jobs.
What about the significance of any that isn't clear?
Company A closes its doors in the US and begins operations in China. Company B sends some of its workers to China to train workers' replacements.
Bain Capital made much of its dough offshoring jobs.
What about the significance of any that isn't clear?
172
The effects of the Great Recession have taken their toll on all of us and the way we look at things. From Paul Verhaege's excellent piece, Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us:
"This description is, of course, a caricature taken to extremes. Nevertheless, the financial crisis illustrated at a macro-social level (for example, in the conflicts between eurozone countries) what a neoliberal meritocracy does to people. Solidarity becomes an expensive luxury and makes way for temporary alliances, the main preoccupation always being to extract more profit from the situation than your competition. Social ties with colleagues weaken, as does emotional commitment to the enterprise or organisation."
http://www.rimaregas.com/2014/10/neoliberalism-has-brought-out-the-worst...
"This description is, of course, a caricature taken to extremes. Nevertheless, the financial crisis illustrated at a macro-social level (for example, in the conflicts between eurozone countries) what a neoliberal meritocracy does to people. Solidarity becomes an expensive luxury and makes way for temporary alliances, the main preoccupation always being to extract more profit from the situation than your competition. Social ties with colleagues weaken, as does emotional commitment to the enterprise or organisation."
http://www.rimaregas.com/2014/10/neoliberalism-has-brought-out-the-worst...
5
Rima - You say: "Company A closes its doors in the US and begins operations in China." Nocera specifically says that we don't have a trade agreement with China.
I know it's an article of faith with most Democrats that NAFTA (which, BTW, is the North American FTA, not China FTA) has hurt American workers. I've wondered for a long time if that isn't an oversimplification and a displacement of anger from what is actually happening to a, correctly or incorrectly, a symbol of the changes.
I know it's an article of faith with most Democrats that NAFTA (which, BTW, is the North American FTA, not China FTA) has hurt American workers. I've wondered for a long time if that isn't an oversimplification and a displacement of anger from what is actually happening to a, correctly or incorrectly, a symbol of the changes.
1
Annie, we have agreements with other nations. A lot of jobs went to Mexico, other nations in Asua with whom we do have agreements. I used China because it is the mist recognizable example of where our jobs have gone without our government doing a thing to disincentivise it on the US end. The same is true of capital. What is there to keep jobs and money in country? Not much.
5
This is incredibly misleading. Through Congress's vote and Pres. Clinton's 11th hour signature in late 2000, China achieved permanent "most favored trade" status with the US which had until then been an annual debate and vote. China was allowed, with strong US (and European) corporate backing to join the Uruguay Round of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and then the WTO (World Trade Organization). These changes, which began before the ink on NAFTA was even dry, are what cause NAFTA to fail in its "oil stain" progression of econimc development south of our border with Mexico and led DIRECTLY to the later swelling exodus of undocumented workers into this country.
China's winning of the Cold War by becoming the world's factory caused over 20 years' of global wage deflation. Their (so far) exclusion from TPP is actually sort of a veiled 'mea culpa' or 'buyer's remorse' by our corporate sector vis a vis China as a target market, IP thief, trade rule violator, UNSC veto thorn in our side, polluter, and global supporter and briber of myriad despotic regimes from Venezuela to Russia.
And no, globalization is not "an unstoppable force."