what are your views?

You have to write a paper for school, don't you?

No this is for my own sake. I don't know whole lot about it, except that people say it will create more jobs and people saying it would take away more jobs. I got Bill Clinton agreeing with it while democrates disagree with it, George W. Bush agreeing with it while I hear some conservatives disagree with it. I'm trying to get a grip on it.

I think it's easy to see why NAFTA was not a huge focal point during the past election -- everyone and their mothers (save for Pat Buchanan) thought it was such a great idea when it was initially signed that arguing against it would make them look like flip-floppers. I do know that, in the state I'm from, it's hit the automotive industry particularly hard. It spurred a way of thinking in corporate America that outsourcing was cheaper. Now, it makes virtually little sense to manufacture here in the states when you can move your facilities elsewhere and manufacture there for a fraction of the cost.

i like nafta.

overall it has benefited the US immensely.

i would go into all the issues surrounding trade, but this article presents pretty much all you need to know.

http://mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1084

the key to understanding trade is understanding comparative advantage. comparative advantage simply explains why we produce oranges in florida and california and not in maine or oregon.

Since Nafta I don't cross border shop anymore. We sell the same garbage here as they do in the US at about the same prices. Whoopty Doo.

I think overall it has harmed all involved if you look at statistics, but one country has definetely benifited more.

who has it harmed? how has it harmed them?

who benefitted?

I wrote several papers on nafta when i was getting my economics undergrad degree. I'll look for some tonight and pm you with them

Don't PM them. Summarize them here. This is the News & Debate forum!

NAFTA seems to me to be written Federal Goverment approval on both sides of the fence for major U.S. corporations to go into Mexico and set up shop, pay significantly lower wages to the labor force there than they would pay here, with no committment to improving the infrastructure of the location they select nor the economic nor social situation of the people they employ. Cheap labor, lower operating costs. That's all I see NAFTA doing. However, I could be mistaken.

Trade is never "free".

c-

NAFTA sucks. At one time I was able to formulate a valid reason behind that, but I've forgotten most of my economics.

Since when did lower wages mean lowering and not improving the general condition of a place? To many Mexicans and third world people, any wage is an improvement, and factory is as well.

Lower wages improves the condition of a place? is that what you're saying? Seems a bit off. Giving people barely enough or just enough to survive doesn't improve you, it keeps you in the same hole and that goes for any country. Not very fun if working the factory for next to nothing is your only option.

all i know is that my friend had a job... then they sent his factory out of the US... and now he is working for a fraction of what he was making... my best friend is also fearful for losing his job because it too may be heading elsewhere (out of the states)... to me it is a horrible idea when there are so many people living under the poverty line as is... and the numbers of poor will only increase... to me it was a horrible fucking idea and continues to be so

Really? And NAFTA has made things so much better than the stream of people leaving Mexico has stopped or significantly decreased? I dont' think so.

If chicken shit tastes better than horse shit, does that mean one's way of life is improved if chicken shit is made available instead?



My comment was this:




The comment on wage was relative to what it would cost a company here versus there. What I said about no committment to improving....of the people they employ was a separate comment. Just because a little bit of money is more welcomed than none doesn't mean that these peoples lives are significantly improved by it, nor does it mean that the small wage they earn translates into a better life overall.

Go visit a town near the border or slightly in where there is a major assembly plant, and get back to us on whether or not the assembly plants are making the surrounding area "better" or if there are still plenty of shanty towns around them where the workers live.

Or, let us know if the Mexican/local Government officials there are taking the money being kicked back to it and putting it back into the streets, water treatment plants, or any sort of urban renual of any type (versus keeping it for themselves).

Or, let us know if the US based corporations who get federal tax or other special kick backs for establishing shop there are putting those kick backs to work to ensure that the pollution and waste coming out of their manufacturing plants isn't making the surrounding area more polluted than when they arrived.

Let us know if you know anyone working in the Levi's plants or the IBM plant, or some other factory, and if they feel NAFTA has improved their lives significantly, or the lives of their children.

c-

you know, i bet if you asked bill gates to go take a job making $75,000 a year, working 40+ hours a week, he would consider it untenable.

why do i say that? americans are bill gates, and the mexicans (and other third world citizens) are the "lowly" $75,000 employees. when your frame of reference is the american standard of living (the best in the world) of course you're going to regard making $1.00/hr as unbearable. but to the mexican making $1.00/hr, it's a boon. again, these people are just as free to reject employment at firms offering $1.00/hr as they are to take up employment with them. one must infer that in taking this job, they regard the employment as preferable to all other options, be they unemployment or working somewhere else for a comparable wage.

and companies don't drive these wages down and induce poverty. let's say the prevailing wage rate in kthodosville is $5.00/hr. if i open a plant in kthodosville and offer $4.00/hr, and squalor-like working conditions, how many laborers currently employed do you think i'll lure away from their existing employer? zero (incidentally, if i do attract workers, we can also assume they prefer this to all other available alternatives). now, if i wish to attract currently-employed people, i must offer either comparable working conditions and at least $5.01/hr., or $5.00/hr. and significantly better working conditions and perks. in short, there is competition among firms in the labor market for employees. in this way, wages and working conditions are bid up.

sure, $1.00/hr. is awful for us. but this is simply the starting point for those in mexico. wages will rise from there.



nope, you're absolutely right. lower operating costs = savings for consumers. consumers are now able to enjoy lower priced TV's, cars, foodstuffs, etc. and raise their standard of living. the money left over from the new savings drives other industries, or altogether new industries. or it could be saved, lowering interest rates and making investment more attractive to firms.

don't just look at costs. the benefits are small and diffuse, making them easier to obfuscate by wily demagogues and politicians.



again, corporations cannot offer lower than the prevailing wage rate and expect to be able to hire anyone. in this way, wages will be bid up. and firms don't simply give people barely enough to survive. it is a matter of empirical evidence that u.s. firms engaged in the type of foreign direct investment resulting from nafta's opportunities offer a wage premium above incumbent companies by between 10-40%.

and if the "factory next to you" is, in fact, your only option, it won't be for long. if this factory operates as a monopoly and drives wages down as a result of it's bargaining position, it follows that its profits will be that much higher. this leads to 2 possibilities: the firm can expand production and offer more opportunities to those in its' locality, or new firms will come in to compete away profits. the subsequent competition between firms for laborers will bid wages up.

this is a result of the disparity between mexico's prevailing wages and our prevailing wages. if the mexican prevailing wage is $1.00/hr. (i actually don't know what the mexican average wage rate is, but i'm comfortable in assuming it's significantly less than ours), that is still significantly less than the american minimum wage at $5.15/hr. mexicans can make 5 times in america what they can in mexico. i bet you'd jump the fence, or the river, or whatever if it meant turning your $20,000/yr job into a $100,000/yr. job.



it kills me when flippant remarks like these are adopted by those who oppose NAFTA as the ultimate indictment of such policies. be flip all you want - it won't change the fact you don't grasp the issue accurately.

incidentally, "chicken-shit" and "horse-shit" are subjective. what's "chicken-shit" to you might be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for someone else. you are quite arrogant in calling someone else's "chicken-shit" worthless.



whether you know it or not, and i'm guessing the latter, this is quite an indictment on the government.

our concerns are significantly different from the average mexican family that must determine from day-to-day how they are going to feed their families. and repealing NAFTA, which means the closing of all those plants providing "chicken-shit" jobs, would hardly be good for the mexican economy.

when was the last time you greeted any domestic plant-closing with open arms? yet you wish to do exactly this to all those in mexico who have "chicken-shit" jobs because of NAFTA.



do you know why we care so much about the environment? it's because we can. we are wealthy enough to be concerned about things outside our immediate four-wall surroundings. concern for the environment and wealth are positively correlated. thus, creating wealth (which NAFTA does) for those mexicans means somewhere along the line they too will be concerned for their environment. you'll have to excuse them right now, however, if they care more about finding clean clothes and a roof over their heads.

and i have a tangent all ready to go about environmental degredation and capitalism....but that's for another thread and another day....

So, your defense for these companies is that they don't create poverty, they just capitalize on it?

Ah, yes, cars have been getting cheaper and cheaper since NAFTA. I'm sure glad the GM and Ford didn't decided to pass the savings onto their CEO, rather than the consumers.