Member since Oct 2012
Three pages in and you've still offered NOTHING to support your stance but platitudes.
Offered just as much as you. Your link was weak shite not worth sourcing for your argument. Very dismissive.
NAFTA has hurt US jobs, hurt small farms/businesses, not proven to be the boon to Mexico as advertised, brought about the Super Highway that will be funded by us if it keeps gaining support and it is, and definitely not free as our massive trade deficits w/ Mexico and Canada have proven.
To argue NAFTA has been a glowing success is obviously not being honest or not up w/ the facts.
NAFTA needs major overhauling but big business and those standing to profit the most will not go for any meaningful reforms.
U.S. economic winners and losers under NAFTA vary with company size, type of industry or sector, and geographical location. Sectors affected positively include planes, trains and automobiles, large agri-businesses, appliance makers and energy corporations. Clearly, large multi-national companies with investment capacities, world-market savvy and capital resources have benefited from protected investment and cheap labor. These companies enhanced management performance-based compensation while putting downward pressure on production-worker wages and benefits, collective bargaining clout and available jobs, especially in manufacturing. Many view their actions as a major contributor to compensation inequality. (To read more about how income inequality is determined, and its importance, read The Gini Index: Measuring Income Distribution.)
With their lack of internal resources, small regional businesses are not offered the same opportunities by NAFTA, and in fact, the agreement makes them more vulnerable to the concentrated local effect of a multi-national competitor. U.S. manufacturing, often in concentrated geographical areas, suffered large business and job losses as NAFTA cast a shadow over any labor-intensive process that is not highly automated.
While much of the economy experienced gains, the concentration of losses in regional geographical pockets impacted by inexpensive Mexican labor sharpened the blow for many people. The availability of Mexican labor suppressed real wages, reduced benefits and limited collective bargaining power for production workers in the U.S. According to one estimate, workers in Canada and Mexico have displaced 829,280 U.S. jobs, mostly high-wage positions in manufacturing. The heaviest U.S. manufacturing-job losses were in states such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Connecticut, New Jersey, California, Indiana and Florida. NAFTA proponents, however, argue that increased sales to Canada and Mexico made possible by the agreement have created new jobs and raised incomes in the U.S. overall.
The long-time growth in the U.S.trade deficit accelerated dramatically after NAFTA became effective in 1994. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the $30 billion U.S. trade deficit in 1993 increased 281% to an inflation-adjusted $85 billion in 2002.
While NAFTA's overall financial impact has been generally positive, it has not lived up to the high expectations of its proponents. It has made many U.S. companies and investors rich - and their managements richer. But it has also cost many U.S. manufacturing workers their livelihoods while failing to raise living standards for most Mexicans. Any major market changes not dictated by market forces usually lead to both opportunity and loss, and this has happened with NAFTA.
I can't reply since I actually work at work, and I come home play with the dog, kick the kids, beat the wife, check on garden and fruit trees, eat, shower and pour a drink before I settle to read this board.
I think I offered you plenty, maybe too much, but oh well.
Edit: I'm for open trading w/ Mexico and Canada, but limit the cost to us as much as possible. Overall, I think NAFTA has been good, bad, and very bad (for small businesses).This post was edited on 4/25 at 7:06 pm