>A few words from Prof. Blecker in response to Bro. Henwood:
>
>Dear Max,
> Here are a few random thoughts/quick responses.
> One obvious issue is what's the relevant counterfactual. The effect
>of NAFTA is estimated by comparing how many manufacturing jobs there
>would be (hypothetically) without NAFTA vs. the actual number with
>NAFTA. What has happened since 1994 is irrelevant. Still, I'd say that
>+217,000 jobs over 6 years in a booming economy is a pretty damn small
>increase, and a result of various problems including the Asian crisis as
>well as NAFTA. On the other hand, I don't think job effects (+ or -)
>alone are the main issue about trade agreements anyway (I have to agree
>with Krugman to some extent on this).
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but weren't the job effects the major things that EPI, the AFL-CIO, and Ross Perot all talked about in 1992-3?
No doubt at least some of the growth in temp help - which appears in the employment numbers as temp help, a service industry - has been among people actually working in factories. Anyone from EPI got a handle on this?
> It is certainly possible that the economic changes going on (of which
>NAFTA is only a small part)...
"Small part." Thank you.
Doug