On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 07:18:17PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Brad DeLong wrote:
>
> >May I make one more fruitless plea for somebody, somewhere to raise
> >the level of the debate?
>
> I doubt we have the same objections to this report, but I'm still
> struck by how it seems to rely on figuring the increase in the U.S.
> trade deficit since NAFTA took effect, dividing it by some average
> annual earnings figure, and assuming that equals the number of jobs
> lost. We've been through this before, but if trade increases growth,
> that increased growth could well more than offset the jobs lost to
> imports. That may or may not be true, but the EPI approach assumes
> that it's not true. I don't see how you can say that NAFTA killed 3/4
> million jobs over a period when total U.S. employment grew by
> something like 20 million, nor do I see how you can argue that it
> depressed wages, when the last 5 years have seen real wage increases
> of the sort we haven't seen since before 1973. Also, the jobs created
> in Mexico leave a lot to be desired, for sure, but the number is
> still >0, so it'd seem the argument requires a bit more rigor and
> nuance.
>
> Doug
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu