http://www.ustr.gov/naftareport/q-a5.htm
Nothing in NAFTA directly creates or destroys jobs. NAFTA is not a work program. It merely creates opportunities for trade, which generates economic growth, which generates jobs (in the case of the United States that also happens to mean better jobs). Consequently, no easy method exists to calculate jobs created or lost.
Furthermore, a 1996 study by researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles.... concluded that "the impact on trade-related employment during the first three years after NAFTA is estimated to be, at the very least, a near zero net impact, and more likely, a moderately positive number."
....But Mark Anderson, an economist at the AFL-CIO, which had warned that the accord would cost the United States hundreds of thousands of jobs, said the last three years have confirmed the agreement's negative impact on American workers.
"Clearly the benefits, not so much of the agreement itself but of the economic relationship that the agreement solidified, went to corporate elites in the United States and Mexico," Anderson said. "From our perspective the job situation has been negative in the U.S. in terms of jobs lost or not created."
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/naftas.htm
>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Re: Bush to Announce Candidacy Any Day
>Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:20:23 -0500
>
>Joseph Wanzala wrote:
>
>>According to the Economic Policy Institute:-
>>http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_12102003
>>
>>NAFTA-related job losses have piled up since 1993
>>Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993,
>>the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002
>>caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs.
>>NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors
>>with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct
>>investment in Mexico and Canada. It has facilitated the movement of
>>factories from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Most of these jobs
>>were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries.
>
>Displacement of jobs *to* Canada? Really? I thought the Canadians were
>always complaining about CUSTA/NAFTA job lossses to the U.S.
>
>I've seen these EPI counts over the years, and I'm skeptical. They
>essentially divide the trade deficit by average annual earnings and assume
>the result is an estimate of the numbers of jobs lost. But in a growing
>economy, which we had from 1993 through 2001, jobs are gained and lost all
>the time, with the number gained generally exceeding the number lost. (For
>a measure of gross job gains and losses, see the BLS's newish series at
><http://www.bls.gov/bdm/home.htm>.) If the neoclassicals are even partially
>right that trade increases growth overall, then the EPI method makes no
>allowance for that. Between 1993 and 2002, the U.S. economy added nearly 20
>million jobs and the average real hourly wage rose by 9%. I don't know how
>you can come up with the spuriously precise estimate of 879,280 (not
>879,270?) jobs lost to NAFTA over the same period.
>
>Like I said, the case is much firmer to say that NAFTA's effects on Mexico
>were bad. It encouraged low-wage, low-skill assembly jobs with little local
>sourcing or skills transfer - jobs that are now being shifted to China -
>and helped accelerate losses in traditional peasant agriculture. But I've
>never known EPI or the U.S. labor movement to exhibit much concern for
>workers outside the U.S.
>
>Doug
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
_________________________________________________________________ Take off on a romantic weekend or a family adventure to these great U.S. locations. http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx