next »

[rcjordan]

"Perot has been vindicated in his opinion; expanded free trade has not been accompanied by an increase in jobs in the U.S. relative to the vast numbers of jobs created in the rest of the world as NAFTA became just a stepping stone on the pathway to global commerce."

"balance of trade for the U.S. with Mexico has been negative and steadily growing over the years.  In 2010 it amounted to $61.6 billion, which was 9.5% of the total goods trade deficit last year."

http://econintersect.com/wordpress/?p=5769

[nop_90]

I wonder why USA seems to keep getting fuked in these areas.
Canada is part of NAFTA, and they are running a trade surplus with mexico
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_items_does_Mexico_trade_with_Canada

Also it seems fairly balanced. Both sides are exporting manufactured goods, raw materials etc.

The biggest fear of NAFTA was that Canada would have a hard time competing against southern USA and Mexico because of high heating costs etc.

[perkiset]

Perfect example of Clinton drinking the Reagan koolaid.

It was bad bad bad.

[isthisthingon]

It's an interesting shell game.  NAFTA has primarily benefited multi-national corporations while not doing much about real income levels in Mexico.  Manufacturing jobs in the US fell prey to that sucking sound Ross warned us about.  I was very disturbed that Clinton supported NAFTA, much like I am that Obama seems incapable of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.

Ross was right on about this but it was always a mystery to me that he took that stance.  Probably because he didn't have the massive influence of the financial power players who control Republicans like puppets and sway the Democrats as well.  In any case, Ross Perot could give 3.3 billion figs about manufacturing jobs - unless they were required to boost his net worth.  Don't forget his draconian gas tax proposal that would solve all of our problems.  What's a few extra dollars per gallon of gas for billionaires?  Right, not much.  How about those driving to job interviews, or those who drive for a living?  Possibly devastating.  I think the opposition of NAFTA was an election play for Ross, not any show of genuine empathy for the lower wage jobs the US would lose as a result.

Here's a nice summary I found http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp:

Conclusion
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.

[nop_90]

@ITTO
From the article you posted

* Between 1993 and 2006, trade among NAFTA partners climbed 197%, from $297 billion to $883 billion.
* U.S. exports to NAFTA partners grew 157%, versus 108% to the rest of the world in the same period.
* Daily NAFTA trade in 2006 reached $2.4 billion.
* U.S. manufacturing output rose 63% from 1993-2006, compared to an increase of 37% from 1980-1993.

So the problem is not NAFTA
Maybe if USA had proper labor laws ......
When I tell people in Germany about US/Canadian labour laws they think I am joking.
NAFTA is just an excuse to take away worker rights, and work them harder.

While in places like China workers are starting to get rights, increased wages etc.
The foxconn min wage in china is now $180/month and if they pass a 3 month review $293
When you factor in cost of living, a "grunt" foxconn employee is probably doing better then most "grunt" americans.

[isthisthingon]

So the problem is not NAFTA
NAFTA is just an excuse to take away worker rights, and work them harder.

NAFTA without worker protections does just that, it works people harder and provides an excuse to pay them less.  If the worker happens to be an American, it provides unemployment for them in exchange for a lower wage job counterpart in Mexico. 

That's called a shell game.

[nop_90]

NAFTA without worker protections does just that, it works people harder and provides an excuse to pay them less.  If the worker happens to be an American, it provides unemployment for them in exchange for a lower wage job counterpart in Mexico. 

That's called a shell game.

And 20 years ago, the excuse was Japan.
http://www.worldsalaries.org/japan.shtml
http://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml

Again the "myth" of the slaving away jap
Japan Vacation Time
18 days paid time off per year including sick days (legally required minimum vacation time). Officially, five weeks (in reaction to the karoshi problem) [e]. According to a recent survey by the World Tourism Organization, 25 vacation days per year are taken on average in Japan

USA vacation time
None legally required, but 7-21 days is standard for most employers. Typically, 10 working days. Many U.S. companies give only one week, and then frequently only after completion of a year of employment [e]. A recent United Nations survey indicates the average number of vacation days actually taken to be of 13 per year [f]. This corresponds to the fewest vacation days amongst advanced economies.

Canada vacation time
10 working days per year legally required minimum vacation time, as determined by provincial law [e]. According to a recent survey by the World Tourism Organization, 26 vacation days per year are taken on average in Canada [f].

Even fuking Koreans get more vacation time. And it used to be a 3rd world country 10 years ago
10 working days per year (legally required minimum vacation time) [e]. A recent survey by the World Tourism Organization indicates that the vacation time actually taken on average is of 25 days per year (including holidays) [e].

[isthisthingon]

Nop, with all due respect, I grew up watching how Mexican immigrants worked and honestly vacation time doesn't even factor in to the equation.  They work far harder than you or I do, imho.  The military is a cake walk in comparison with 3-hots and a cot.

[nop_90]

Nop, with all due respect, I grew up watching how Mexican immigrants worked and honestly vacation time doesn't even factor in to the equation.  They work far harder than you or I do, imho.  The military is a cake walk in comparison with 3-hots and a cot.

3 hots and a cot
On one exercise we covered 100km in 4 days as the crow flies, in a mountainous area. The was with full gear, and all the food we had we had we carried.
2 of those days where spent in a swamp up to our knees. I did not know swamps could exist on sides of mountains but ....
Winter exercises where the worst, a 10 man tent about the size of your bathroom. As the exercise got longer, the gear got heavier, literally.

Or when we constructed fortifications, with like 100-200K sand bags. Filled by hand, carried by hand. Not counting having to do patrols/shifts with 12 hours on, 12 off. So literally working 18 hours a day 6-7 days a week. That was when I was in Yugo.

Physically it was hard work (and dangerous), but honestly it was a lot easier then most jobs on civi street.
There is a sense of team spirit, team play etc.
In America, there is a lot of BS at work .
You never had to worry about, will you get fired. Stuff like that.
Walmart had to pull out of germany. Mainly because of the stupid rules they have.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article694345.ece

"Vacation Time" logically does not factor in. But many times it is the principal behind things.
Just having a law stating that you are entitled to X days vacation time per year is important.
Even in the Philippines it is harder to fire a full time employee then USA.
In USA a worker is just a cog in the machine.