Seventeen years later, the impact of NAFTA on workers and their families in the United States, Canada and Mexico could not be more clear. Instead of the promised increase in U.S. exports and resulting job creation, communities in the United States witnessed enormous job loss, especially in the high-paying (and often unionized) manufacturing sector, as well as the downward pressure on wages from the threat of offshoring jobs. Indeed, polls indicate a majority of Americans oppose these types of trade deals.
Contrary to what many people assume, Mexican workers did not gain from this agreement either. While trade with their northern neighbors and foreign investment increased, the Mexican economy did not grow as a result. Instead, foreign companies displaced their local counterparts, and the paltry 20,000 new jobs created in Mexican manufacturing were dwarfed by the more than 3 million agricultural jobs lost. Immigration to the U.S. has more than doubled as a result, separating families as workers try to cover basic necessities by crossing the border to work.
online pharmacy buy prevacid online no prescription pharmacy
online pharmacy https://nidentistry.com/wp-content/uploads/crm_perks_uploads/637bee0bd8067876754749339673/2022/seroquel.html no prescription pharmacy
If the evidence on NAFTA weren’t enough, the U.S. International Trade Commission predicts the Korea-U.S. trade agreement would increase U.S. trade deficits. The Economic Policy Institute estimates some 880,000 U.S. jobs would be displaced over the next seven years, with a net 159,000 jobs lost directly as a result, particularly in the high-paying automotive and electronic equipment industries. Approximately 57,000 Minnesotans are employed in sectors at risk for outsourcing if this agreement passes.
Jobs are not the only issue at stake. Many fundamental questions are up for grabs, each of which on its own should be reason enough to oppose this policy. Negotiated by the Bush administration prior to the financial collapse, the agreement with Korea places strict limits on financial regulations now being considered by Congress. It would permit foreign investors to challenge national and state laws designed to protect the public interest such as environmental, health and consumer regulations.
These types of provisions have little to do with increased commercial trade and underscore the wider implications of free trade for workers here, in Korea, and elsewhere. Under the current model, trade policy decisions erode workers’ power at the ballot box and in the workplace by elevating investor rights above community standards and policies. This agreement reflects a model of globalization that concentrates decision-making and hence power in the hands of corporations at the expense of citizens and workers who have no seat at the table.
Similar to the shameless power grab being portrayed as fiscal discipline in Wisconsin and across the nation, corporate interests attempt to sell the current trade model as necessary to promote exports and create jobs. In the midst of the worst recession since the 1930s, elected officials should do everything possible to stimulate economic development as long as workers will benefit. Anything to the contrary must be labeled for what it is: an attack on workers’ power.
online pharmacy elavil no prescription with best prices today in the USA
Mary Bellman teaches immigration, globalization and many other topics for the University of Minnesota Labor Education Service. She is a member of the steering committee for the Minnesota Fair Trade Coalition.
For more information
See the Minnesota Fair Trade Coalition website
Share
Seventeen years later, the impact of NAFTA on workers and their families in the United States, Canada and Mexico could not be more clear. Instead of the promised increase in U.S. exports and resulting job creation, communities in the United States witnessed enormous job loss, especially in the high-paying (and often unionized) manufacturing sector, as well as the downward pressure on wages from the threat of offshoring jobs. Indeed, polls indicate a majority of Americans oppose these types of trade deals.
Contrary to what many people assume, Mexican workers did not gain from this agreement either. While trade with their northern neighbors and foreign investment increased, the Mexican economy did not grow as a result. Instead, foreign companies displaced their local counterparts, and the paltry 20,000 new jobs created in Mexican manufacturing were dwarfed by the more than 3 million agricultural jobs lost. Immigration to the U.S. has more than doubled as a result, separating families as workers try to cover basic necessities by crossing the border to work.
online pharmacy buy prevacid online no prescription pharmacy
online pharmacy https://nidentistry.com/wp-content/uploads/crm_perks_uploads/637bee0bd8067876754749339673/2022/seroquel.html no prescription pharmacy
If the evidence on NAFTA weren’t enough, the U.S. International Trade Commission predicts the Korea-U.S. trade agreement would increase U.S. trade deficits. The Economic Policy Institute estimates some 880,000 U.S. jobs would be displaced over the next seven years, with a net 159,000 jobs lost directly as a result, particularly in the high-paying automotive and electronic equipment industries. Approximately 57,000 Minnesotans are employed in sectors at risk for outsourcing if this agreement passes.
Jobs are not the only issue at stake. Many fundamental questions are up for grabs, each of which on its own should be reason enough to oppose this policy. Negotiated by the Bush administration prior to the financial collapse, the agreement with Korea places strict limits on financial regulations now being considered by Congress. It would permit foreign investors to challenge national and state laws designed to protect the public interest such as environmental, health and consumer regulations.
These types of provisions have little to do with increased commercial trade and underscore the wider implications of free trade for workers here, in Korea, and elsewhere. Under the current model, trade policy decisions erode workers’ power at the ballot box and in the workplace by elevating investor rights above community standards and policies. This agreement reflects a model of globalization that concentrates decision-making and hence power in the hands of corporations at the expense of citizens and workers who have no seat at the table.
Similar to the shameless power grab being portrayed as fiscal discipline in Wisconsin and across the nation, corporate interests attempt to sell the current trade model as necessary to promote exports and create jobs. In the midst of the worst recession since the 1930s, elected officials should do everything possible to stimulate economic development as long as workers will benefit. Anything to the contrary must be labeled for what it is: an attack on workers’ power.
online pharmacy elavil no prescription with best prices today in the USA
Mary Bellman teaches immigration, globalization and many other topics for the University of Minnesota Labor Education Service. She is a member of the steering committee for the Minnesota Fair Trade Coalition.
For more information
See the Minnesota Fair Trade Coalition website