[quote]pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Reagan job was to do the best by the country, not do the best by the market. Just think of the lost taxes on the income of employees alone and not any other supporting industry
Best by the country as a whole or one particular industry? Free trade gives us far more jobs than it takes away. Look what happened after NAFTA.
NAFTA is a trade agreement, give me an example where we compete with third world countries industries and can beat their price, I agree there is a short upside to lower prices.
We will not mention lead base paint, melamine in the protein powder, just price
Also please answer what happened to America post, Thanks
We don’t have to compete with them in any particular industry. They are third world contries for a reason. We can focus on what others cannot do. Comparative advantage.
copy and paste:
U.S. employment increased over the period of 1993-2007 from 110.8 million people to 137.6 million people, a 24 percent increase.[1] Specifically within NAFTA?s first five years of existence, 709,988 jobs (140,000 annually), were created domestically.[2]
Proponents point out that had there been any significant negative impact on the labor force because of NAFTA, it would have been evident in the initial years. Yet, the mid to late nineties was one of the United States? biggest periods of economic growth.
Classical macroeconomic theory stipulates that when a country is experiencing economic growth (i.e. increase in GDP or GDP per capita), then there will also be an increase in the participation of the labor force.[3] Thus, because trade liberalization ultimately contributes to increases in GDP, it in effect, helps to bring the rate of unemployment down in a country.
The U.S. experienced a 48% increase in real GDP from 1993-2005. The unemployment rate over this period was an average of only 5.1%, compared to 7.1% from 1982-1993, before NAFTA was implemented.[2]
Proponents reject the claims of some that the free trade agreement is destroying the manufacturing industry and causing displacement of workers in that industry. In the period of 1981-1995, the years from ?93-?95 saw the highest rate of job loss, even during this period of great expansion.[4]
However, the rate of job loss due to plant closings, a typical argument against NAFTA, showed little deviation from previous periods.[4] The percentage of workers in the manufacturing industry with job loss actually decreased from 13.8 % in 1991-1993, pre-NAFTA years, to 11.8% in the years from 1993-1995.
Also, US industrial production, in which manufacturing makes up 78%, saw an increase of 49% from 1993-2005. The period prior to NAFTA, 1982-1993, only saw a 28% increase.[2] In fact, according to NAM, National Association of Manufacturers, NAFTA has only been responsible for 10% of the manufactured goods trade deficit, something opponents criticize the agreement for helping to foment.[5]
In the manufacturing sector, NAFTA yielded 43% of US manufacturing export growth and only 28% of import growth.
The most direct measurement of the impact of trade agreements on employment is the number of jobs supported by exports.[6] It is estimated that 8500 manufacturing jobs are supported by every $1 billion in US exports.[2] Because $12 billion of average annual gains in exports were created by expansion of North American trade, more than 100,000 additional US jobs were created.[2]
More importantly, it has been noted that in export-oriented industries where some of the lost manufacturing jobs go, wages are 13-16 percent higher than the national average.[2]
Others agree with the notion that there has been an increase in net jobs due to NAFTA?s implementation, but believe that these net gains are coming at the price of worker?s wages.[citation needed] That is, high-paying manufacturing jobs are being lost and replaced by lower paying jobs and is causing wage deflation in certain sectors.
However, during the Clinton administration, the sources of new job creation were in relatively high paid sectors and industries.[7] The fall in median wages, which are often associated with the middle class factory workers, stagnated because the inflation-adjusted pay rates for existing jobs fell, not because newer jobs that replaced manufacturing jobs were low-paying ones.[citation needed]
Personally do not understand how an American company selling it?s product in America does not have to compete with all the third world companies selling their products in America, please explain
The cut and paste part, I fail to see relevance, Also please answer what happened to America.
You seemed to get caught in rhetoric that does not pertain to any post. Why do you not just answer the questions rather than try to seem so wise.
[/quote]
Please answer this one Hickey