152:
140:
84:
239:, NAFTA has only been responsible for 10% of the manufactured goods trade deficit, something opponents criticize the agreement for exacerbating. The growth of exports to Canada and Mexico accounted for a large proportion of total U.S. export gains. However, the growth of exports to Canada and Mexico in percentage terms has lagged significantly behind the growth of exports to the rest of the world.
243:
annual gains in exports were created by expansion of North
American trade, more than 100,000 additional US jobs were created, but this measure does not account for jobs lost due to rising imports. More importantly, it has been noted that in export-oriented industries, wages are 13-16 percent higher than the national average.
213:
governments for infringement of "investment rights". According to the
Economic Policy Institute, these investor protections facilitated the movement of manufacturing plants to Mexico. Fifteen percent of employers in manufacturing, communication, and wholesale/distribution shut down or relocated plants due to
230:
is increasing), there is usually also an increase in employment. Thus, because trade liberalization can sometimes contribute to increases in GDP, it can help to bring the rate of unemployment down in a country. The U.S. experienced a 48% increase in real GDP from 1993 to 2005. The unemployment rate
65:
wrote: "CBO estimates that the increased trade resulting from NAFTA has probably increased U.S. gross domestic product, but by a very small amount—probably a few billion dollars or less, or a few hundredths of a percent." CBO estimated that NAFTA added $ 10.3 billion to exports and $ 9.4 billion to
57:
summarized multiple studies as follows: "In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and
234:
Proponents reject the claims of some that the free trade agreement is destroying the manufacturing industry and causing displacement of workers in that industry. The rate of job loss due to plant closings, a typical argument against NAFTA, showed little deviation from previous periods. Also, U.S.
200:
and NAFTA-TAA identified only 14,653 jobs directly lost due to NAFTA-related reasons like relocation of U.S. firms to Mexico. In
Pennsylvania, Keystone Research Center attributed 38,325 in job losses in the state to trade with Mexico and Canada. Since 1993, 38,325 of those job losses are directly
242:
According to the
Democratic Leadership Council, "the most direct measurement of the impact of trade agreements on employment is the number of jobs supported by exports." It is estimated that 8500 manufacturing jobs are supported by every $ 1 billion in US exports. Because $ 12 billion of average
212:
mobility and flexibility has undermined the bargaining power of U.S. workers. In addition to enjoying lower tariffs for shipping goods from Mexico to the United States, multinational corporations also benefited from NAFTA's unprecedented section giving multinational corporations the right to sue
225:
U.S. employment increased over the period of 1993–2007 from 110.8 million people to 137.6 million people. Specifically within NAFTA's first five years of existence, 709,988 jobs (140,000 annually), were created domestically. The mid to late nineties was a period of strong economic growth in the
147:
In 1987, the U.S. was the destination of 69.2% of Mexico's exports and the U.S. accounted for 74% of Mexico's imports. In 2013, the U.S. was the destination of 78.8% of exports and accounted for 49.1% of the imports to the country. The agricultural and manufacturing industrial sectors were the
231:
over this period was an average of only 5.1%, compared to 7.1% from 1982 to 1993, before NAFTA was implemented. Critics of NAFTA argue that the 1990s economic boom was driven by technological change, however, and that employment growth in the 1990s would have been even greater without NAFTA.
171:
and other proponents of trade liberalization often cited only potential job gains from increased exports. The 2003 paper noted that increases in imports ultimately displaced the production of goods that would have been made domestically by workers within the United States.
175:
According to the
Economic Policy Institute's study, 61% of the net job losses due to trade with Mexico under NAFTA, or 415,000 jobs, were relatively high paying manufacturing jobs. Certain states with heavy emphasis on manufacturing industries like
167:, the rise in the trade deficit with Mexico alone since NAFTA was enacted led to the net displacement of 682,900 U.S. jobs by 2010. A 2003 paper released by the Economic Policy Institute noted that President
69:
Several other studies discussed below argue that impacts on particular U.S. industries were more significant and that the U.S. labor movement was weakened by opening trade with Mexico, a lower wage country.
58:
Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies."
235:
industrial production, in which manufacturing makes up 78%, saw an increase of 49% from 1993 to 2005. The period prior to NAFTA, 1982–1993, only saw a 28% increase. In fact, according to NAM,
246:
Others agree with the notion that there has been an increase in net jobs due to NAFTA's implementation, but also believe that these net gains are coming at the price of worker's
201:
related to trade with Mexico and Canada. Although many of these workers laid off due to NAFTA were reallocated to other sectors, the majority of workers were relocated to the
45:. NAFTA's proponents believe that more jobs were ultimately created in the USA. Opponents see the agreements as having been costly to well-paying American jobs.
433:
17:
473:
Hufbauer, Gary C., and
Jeffrey J. Scott. NAFTA Revisited: Achievements and Challenges. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2005.
614:
609:
94:
345:
570:
236:
590:
Adapted from the authors' article "The Case for Mexico's Rescue: The Peso
Package Looks Even Better Now", which appeared in
327:
107:
34:
102:
126:
430:
450:
482:
Hubbard, Glenn, and
Anthony P. O'brien. Macroeconomics. Upper Saddle River: Pearson: Prentice Hall, 2006. 233–34.
491:
Salas, Carlos, Jeff Faux, and Robert E. Scott. Economic Policy
Institute. 28 Sept. 2006. Retrieved 10 Nov. 2011
391:
374:
250:. That is, high-paying manufacturing jobs are being lost and replaced by lower paying jobs and is causing wage
202:
54:
326:
Kate
Bronfenbrenner, 'We'll Close', The Multinational Monitor, March 1997, based on the study she directed, '
159:
at Cornell University showed the effects of plants threatening to move to Mexico and Canada because of NAFTA.
151:
552:
143:
The image shows the U.S. trade in goods with Mexico from 1992-2015. NAFTA became effective January 1, 1994.
518:
541:
Lies, Damn Lies, and Export Statistics: How Corporate Lobbyists Distort the Record of Flawed Trade Deals.
328:
Final Report: The Effects of Plant Closing or Threat of Plant Closing on the Right of Workers to Organize
272:
197:
62:
267:
164:
66:
imports in 2001. For scale, that was roughly 10% of the trade activity with Mexico in that year.
255:
492:
417:
315:
8:
378:
209:
156:
566:
258:, the sources of new job creation were in relatively high paid sectors and industries.
139:
361:
578:
539:
Travis McArthur and Todd Tucker. Public Citizen. Sept. 2010. Retrieved 10 Nov. 2011
504:
Kletzer, Lori G. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 (1998): 115–36. 25 Apr. 2008
291:
CRS-Villarreal and Fergusson-The North American Free Trade Agreement-April 16, 2015
437:
416:
Scott, Robert E. Economic Policy Institute. 25 Feb. 2010. Retrieved 10 Nov. 2011
360:
Scott, Robert E. Economic Policy Institute. 17 Nov. 2003. Retrieved 22 Apr. 2008
344:
Scott, Robert E. Economic Policy Institute. 3 May 2011. Retrieved 10 Nov. 2011
168:
603:
290:
540:
404:
392:
Job Losses Due to Trade Since NAFTA Deepen Pennsylvania Manufacturing Crisis
551:
Datelle, David C. Democratic Leadership Council. 1 Oct. 1997. 22 Apr. 2008
205:
industry, where average wages are 4/5 to that of the manufacturing sector.
185:
553:
NAFTA's Effect on U.S. Jobs: a Small But Positive Impact After Three Years
214:
301:
31:
North American Free Trade Agreement's impact on United States employment
429:
Woodhead, Greg. AFL-CIO. 2000. AFL-CIO Policy Department. 28 Apr. 2008
316:
U.S. Census Bureau-Trade in Goods with Mexico-Retrieved August 10, 2016
193:
530:
Thomas H. Becker, 2010, Doing Business in the New Latin America, p. 37
53:
The economic impacts of NAFTA have been modest. In a 2015 report, the
33:
has been the object of ongoing debate since the 1994 inception of the
251:
505:
226:
United States. When a country is experiencing economic growth (i.e.
431:
NAFTA's Seven-Year Itch: Promised Benefits Not Delivered to Workers
196:
were significantly affected by these job losses. However, in Ohio,
177:
346:
Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA
189:
493:
Revisiting NAFTA: Still not working for North America's workers
42:
38:
517:
National Association of Manufacturers. July 2005. 28 May 2008
247:
208:
Opponents also argue that the ability for firms to increase
403:
US Department of State. NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations.
181:
227:
302:
CBO-The Effects of NAFTA on U.S.-Mexican Trade and GDP
571:"NAFTA and Jobs: Remember the 'Giant Sucking Sound'?"
451:
NAFTA Facts. United States Trade Representative. 2008
564:
601:
217:organizing drives since NAFTA's implementation.
390:Keystone Research Center. 2001. 28 Apr. 2008
111:that contextualizes different points of view.
97:to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies
311:
309:
594:, vol. 75, no. 3 (May/June 1996), pp. 8–14.
356:
354:
340:
338:
336:
306:
127:Learn how and when to remove this message
375:International Trade and Job Loss in Ohio
351:
333:
254:in certain sectors. However, during the
150:
138:
14:
602:
469:
467:
465:
463:
461:
459:
498:
237:National Association of Manufacturers
569:; Robinson, Sherman (May 17, 1996).
77:
18:NAFTA's impact on US employment
615:North American Free Trade Agreement
456:
35:North American Free Trade Agreement
24:
25:
626:
610:Unemployment in the United States
405:NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations
82:
558:
545:
533:
524:
511:
485:
476:
443:
423:
410:
220:
575:Brad DeLong's Homepage: Op-Eds
397:
384:
367:
320:
295:
284:
55:Congressional Research Service
13:
1:
373:Honeck, Jon (February 2004).
278:
362:The High Price of Free Trade
7:
273:Trade Adjustment Assistance
261:
198:Trade Adjustment Assistance
148:hardest hit areas by NAFTA
73:
63:Congressional Budget Office
48:
10:
631:
418:Trade policy and job loss
268:US-Canada trade relations
165:Economic Policy Institute
27:Object of ongoing debate
381:. Retrieved 2016-08-22.
519:The Truth About NAFTA:
407:Accessed 12 April 2010
256:Clinton administration
160:
144:
61:In a 2003 report, the
154:
142:
105:by rewriting it in a
379:Policy Matters Ohio
157:Kate Bronfenbrenner
436:2008-07-04 at the
161:
145:
163:According to the
137:
136:
129:
91:This section may
16:(Redirected from
622:
595:
589:
587:
586:
577:. Archived from
562:
556:
549:
543:
537:
531:
528:
522:
515:
509:
506:Job Displacement
502:
496:
489:
483:
480:
474:
471:
454:
447:
441:
427:
421:
414:
408:
401:
395:
388:
382:
377:. A report from
371:
365:
358:
349:
342:
331:
324:
318:
313:
304:
299:
293:
288:
155:Studies done by
132:
125:
121:
118:
112:
108:balanced fashion
86:
85:
78:
21:
630:
629:
625:
624:
623:
621:
620:
619:
600:
599:
598:
592:Foreign Affairs
584:
582:
565:DeLong, Chris;
563:
559:
550:
546:
538:
534:
529:
525:
516:
512:
503:
499:
490:
486:
481:
477:
472:
457:
448:
444:
438:Wayback Machine
428:
424:
415:
411:
402:
398:
389:
385:
372:
368:
359:
352:
343:
334:
325:
321:
314:
307:
300:
296:
289:
285:
281:
264:
223:
133:
122:
116:
113:
103:help improve it
100:
87:
83:
76:
51:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
628:
618:
617:
612:
597:
596:
557:
544:
532:
523:
510:
497:
484:
475:
455:
442:
422:
409:
396:
383:
366:
350:
332:
319:
305:
294:
282:
280:
277:
276:
275:
270:
263:
260:
222:
219:
169:George W. Bush
135:
134:
90:
88:
81:
75:
72:
50:
47:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
627:
616:
613:
611:
608:
607:
605:
593:
581:on 2012-03-13
580:
576:
572:
568:
561:
554:
548:
542:
536:
527:
520:
514:
507:
501:
494:
488:
479:
470:
468:
466:
464:
462:
460:
452:
449:24 Apr. 2008
446:
439:
435:
432:
426:
419:
413:
406:
400:
393:
387:
380:
376:
370:
363:
357:
355:
347:
341:
339:
337:
329:
323:
317:
312:
310:
303:
298:
292:
287:
283:
274:
271:
269:
266:
265:
259:
257:
253:
249:
244:
240:
238:
232:
229:
218:
216:
211:
206:
204:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
173:
170:
166:
158:
153:
149:
141:
131:
128:
120:
110:
109:
104:
98:
96:
89:
80:
79:
71:
67:
64:
59:
56:
46:
44:
40:
37:(NAFTA) with
36:
32:
19:
591:
583:. Retrieved
579:the original
574:
567:DeLong, Brad
560:
547:
535:
526:
513:
500:
487:
478:
445:
425:
412:
399:
386:
369:
322:
297:
286:
245:
241:
233:
224:
221:Job creation
207:
186:Pennsylvania
174:
162:
146:
123:
117:January 2019
114:
106:
95:undue weight
92:
68:
60:
52:
30:
29:
604:Categories
585:2016-08-21
279:References
194:California
252:deflation
434:Archived
262:See also
178:Michigan
74:Job loss
49:Overview
210:capital
203:service
190:Indiana
101:Please
192:, and
43:Mexico
39:Canada
248:wages
215:union
93:lend
182:Ohio
41:and
228:GDP
606::
573:.
458:^
353:^
335:^
330:'.
308:^
188:,
184:,
180:,
588:.
555:.
521:.
508:.
495:.
453:.
440:.
420:.
394:.
364:.
348:.
130:)
124:(
119:)
115:(
99:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
.SVG)