NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Amid all the squabbling in Washington, there is one policy many Democrats and Republicans agree on -- free trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama.
But there is still fierce debate on whether the deals will create U.S. jobs or take them away from American workers.
On one side is big business, that believes opening up trade with other countries will boost sales for U.S. firms, allowing them to hire more workers. But unions argue the deals will mean more low-wage competition for U.S. workers, and more factories being moved overseas.
Though the deals have already been negotiated and have significant bipartisan support, they've been stuck in limbo for several years as Congress stalled on other issues. But lawmakers are now likely to pass the deals soon after they return from summer recess next month.
The agreements will greatly lower trade barriers on U.S. exports to all three countries.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
There really is no debate here. Free trade creates jobs. The evidence is clear. Yes, some jobs in certain industries are destroyed as more efficient foreign companies out-compete them. But there is overall job gain from free trade. No one who seriously studies trade issues believes otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThose who oppose free trade need to ask themselves -- do we really want to protect a few inefficient businesses when doing so will cause consumers to pay higher prices and fewer jobs to be created in other industries?
I wonder why there are never stories that actually go into specifics on the terms of these deals. All we hear is either 'it's great for business" or "they're taking our jobs" depending on ones political motives for the day.
ReplyDeleteSince China is now feeling the effects of the market, including higher wages (translating into higher prices at the end of the production chain), we need to find OTHER countries that will pay their workers a dollar or two a day. And as far as "creating jobs", I'm not sure a machinist who made $22 an hour before hios job went to China and is now working in the car shop at Wal-Mart for $9.50 an hour (with no benefits) is MY definition of a job we want to promote. Like the CEO of Campbell's Soup, who closed several plants in the USA and then opened them in Mexico, costing Americans over 50,000 jobs and in the process saved MILLIONS --- did THAT "free trade" move help the USA? All he did was take a huge bonus. The workers in the USA received NO raise, NO extra benefits, NO NOTHING. "Certain industries" are destroyed (like steel, electronics production, furniture manufacturing, etc.), huh? What do you think THOSE previously middle-class and EMPLOYED Americans are doing now? With unemployemnt at 9.1%, take a guess.
ReplyDeleteSince were going to allow trucks from Mexico on our nations highways, even though they don't meet our National Highway safety standards, I am sure were going to see a lot more fatal traffic accidents involving these trucks, becouse of this, the dead will leave job openings, so there will be jobs.
ReplyDeletelmclain, no one is owed a job. If someone will do a job for lower pay than someone else, that's the market at work. And it's not the government's responsibility to "promote" certain jobs. If you want the government to intervene in the free market and plan the economy, that's fine. Just recognize that's what you are doing.
ReplyDeleteYes, some people lose jobs to free trade. If people want too much to do a certain job that a foreigner will do for less, they will lose their job. There's nothing unfair about that. If no one wants to pay you for one type of labor, it's up to you to find another type of labor that someone will pay you for. I'm not being flip, I've had family members who lost jobs and have struggled to find work in other fields, but it's a fact of life. The government should not be intervening in the economy to stop this process, though. Nowhere in the Constitution does the government have that authority.
What your scenario misses is the consumer benefits that come with trade. By paying lower labor costs, companies can sell products to consumers for less. Consumers then have extra money to spend or invest in other things, which creates more jobs. You make the classic mistake at only looking at one small part of the large economic equation.
The problem is so many people failed to see the writing on the wall. If you have advanced skills in manufacturing, you are making bank. But no one is looking to pay you top dollar for low end skills. Those with the skills to manufacture airplanes, heavy equipment, and high tech gear are the ones who are doing well. Don't blame the world because you failed to continue to innovate yourself.
ReplyDelete