A fantastic friend of labor and longtime fair trade advocate David Bonior, former Democratic Rep from Michigan, had a devastating Op Ed in the Times indicting Obama’s misleading SOTU rhetoric that TPP would create American manufacturing jobs.
And, for America’s remaining manufacturing workers, Nafta put downward pressure on wages by enabling employers to threaten to move jobs offshore during wage bargaining. A 1997 Cornell University study ordered by the Nafta Commission for Labor Cooperation found that as many as 62 percent of union drives faced employer threats to relocate abroad, and the factory shutdown rate following successful union certifications tripled after Nafta.
But when the Center for Economic and Policy Research applied the data to the theory, they found that reductions in consumer prices had not been sufficient to offset losses in wage levels. They found that American workers without college degrees had most likely lost more than 12 percent of their wages to Nafta-style trade, even accounting for the benefits of cheaper goods. This means a loss of more than $3,300 per year for a worker earning the median annual wage of $27,500.
The Nafta data poses a significant challenge for President Obama. As he said on Tuesday, he wants to battle the plague of income inequality and he wants to expand the Nafta model with T.P.P. But he cannot have it both ways.
I stand with Rep. Bonior and with our entire Congressional delegation.
danfromwaltham says
I could have used your help last year JC, when I tried to promote Steve Lynch over Mr. NAFTA and GATT Ed Markey. I felt like Rambo, all alone on this issue.
The million good paying jobs lost to Mexico were high paying, and replaced by low paying service type jobs. It’s no wonder Dems want to artificially increase the hourly wage of entry-level jobs.
jconway says
You had no credibility on the issue. Anyone who supported Ronald “Union buster” Reagan for President is responsible for allowing his acceleration of deregulation, privatization, and yes offshoring. Here is a conservative economist praising Reagan for enabling ‘globalizing privatization, free enterprise, and free trade’ and claiming he laid a foundation for ‘Clinton’s passage of NAFTA’.
You also would’ve made Outsourcing in Chief Romney President over Obama, who is at least slightly more protectionist. If you recall, I did not defend Markey’s votes, merely stated that they were over 20 years old and he has regretted them and evolved on the issue. Case in point-he joined Sen. Warren in opposing fast track and TPP-something you’re other hero Scott Brown likely would’ve supported to appease his Wall Street crony base.
danfromwaltham says
He saved Harley Davidson by putting tariffs on Japanese motorcycles and he made Japan put voluntary quotas on their exports of Honda’s and Toyota’s to America, so The Big 3 wouldn’t get crushed.
mike_cote says
Mr, “Gee, maybe if I never even mention the AIDS crisis, it will just magically go away”. (Fricken idiot).
danfromwaltham says
So your revisionist history won’t wash, so long as I am here. Please note Reagan was good friends with Rock Hudson and on very friendly terms with Liberace. C. Everett Koop was the point person and as I recall, was very engaged on this issue.
mike_cote says
It took people like Dr. Koop to stand up publicly to Reagan and the damn Republicans before he did jack shit about it. Most of the damned Republicans were talking about “Concentration Camps” as the response.
Pat Buchanan’s speech at the 1992 Republican Convension, is the Primary Reason why I will never ever support the ReThuglican Party.
Mark L. Bail says
history is conservative in this case.
Reagan, like many politicians, didn’t speak out. He avoided saying anything until his second term when, at the urging of people such as Koop, he began to say more. That was 1986.
And the “some of my best friends are gay defense”? Who are you, Paula Deen? Really. Sometimes you really take the cake.
mike_cote says
DFW with 3 pound ear rings.
kbusch says
I didn’t realize she owned a gas station!
Mark L. Bail says
the gas station joke.
Christopher says
n/t
danfromwaltham says
The Patco strike was in violation of federal law and the non-strike oath every federal employee signs upon hiring.
What a true leader Reagan was, puts those that came after him to shame.
mike_cote says
but Reagan was still the worst President ever even including Bush 43.
Christopher says
…air traffic controllers are not federal employees. Besides, why shouldn’t federal employees be allowed to unionize?
Mark L. Bail says
man if you’re not in a union. Otherwise, you’re just a thug.
paulsimmons says
Harry Reid rejected Obama’s appeal to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership yesterday.
Furthermore, polling data has the public opposed to fast-tracking the treaty by a margin of more than two-to-one:
Given the populist base of the Tea Party, Obama can’t hope for corporate Republican support in the Senate. Per the poll linked above:
jconway says
But the TPP itself needs to be killed. That will be a harder vote and we need to make sure our delegation holds the line.
HeartlandDem says
I don’t see full opposition from MA-01 Congressman Richard Neal (D-Springfield) and he has an allegedly powerful post on Ways & Means. What is his reluctance? It’s not as if the multi-nationals that benefit from these corporate welfare programs are based in his district and providing strong economic engines and fabulous jobs in greater Springfield, Holyoke, Chicopee, etc.
Any updates on the positions since the September 2013 PDA chart?
Thanks for posting!
jconway says
Seems as of Jan 14th he has still not been unequivocally firm. I would suggest we start calling the office.
Christopher says
…why liberals get so xenophobic when it comes to trade. I for one believe the default position should be freedom of movement, for both goods and people. All markets should be open to all comers, unless specific action is taken to close them because of a particular objection, say if we don’t want to import products of child labor or sweat shops.
Also, how can treaties ever be anything other than fast-tracked? My understanding is that this means an up or down vote with no amendments. Countries party to a treaty shouldn’t be able to amend them ad hoc. Then you get country A with this exception and country B with that carve out and it’s no longer really a treaty. Then you have to go back and renegotiate and in the process undermine the President’s authority to speak for the United States.
Mark L. Bail says
really about “freedom of movement.” These are not “free” trade agreements as the media portrays them.
As Dean Baker says,
And
jconway says
From the article I linked to above it would
1) Enable child labor
2) Enable foreign courts to override American laws and regulations
3) And it will cost jobs, right here in Massachusettts