Like many people here, I am at best skeptical of HRC’s previous trade positions. In 2008, asked whether Ross Perot was right about NAFTA, she said “All I remember is a bunch of charts.” A really bad answer — she remembers EVERYTHING. I don’t know that for sure, but based on other things she says, that’s my impression.
But anyway — the most important thing is, what’s her position now?
Strengthen investment in American manufacturing—so we make it in America. Hillary’s plan will build and expand upon President Obama’s support for a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation—to leverage the potential of regional hubs that bring together workers, business, universities, and community colleges to develop world-leading technologies and production that anchors good-paying jobs. And she will insist on ensuring union collective bargaining rights and labor protections, as well as high standards for domestic sourcing and “buy American” laws.
Revitalize the hardest-hit manufacturing communities by creating tax incentives to encourage investment in communities that have faced or are about to face significant manufacturing job losses.
Create incentives for companies to bring back jobs to the U.S. by making America the most attractive location for investment—and crack down on shifting earnings overseas.
Level the global playing field for American workers and manufacturers by aggressively combating trade violations. Establish and empower a new chief trade prosecutor reporting directly to the president, triple the number of trade enforcement officers, stand up to Chinese abuses, and crack down on currency manipulation that hurts American workers.
(snip)
Strengthening manufacturing bolsters innovation for the long-term. While manufacturing accounts for only 12 percent of GDP, it accounts for 90 percent of patents issued, 70 percent of private-sector R&D spending, and 60 percent of the private R&D workforce. Manufacturers innovate at nearly twice the rate as other companies.
The U.S. can compete for global leadership in manufacturing and the good jobs of the future. During the last decade, there was a pessimistic view that America could no longer compete for manufacturing. However, the U.S. is increasingly competitive as a location for investment as companies more carefully consider the total costs of production, and we need to create incentives to convince those companies to invest in our communities.
We cannot afford to lose our capacity to make products in America. The unique research intensity and connections between production and design that arise from manufacturing create spillover benefits throughout the economy. That is why ensuring America is a global leader in advanced manufacturing is critical to innovation and competing for the good jobs of the future.
There’s more at the link. Not mentioned: TPP (she has come out against it, but not campaigned actively).
Christopher says
…but I do remember Al Gore mopping the floor with him on Larry King. I have yet to be convinced that NAFTA led directly to job loss here, especially since there seems to be such a time lag as to raise the possibility of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy and we had net job growth in the 1990s. Besides, quite frankly the US has a strong interest in a vibrant and stable Mexican economy, including jobs on that side of the Rio Grande, especially if there are legitimate numerical concerns about more of them coming here.
scott12mass says
Chris I know of 400-500 guys being laid off in central mass from good paying factory jobs because I saw the machines being packed up and a friend of mine (as part of his severance package) had to go to Laredo and train the Mexican foreman to run the machines.
There may have been more fryolator jobs created in that time period, but from talking with truck drivers (I worked on a loading dock at the time) and seeing it myself we did lose good jobs.
The only way to quantify the impact is to also include average wage per hour, before and after NAFTA.
joeltpatterson says
But it did not help American workers in manufacturing.
It also put terrible strain on farmers in Mexico.
Erik Loomis summed it up with the case of North Carolina:
No more of these trade deals. They are great for the big money donors but not for the majority of voters.
Christopher says
…which it stands to reason creates jobs in those areas and otherwise stimulates our economy. This is hardly one sided and from what I can tell more than satisfies the greatest good for the greatest number test.
jconway says
According to a pollster on Here and Now. In the 2004-2014 period. Not that any of it is his fault, but it went from 55-51%. That may not look like a big decline, but 4% can swing an election. Bridgewater had more young people registering as Republican this afternoon than any of the other parties. That’s troubling to me.
Christopher says
…but I can think of a lot of causes other than trade during those years. Was there a big registration drive in Bridgewater today? I think that part of the state tends to be a little redder anyway. At some point I’m not sure what to say against the “logic” that says if you don’t like the way things are go with the guys most responsible for getting us here. The economy has consistently done better under Dem Presidents than GOPers. Obama’s and the first Clinton’s economies were better than either Bush’s.
HR's Kevin says
What is the middle class exactly? And what are those numbers? What declined?
SomervilleTom says
One definition is the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles of the wealth distribution.
The boundaries are well-defined: the boundary between the 1st and 2nd quintile is the wealth at which exactly twenty percent of the population fall below it. The parallel boundary, between the 4th and 5th quintile, is the wealth at which 20% exactly twenty percent of the population falls above it. The “middle class” is the population between those two thresholds.
Here’s an interesting exercise. Consider a population of ten people and total wealth of $1M. One of those ten (let’s call him “Ralph”) has $991,000.
The other nine people have $1,000 each.
Each quintile in this example has exactly 2 people in it. The top quintile, including Ralph, has $992,000. The other four collapse — there is no “middle class” in this example. The distribution among everyone except Ralph can be manipulated however we like, it’s not going to change anything.
In a similar way, we have destroyed the middle class by creating a wealth concentration where the top quintile has so much of the wealth that the other divisions just don’t matter very much (less extreme than my example, but the principle is the same).
Regarding your last question — “What declined”? — the best explanation I know was laid out very persuasively by Elizabeth Warren at a Jefferson Lecture (at UC Berkeley) in 2007.
It really IS vital to understand what happened — how the middle class was destroyed.
In 2007, Ms. Warren called it “The coming collapse of the middle class”. Today, ten years later, it has arrived.
Her key metric (~26:00 – 27:10) is fixed expenses as a share of income:
In the remainder of this marvelous piece, Ms. Warren explains in concrete terms what this means.
HR's Kevin says
I am not questioning that there have been declines but I really just wanted to know exactly what was being claimed by the pollster in question. It is hard to know how to quantify how such declines will affect the electorate when the people affected and the nature of the decline has not been specified.
kbusch says
Economic theory, in general, concludes that free trade is better than protectionism: it causes more activity and lowers the costs of goods. Protecting, say, American clothing manufacturers with rules or tariffs means everyone, rich and poor, pays more for clothing.
The downside in the U.S. is that we have an anemic welfare state. So when the global economy throws a ton of American workers out of their jobs, nothing catches them, retrains them, and readies them for a different line of work. As a result, the economic churn induced by free trade causes excessive hardship. (Remember though, free trade is not the only thing that induces economic churn.)
That, and the undue political power of those with wealth means that the rules that get baked into trade agreements benefit the 0.1% unfairly.