3 ms·

The jobs lost to those trade deals are generally pretty crappy jobs. We'd be better off if we captured some of the value those treaties create and redistribute

The jobs lost to those trade deals are generally pretty crappy jobs. We'd be better off if we captured some of the value those treaties create and redistribute it to those negatively impacted... with something like UBI.

twblalock 10y ago
> The jobs lost to those trade deals are generally pretty crappy jobs. Not to mention, that if those jobs hadn't gone to Mexico because of NAFTA, they would have gone to China, or southeast Asia somewhere. There is pretty much no way they would have stayed in the US. It's also the case that the US manufactures more goods now than ever before, but with fewer people. We manufacture more goods per worker than ever before -- that's because of increases in productivity, only some of which are due to automation. Those increases in productivity almost certainly would have happened with or without the various trade agreements we have put in place over the past few decades.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Pretty much all the "death of American manufacturing" stories neglect this. You can find a lot of unemployed steelworkers and abandoned factories, but those factories have largely been supplanted by newer, more efficient ones. 'Onshoring' is becoming popular because domestic production is actually cost-effective once you factor in the low ongoing costs and defect rates for automated production. So NAFTA mattered, and it may have changed how automation happened (I'll bet automating still-running factories looks very different than offshoring, then onshoring from scratch). But it didn't change the essential structure of what's happened - manufacturing was going to move away from mass American labor regardless.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    A recent NY Times article argues that NAFTA may have saved some American jobs in the auto industry: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/business/economy/nafta-may-have-saved-many-autoworkers-jobs.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/business/economy/nafta-may... The argument is that NAFTA caused low-wage jobs to move to Mexico instead of to Asia. Suppliers in Mexico work closely with US suppliers, because they are geographically close to one another -- therefore, the supply chain stayed in North America. If the jobs had gone to Asia, the Asian suppliers would probably have worked with other suppliers close to them, rather than US suppliers. So the US suppliers would have lost their business partners, and many would have gone out of business. I think we should also keep in mind that trade happens whether you have free-trade deals or not. Even with US tariffs of 2.5% on cars and 25% on trucks, Japanese car companies did very well in the US and took a substantial amount of market share away from domestic automakers in the 1970s and 1980s, back when all of their cars were imported from Japan (they build many in the US now, though). The Japanese cars were so competitive that Americans chose to buy them even though they cost more than American cars, due to both the tariffs and shortages -- Hondas sold substantially above MSRP for a while due to demand, for example. So, unless you prevent imports from coming into the country at all, you still have to compete whether you have free trade or tariffs.
Bartweiss 10y ago
This point deserves to be made way more often. People tend to go "trade deals are economically efficient, so they don't decrease employment!", but that's not true. They generally do decrease US employment in shitty jobs, while increasing efficiency. The global economy isn't Pareto optimal, and it ought to be possible to move those gains to the people who would otherwise be hurt.
gwright 10y ago
The value doesn't need to be captured because it isn't lost. The value is simply distributed across the entire economy by lower costs. There is room for policies that support workers displaced by economic change (i.e. unemployment insurance) but free trade helps to maintain a vibrant, adaptive, and productive economy (i.e. to create wealth). Highly regulated trade is riddled with preferential treatment for politically connected firms or industries. This is a great way for politicians and bureacrats to wield power, exchange favors, and generally funnel value away from consumers and towards the favored firms and industries.

twblalock 10y ago

> The jobs lost to those trade deals are generally pretty crappy jobs. Not to mention, that if those jobs hadn't gone to Mexico because of NAFTA, they would have gone to China, or southeast Asia somewhere. There is pretty much no way they would have stayed in the US. It's also the case that the US manufactures more goods now than ever before, but with fewer people. We manufacture more goods per worker than ever before -- that's because of increases in productivity, only some of which are due to automation. Those increases in productivity almost certainly would have happened with or without the various trade agreements we have put in place over the past few decades.

Bartweiss 10y ago
Pretty much all the "death of American manufacturing" stories neglect this. You can find a lot of unemployed steelworkers and abandoned factories, but those factories have largely been supplanted by newer, more efficient ones. 'Onshoring' is becoming popular because domestic production is actually cost-effective once you factor in the low ongoing costs and defect rates for automated production. So NAFTA mattered, and it may have changed how automation happened (I'll bet automating still-running factories looks very different than offshoring, then onshoring from scratch). But it didn't change the essential structure of what's happened - manufacturing was going to move away from mass American labor regardless.
- twblalock 10y ago
  A recent NY Times article argues that NAFTA may have saved some American jobs in the auto industry: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/business/economy/nafta-may-have-saved-many-autoworkers-jobs.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/business/economy/nafta-may... The argument is that NAFTA caused low-wage jobs to move to Mexico instead of to Asia. Suppliers in Mexico work closely with US suppliers, because they are geographically close to one another -- therefore, the supply chain stayed in North America. If the jobs had gone to Asia, the Asian suppliers would probably have worked with other suppliers close to them, rather than US suppliers. So the US suppliers would have lost their business partners, and many would have gone out of business. I think we should also keep in mind that trade happens whether you have free-trade deals or not. Even with US tariffs of 2.5% on cars and 25% on trucks, Japanese car companies did very well in the US and took a substantial amount of market share away from domestic automakers in the 1970s and 1980s, back when all of their cars were imported from Japan (they build many in the US now, though). The Japanese cars were so competitive that Americans chose to buy them even though they cost more than American cars, due to both the tariffs and shortages -- Hondas sold substantially above MSRP for a while due to demand, for example. So, unless you prevent imports from coming into the country at all, you still have to compete whether you have free trade or tariffs.

Bartweiss 10y ago

This point deserves to be made way more often. People tend to go "trade deals are economically efficient, so they don't decrease employment!", but that's not true. They generally do decrease US employment in shitty jobs, while increasing efficiency. The global economy isn't Pareto optimal, and it ought to be possible to move those gains to the people who would otherwise be hurt.

gwright 10y ago

The value doesn't need to be captured because it isn't lost. The value is simply distributed across the entire economy by lower costs. There is room for policies that support workers displaced by economic change (i.e. unemployment insurance) but free trade helps to maintain a vibrant, adaptive, and productive economy (i.e. to create wealth). Highly regulated trade is riddled with preferential treatment for politically connected firms or industries. This is a great way for politicians and bureacrats to wield power, exchange favors, and generally funnel value away from consumers and towards the favored firms and industries.