3 ms·

They'd be better off with free flow of both labor AND capital; in my humble opinion. Allowing flow of goods/capital but not (in general) labor seems pretty cru

They'd be better off with free flow of both labor AND capital; in my humble opinion. Allowing flow of goods/capital but not (in general) labor seems pretty cruel IMO, as all the capital can get sucked out to where it can see highest profits (US) while labor is left to languish and compete to the bottom due to losing the efficiencies their capital provided. NAFTA and its successors are a nasty deal to the common Mexican. I don't think they were fucked over by the US so much as their own politicians, though. Their government could have said "we're not gonna sign NAFTA unless there is generous visa-free flow of non-criminals across the border" or whatever and honestly I think they could have strong armed America into agreeing to it, we're "greedy" enough we would have went with it.

miguelazo 4y ago
"their own politicians" gained power with the help of the US, and paid them back with policies that benefitted the US: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-20-mn-4009-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-20-mn-4009-s... It's absurd to suggest Mexico could have strong-armed the US.
- notch898a 4y ago
  I mean realistically the US has little to lose by letting Mexicans (actual Mexicans with Mexican citizenship) into the US the sort of way an (USA)American can go the other way. Frankly it's a pretty weak concession. I think we would have done it in exchange for free flow of capital if pressed.
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    I think that’s completely off the table in the US politically. Look at how hard it is to even get existing quotas raised or legal immigration processes streamlined. Most of the country would be extremely opposed to such a policy, and many for less “noble” reasons than economics. What matters is real life, and when a huge part of the population suddenly has to contend with labor competition willing to work for 1/4 the price, you’re talking about a civil war.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      You may be right but i think the 1/4 the price notion is misplaced. It's when they are in Mexico that they're 1/4 the price, and that's already legal due to free flow of goods with NAFTA. I can pay $2, $3 an hour and have the Mexican produce the widget and import it. If the Mexican is allowed to come to USA, now I have to either pay more to the remaining Mexicans (supply vs demand) or pay them minimum wage in the USA, which actually makes them MORE EXPENSIVE competition and thus the (USA)American working stiff relatively more attractive to employ. When Mexicans can come work in the US they generally have to be paid more (at the very least due to minimum wage). So we'd be angry because now we're competing against.... more expensive labor? It's not the voting masses of people at the bottom that benefit from current policy, it's those at the top. NAFTA is the worst of both worlds for labor on both sides, which makes it democratically unattractive.
      - miguelazo 4y ago
        This is an Econ 101 hypothetical scenario. In the real world, there would be several years (or more) of massive economic dislocation. The bottom line is you would immediately be increasing the labor pool vastly in a certain number of trades/industries. You're also only focused on the US-- Mexico would suffer even more by having more of its most mobile, ambitious laborers flee the country.

miguelazo 4y ago

"their own politicians" gained power with the help of the US, and paid them back with policies that benefitted the US: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-20-mn-4009-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-20-mn-4009-s... It's absurd to suggest Mexico could have strong-armed the US.

notch898a 4y ago
I mean realistically the US has little to lose by letting Mexicans (actual Mexicans with Mexican citizenship) into the US the sort of way an (USA)American can go the other way. Frankly it's a pretty weak concession. I think we would have done it in exchange for free flow of capital if pressed.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  I think that’s completely off the table in the US politically. Look at how hard it is to even get existing quotas raised or legal immigration processes streamlined. Most of the country would be extremely opposed to such a policy, and many for less “noble” reasons than economics. What matters is real life, and when a huge part of the population suddenly has to contend with labor competition willing to work for 1/4 the price, you’re talking about a civil war.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    You may be right but i think the 1/4 the price notion is misplaced. It's when they are in Mexico that they're 1/4 the price, and that's already legal due to free flow of goods with NAFTA. I can pay $2, $3 an hour and have the Mexican produce the widget and import it. If the Mexican is allowed to come to USA, now I have to either pay more to the remaining Mexicans (supply vs demand) or pay them minimum wage in the USA, which actually makes them MORE EXPENSIVE competition and thus the (USA)American working stiff relatively more attractive to employ. When Mexicans can come work in the US they generally have to be paid more (at the very least due to minimum wage). So we'd be angry because now we're competing against.... more expensive labor? It's not the voting masses of people at the bottom that benefit from current policy, it's those at the top. NAFTA is the worst of both worlds for labor on both sides, which makes it democratically unattractive.
    - miguelazo 4y ago
      This is an Econ 101 hypothetical scenario. In the real world, there would be several years (or more) of massive economic dislocation. The bottom line is you would immediately be increasing the labor pool vastly in a certain number of trades/industries. You're also only focused on the US-- Mexico would suffer even more by having more of its most mobile, ambitious laborers flee the country.