CBO: pages 2 & 3 have the pertinent information
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/report_0.pdf
From The Economist: NAFTA 20 Years On
The American and Canadian economies were already pretty well integrated before the creation of NAFTA, so there was no great leap in trade between the two. But America’s trade with Mexico increased by 506% between 1993 and 2012, compared with 279% with non-NAFTA countries. In 2011 America traded as much with Canada and Mexico as it did with the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China), Japan and South Korea combined. The “giant sucking sound” that Ross Perot, a presidential candidate, predicted would be heard as Mexico hoovered up American jobs never materialised; if jobs have moved anywhere in the past two decades, they have gone to China, not Mexico. Industries from aerospace to cars have woven supply chains back and forth across North America’s borders. Some 40% of the content of imports from Mexico into the United States, and 25% of the content of imports from Canada, originated in the United States itself. Helped by rising energy production in all three countries, Factory North America is being created (see article).
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21592612-north-americas-trade-deal-has-delivered-real-benefits-job-not-done-deeper-better
FactCheck.Org:
Q: How many U.S. jobs have been lost since the inception of the North American Free Trade Agreement?
A: Actually, nearly 25 million jobs have been gained. Nearly all economic studies say NAFTA's net effect on jobs was negligible.
FULL QUESTION
How many U.S. jobs have been lost since the inception of the North American Free Trade Agreement?
FULL ANSWER
NAFTA took effect on Jan. 1, 1994. Since that time, the U.S. economy has added just over 25 million jobs, of which nearly 20 million were added under President Clinton, who pushed for ratification of NAFTA and signed the agreement.
This chart shows the growth in total nonfarm employment in the U.S. since NAFTA's inception, as measured by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/07/naftas-impact-on-employment/
CBO: Summary of 4 Studies
NAFTA had little or no impact on aggregate employment. NAFTA is at
the heart of a long-standing debate over the employment effects of trade because of fears
that trade with developing countries causes U.S. job losses and that trade deficits equate
to higher unemployment. None of the reports attributed changes in aggregate U.S. or
Mexican employment levels to NAFTA, but the author of the first chapter of the Carnegie
study suggests that changing the assumptions of a USITC model would allow for a net
gain in U.S. employment over the past decade of between zero and 270,000 jobs, a small
increase. For Mexico, it concludes that “the sum of the effects of the trade pact to date
has not been a strong net gain in overall employment.” The second chapter (different
author) argues for zero net growth in U.S. jobs. The USITC study demonstrates, contrary
to some popular opinion, that U.S. trade deficits tend to occur during periods of low
unemployment, and “vice versa.” This evidence supports well-established economic
theory that would suggest both the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and U.S. employment
levels over the past decade were responding to economic growth, not each other.9
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34486.pdf
= new reply since forum marked as read
