General Discussion

ucrdem

(15,512 posts) Wed May 20, 2015, 10:25 AM May 2015

NAFTA passed on Nov. 20, 1993, on the promise of jobs. Oddly enough . . . [View all]

. . . for the next 6 years, from 1994 to 2000, US employment steadily ROSE and unemployment steadily FELL :

US employment,1990-2014:

source: http://www.statista.com/statistics/192398/employment-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/
................................................
US unemployment,1990-2014:

source: http://www.statista.com/statistics/193290/unemployment-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

.....................................

So maybe Bill Clinton wasn't lying when he promised that NAFTA would bring jobs? And maybe, just maybe, our current Trojan-in-Chief isn't lying either?

190 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NAFTA passed on Nov. 20, 1993, on the promise of jobs. Oddly enough . . . [View all] ucrdem May 2015 OP

NAFTA gets a bad rap, and it wasn't great, but... JaneyVee May 2015 #1

After seeing the ridiculous distortions launched here daily for the last 6 months ucrdem May 2015 #2

Ironically, the TPP is a repeal of NAFTA... JaneyVee May 2015 #3

Seems like that would make passing TPA a no-brainer ucrdem May 2015 #5

Where does it say that the TPP will repeal NAFTA? nm rhett o rick May 2015 #48

Wow, you don't even know what TPP is? Recursion May 2015 #144

But you keep telling us that we don't know what's in the TPP. I asked where the information rhett o rick May 2015 #169

You've obviously confused me with someone else Recursion May 2015 #172

TPP will not repeal NAFTA. OrwellwasRight May 2015 #88

What are you talking about? Of course TPP would repeal NAFTA. Or "replace" if you prefer. Recursion May 2015 #145

You do realize that there is no such concept as "implied repeal" in international law, don't you? OrwellwasRight May 2015 #189

Please cite your source for this assertion. Thanks. myrna minx May 2015 #105

Not enough desks to bang my head against Recursion May 2015 #146

LOL, thanks Recursion! ucrdem May 2015 #149

You do know that the "unemployment rate" OrwellwasRight May 2015 #87

I've heard all the good stuff after NAFTA was either unrelated or just good luck. All the bad stuff pampango May 2015 #4

Amazing how the pattern repeats isn't it. ucrdem May 2015 #7

The dot com boom, remember that, was the reason for the rise in jobs in the 90s. . . brush May 2015 #103

So "all the good stuff after NAFTA was either unrelated or just good luck"? pampango May 2015 #125

Well.. kenfrequed May 2015 #127

Got it. When things go well under a Democratic president after NAFTA, he's just lucky there was pampango May 2015 #130

*sigh* kenfrequed May 2015 #131

The trend existed for 15 years before NAFTA, reversed course after it, then resumed the pre-NAFTA pampango May 2015 #134

This is the most shame-faced lie of them all. The dot-com boom destroyed *millions* of jobs Recursion May 2015 #147

Were you there in the late 90s? brush May 2015 #168

Was I where? Recursion May 2015 #171

Trade agreements, whether bilateral or multinational, are mixed bags as to... Spazito May 2015 #6

hey thanks. ucrdem May 2015 #8

You're very welcome! Spazito May 2015 #9

Yes, there will be some displacements, but a lot of what NAFTA gets blamed for ucrdem May 2015 #11

Yes, the big three were late to the 'game, complacent in their supremacy in the US market... Spazito May 2015 #14

I haven't looked at the details of NAFTA ucrdem May 2015 #16

The TPP is much, much bigger than NAFTA, it is actually... Spazito May 2015 #20

thanks Spazito . . . ucrdem May 2015 #30

Thank you for providing a thread where some depth can be introduced... Spazito May 2015 #37

Thank you for this post. Fact are always good.n/t 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #108

You're welcome... Spazito May 2015 #113

Baloney. OrwellwasRight May 2015 #92

There is almost an insular thinking when it comes to discussion of trade agreements... Spazito May 2015 #106

You didn't even read my post. OrwellwasRight May 2015 #114

It's not unlikely. It's a fact. OrwellwasRight May 2015 #91

NAFTA was a mixed bag, some good, some bad Spazito May 2015 #98

Well, then why do you support OrwellwasRight May 2015 #104

I am for fair trade, there is no free trade in reality... Spazito May 2015 #109

So your answer is to sit around and do nothing and just hope for the best? OrwellwasRight May 2015 #115

Wow, I have tried to have a reasonable, polite discussion with you... Spazito May 2015 #117

Saying there is no such thing as global labor solidarity OrwellwasRight May 2015 #190

NAFTA is a failed deal Joe Turner May 2015 #112

Nowhere will you find I stated NAFTA was a good deal, nowhere... Spazito May 2015 #116

I am saying NAFTA failed Joe Turner May 2015 #118

We will have to agree to disagree then n/t Spazito May 2015 #120

Actually It is Very Possible Rilgin May 2015 #93

Am I to understand you believe there should be no trade agreements... Spazito May 2015 #99

Why do we have to have trade agreements? Joe Turner May 2015 #110

That was a time when countries like India, China, Japan, etc, were not competative... Spazito May 2015 #111

Those very same countries you mentioned all are protectionist Joe Turner May 2015 #122

"When America was on the rise" jberryhill May 2015 #132

America was already the industrial superpower prior to WWII Joe Turner May 2015 #133

The only period of high tariffs in the US in the 20th century was under republicans from 1920-1932. pampango May 2015 #135

Tariffs being blamed for the great depression Joe Turner May 2015 #136

Agreed. Tariffs did not cause the depression. They caused tremendous income inequality but not pampango May 2015 #137

The beautiful quality of "net balances" Joe Turner May 2015 #138

I think a VAT has a lot to offer. While it raises the cost to consumers of all goods, imported and pampango May 2015 #139

"The end of the 19th century saw corporations at their height of influence and power" Joe Turner May 2015 #140

That's not true Art_from_Ark May 2015 #159

Good point. Republican administrations tended to raise tariffs (as with the Dingley Act of 1897) pampango May 2015 #162

There is a reason for this. kenfrequed May 2015 #129

Thank you ... historical facts are always good. n/t 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #107

If past is prologue I'd say this is a pretty good argument for nominating Clinton this time around. ucrdem May 2015 #10

And speaking of downsides does anyone remember these: ucrdem May 2015 #12

I think a lot of trade bashing is human nature. sufrommich May 2015 #13

Yeah there's that, but I think policy plays a huge role. ucrdem May 2015 #15

Other countries don't have that problem. They have tarriffs to protect their products. rhett o rick May 2015 #50

People are bashing TPP, not trade eridani May 2015 #90

Long and short: the talking point that NAFTA gutted US employment appears to be unsubstantiated. nt ucrdem May 2015 #17

Your claim that NAFTA created these jobs is also unsubstantiated Mnpaul May 2015 #74

If it is such a great deal why is it a secret? newfie11 May 2015 #18

I suppose it comes down to credibility. ucrdem May 2015 #19

Not really... AZ Progressive May 2015 #21

Really. ucrdem May 2015 #22

So you're biased zipplewrath May 2015 #33

No, other parties want to have a say in the outcome of the deal. OrwellwasRight May 2015 #94

So the unemployment rate is higher now than over 20 years ago!? Rex May 2015 #23

Yes, but Bill left office in Jan. 2001. ucrdem May 2015 #25

True he left us with a surplus, something it seems only modern Dem POTUSes can do. Rex May 2015 #43

It's roughly at 1993 (ie, pre-NAFTA) levels Recursion May 2015 #148

Uh yeah...no. Hell Hath No Fury May 2015 #24

Blaming decades of bad policy on NAFTA is unrealistic. ucrdem May 2015 #26

+1 moondust May 2015 #34

Now plot real wages zipplewrath May 2015 #27

Boom! whatchamacallit May 2015 #28

Possibly but I can't find anything showing real wages over the same span. ucrdem May 2015 #29

Took me less than one minute - Hell Hath No Fury May 2015 #38

Wages in current and constant $ appear to have risen in the period 1994-2000. ucrdem May 2015 #40

You do realize that NAFTA didn't end in 2000, right? OrwellwasRight May 2015 #95

+1 Marr May 2015 #101

Here you go Recursion May 2015 #150

Yep. That's the real pattern in the carpet. ucrdem May 2015 #151

Try this place zipplewrath May 2015 #178

So much of what is blamed on NAFTA today was a direct result of technological advance. NCTraveler May 2015 #31

Yes, that's a very good point. ucrdem May 2015 #32

No it's not zipplewrath May 2015 #35

Technically there are no public parts ucrdem May 2015 #36

Again you presume zipplewrath May 2015 #47

She says she's read it. So there goes the secrecy claim. ucrdem May 2015 #49

It is a secret zipplewrath May 2015 #51

Are you sure that Sen Kerry is free to discuss it with her? And even with no "public parts" rhett o rick May 2015 #53

Somebody cannot read English OR Graphs Demeter May 2015 #39

Be careful now madokie May 2015 #41

Facts? We don't need no facts. ucrdem May 2015 #45

free trade sabbat hunter May 2015 #42

Look at unemployment skyrocket after the Wall Street thefts of 2008. Rex May 2015 #44

Unemployment rate went down in spite of NAFTA... kentuck May 2015 #46

In his world, NAFTA created over 20 million new jobs. Elwood P Dowd May 2015 #54

Look, jobs AND real wages steadily rose for six straight years after NAFTA, ucrdem May 2015 #55

Are you saying the computer/tech revolution had nothing to do with jobs being created? kentuck May 2015 #59

I don't believe that six year run of good times was a coincidence, no. ucrdem May 2015 #61

No, it wasn't a coincidence. kentuck May 2015 #102

Nope. Technology destroyed jobs. By the trainload. No more travel agents. Recursion May 2015 #158

producers of hard drives were more or less a one-time shot Mnpaul May 2015 #119

Did the job go to Mexico or Canada? Recursion May 2015 #163

I think the frame production went to Mexico for a couple of years Mnpaul May 2015 #176

How many of those jobs were temporary, contract, or low-wage? arcane1 May 2015 #52

There's a bazillion ways to deny it but it happened. US jobs went up for 6 straight years ucrdem May 2015 #56

Replacing one union job with two Walmart part-time jobs is still an "increase" arcane1 May 2015 #62

K&R.. thanks ucr Cha May 2015 #57

Thanks Cha! ucrdem May 2015 #58

Yeah, all those great paying service jobs in the new service economy. Dont call me Shirley May 2015 #60

Average hourly wages also rose steadily in that period, in current and constant $: ucrdem May 2015 #63

Apparently, we're supposed to accept quantity over quality now. arcane1 May 2015 #64

I love peas, but not the constant pay cuts we've been forced to swallow Dont call me Shirley May 2015 #65

Fine, we'll replace you with an H1B visa applicant and call it "growth" arcane1 May 2015 #66

Employment went up, average hourly wages went up, unemployment went down. ucrdem May 2015 #67

Not for us, barely a rise in early 2000, then cuts cuts cuts cuts cuts since the crash Dont call me Shirley May 2015 #68

Yes that's been the pattern, but the crash happened after Bill had left office. ucrdem May 2015 #69

Nafta, the repeal of key financial safeguards, CFMA, Cafta, they all have caused the financial Dont call me Shirley May 2015 #70

Yes. bravenak May 2015 #76

Here is what the working poor look like, bravenak. Breaks my heart. Dont call me Shirley May 2015 #78

It is a tragedy that we live like this. These are the jobs that we create. bravenak May 2015 #80

Time for a progressive mass movement creating democratic workplaces. Make the rich obsolete. Dont call me Shirley May 2015 #82

The rich are unnecessary. bravenak May 2015 #85

I agree that the 80' dollars went a lot further Mnpaul May 2015 #121

OK. Now you only need a model of the economy that explains why... Taitertots May 2015 #71

I don't for my purposes here, which are to show that Bill delivered on his promises ucrdem May 2015 #72

You havent shown anything non-trivial Taitertots May 2015 #73

I've shown that passing NAFTA didn't lead to a net job loss, and that the US economy grew ucrdem May 2015 #75

You didn't show that at all. Taitertots May 2015 #77

I think your post is going over the OPs head by a mile. Rex May 2015 #81

So the stats are wrong and the secret hidden invisible truth contradicting them is sacrosanct? ucrdem May 2015 #86

Yeah. I had high hopes 3 or 4 posts ago. But in all fairness... Taitertots May 2015 #89

You seem to forget that lack of correlation precludes causation, which is all OP's argument needs Recursion May 2015 #157

If and only if the statistical model is coherent. Taitertots May 2015 #165

Well, those words clearly mean different things in your field than in mine Recursion May 2015 #167

It's statistical correlation. The measure of the accuracy of a numerical relationship between... Taitertots May 2015 #175

Sort of. It's a moment of a random variable derived from two random variables. Recursion May 2015 #177

Sigh. More people should take stats. Correlation does not imply causation Recursion May 2015 #153

I've taken graduate econometrics. Have you? Taitertots May 2015 #164

You caught me. I got a masters in EE but skipped prob & stats Recursion May 2015 #166

The problem with your argument is, this is the same data used to indict NAFTA as a job killer. ucrdem May 2015 #174

A lot of the opposition to NAFTA was steeped in anti-Latino bigotry WestSideStory May 2015 #79

Yes there was that, I'd forgotten about that too. ucrdem May 2015 #84

Yes, that's a great way to shut down OrwellwasRight May 2015 #97

NAFTA was a disaster for the Mexican workers as well Mnpaul May 2015 #123

A whole lotta McJobs. cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #83

Then why did median wages go *up*? Recursion May 2015 #154

Your chart says the employment rate has gone from 61% to 59% since NAFTA. pa28 May 2015 #96

In the context of the baby boom retiring? It's damn good news Recursion May 2015 #155

Cool MFrohike May 2015 #100

It was offset by the dotcom bubble and Greenspan monetary pumping LittleBlue May 2015 #124

Six years of steady job and wage increases is not a "sudden jolt." ucrdem May 2015 #142

The tech boom destroyed *MILLIONS* of jobs. MILLIONS. Recursion May 2015 #156

Right... kenfrequed May 2015 #126

The purpose of NAFTA was to free corporations from labor and environmental laws. alarimer May 2015 #128

Well, they're wrong about average US wages, which rose, and blaming offshoring on NAFTA is dumb. ucrdem May 2015 #141

Better view: ucrdem May 2015 #143

Not to be mean but your graph doesn't really help your case Johonny May 2015 #170

Even the AFL-CIO says it only cost the U.S. 700,000 jobs. Drunken Irishman May 2015 #152

Very revealing. ucrdem May 2015 #160

Everybody needs a scapegoat, and here it's "trade". On other sites it's "immigrants" Recursion May 2015 #161

Oh nonsense. The banking sector hasn't "restructured" (read: been gutted.) Romulox May 2015 #179

Trojan-in-chief? Stellar May 2015 #173

That first chart looks horrifying. What years after NAFTA is NAFTA not responsible for? Romulox May 2015 #180

2001-2009. The notes I added make that clearer: ucrdem May 2015 #181

Your "notes" make nothing clear. It's just a naked assertion with no facts or reason to back it up. Romulox May 2015 #182

The point is that NAFTA didn't wreck the economy 2001-2009. Bush and Cheney did. nt ucrdem May 2015 #184

That's just too simplistic and facile. NAFTA was a policy pushed by Republicans, in the first place. Romulox May 2015 #185

Bush and Cheney crashed the economy, not NAFTA. ucrdem May 2015 #187

Just a naked assertion. Failure has many fathers. nt Romulox May 2015 #188

International trade is simply going to happen treestar May 2015 #183

Yes and the interesting thing is that killing TPP kills a big batch of new regulations. ucrdem May 2015 #186