This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

NAFTA at 20: Obama Wants to "Fast Track" More Problems

NAFTA at 20: Why Does President Obama Want More of These Problems?

Why has America lost 5.5 million manufacturing jobs in the 21st century?  Why are our stores full of imports while our country has lost over 54,000 factories since 2000?  Why has so much of our productive economy --and our jobs, tax base, and opportunities for the future-- been moved offshore?

The story of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) gives key insight into the crisis our country faces.  January 1, 2014 was the 20th anniversary of the implementation of NAFTA.  A detailed study of the results of NAFTA over these 2 decades has just been published by Public Citizen.

The report, entitled NAFTA at 20, describes a wide range of serious problems that resulted from that Free Trade Agreement (FTA).  Surely the worst is the loss of 1 million US jobs to NAFTA, and the off-shoring and outsourcing of manufacturing that weakens our economy.  The ballooning trade deficits with our NAFTA partners are the quantitative measure of that terrible qualitative problem.

In 2008, when Barak Obama was campaigning to become President, he made speeches promising to "fix" NAFTA.  But after being in office for 5 years, still no "fix" has been proposed.

Instead the President seeks to expand the NAFTA model to many more countries in Latin America and Asia, through another FTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

That is why the report NAFTA at 20 is so important: it documents the disastrous effects of NAFTA, which would be expanded by the TPP.

NAFTA's destruction of US jobs and manufacturing capacity are not an anomaly. According to the US Census Foreign Trade data, since KORUS went into effect in March 2012, our trade deficit with Korea has risen 68%.  In fact, for all 3 FTA's that have  recently been implemented, the pre-existing trade balances have only been exaggerated: the 2 trade deficits increased (S. Korea and Colombia), and the 1 trade surplus increased (Panama).  Even the Panama FTA brings problems: it has not halted Panama's tax haven policies.  According to Citizens Trade Campaign, "Hundreds of financial companies are urging American businesses to move to Panama."

Our country's huge chronic trade deficits averaged $530 Billion for the last 3 years.  Ending these trade deficits and restoring balanced trade are thus a top priority for anyone who cares about the future of America's economy.  Our economy is in a crisis that is not a cyclical downturn but rather a historic disintegration of our manufacturing capacity, mostly due to the series of radical new Free Trade policies, for which NAFTA set the pattern.

But the truth is, there are also other deep problems with the TPP (and US-EU FTA) now being advanced by President Obama.  These treaties would remove jurisdiction from Congress and state legislatures on matters of legislation and regulation --of commerce, labor and environment, intellectual property, government procurement and many other matters of national sovereignty.  That would be a historic blow to democracy, and the government accountability on which it depends.

------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an excerpt from the Executive Summary of NAFTA at 20, written by Ben Beachy and published by Public Citizen.  The report is extensively researched and all sources of data are cited in the endnotes of the report.  The full report is available here:

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf

NAFTA at 20

One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Mass Displacement and Instability in Mexico, Record Income Inequality, Scores of Corporate Attacks on Environmental and Health Laws

January 1, 2014 marks the 20th anniversary of the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The promises made by NAFTA proponents and warnings issued by its opponents during the fierce 1993 debate over congressional approval of the pact can now be measured against two decades of actual outcomes.

NAFTA was an experiment, establishing a radically new “trade” agreement model. Despite the documented damage caused by 20 years of NAFTA, the Obama administration is now seeking to deepen the NAFTA model and expand it to additional countries through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive agreement with 11 Asian and Latin American countries. The Clinton administration’s efforts to do the same – through a Free Trade Area of the Americas and an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Free Trade Agreement (FTA) – were rejected by negotiating partners as the damaging results of NAFTA became apparent.

NAFTA was fundamentally different than past trade agreements in that it was only partially about trade. Indeed, it shattered the boundaries of past U.S. trade pacts, which had focused narrowly on cutting tariffs and easing quotas. In contrast, NAFTA created new privileges and protections for foreign investors that incentivized the offshoring of investment and jobs by eliminating many of the risks normally associated with moving production to low-wage countries. NAFTA allowed foreign investors to directly challenge before foreign tribunals domestic policies and actions, demanding government compensation for policies that they claimed undermined their expected future profits. NAFTA also contained chapters that required the three countries to limit regulation of services, such as trucking and banking; extend medicine patent monopolies; limit food and product safety standards and border inspection; and waive domestic procurement preferences, such as Buy American.

In 1993, NAFTA was sold to the U.S. public with grand promises. NAFTA would create hundreds of thousands of good jobs here – 170,000 per year according the Peterson Institute for International Economics. U.S. farmers would export their way to wealth. NAFTA would bring Mexico to a first-world level of economic prosperity and stability, providing new economic opportunities there that would reduce immigration to the United States. Environmental standards would improve.

Twenty years later, the grand promises made by NAFTA’s proponents remain unfulfilled. Many outcomes are exactly the opposite of what was promised, as detailed in this report. In sum:

 Rather than creating the promised 170,000 jobs per year, NAFTA has contributed to an enormous new U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada, which had already equated to an estimated net loss of one million U.S. jobs by 2004. This figure, calculated by the Economic Policy Institute, includes the net balance between jobs created and jobs lost. Much of the job erosion stems from the decisions of U.S. firms to embrace NAFTA’s new foreign investor privileges and relocate production to Mexico to take advantage of its lower wages and weaker environmental standards. The NAFTA-spurred job loss has not abated during NAFTA’s second decade, as the burgeoning post-NAFTA U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has not declined.
 
 More than 845,000 specific U.S. workers have been certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as having lost their jobs due to imports from Canada and Mexico or the relocation of factories to those countries. The TAA program is quite narrow, only covering a subset of the jobs lost at manufacturing facilities, and is difficult to qualify for. Thus, the NAFTA TAA numbers significantly undercount NAFTA job loss.

 NAFTA has contributed to downward pressure on U.S. wages and growing income inequality. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, two out of every three displaced manufacturing workers who were rehired in 2012 experienced a wage reduction, most of them taking a pay cut of greater than 20 percent. As increasing numbers of workers displaced from manufacturing jobs have joined the glut of workers competing for non-offshorable, low-skill jobs in sectors such as hospitality and food service, real wages have also fallen in these sectors under NAFTA. The resulting downward pressure on middle-class wages has fueled recent growth in income inequality.

 Despite a 188 percent rise in food imports from Canada and Mexico under NAFTA, the average nominal price of food in the United States has jumped 65 percent since the deal went into effect. This is the opposite of the outcome promised when NAFTA passage was debated. Then, some NAFTA proponents acknowledged that the deal would cause the loss of some U.S. jobs, but argued that U.S. workers would win overall by being able to purchase cheaper imported goods.

 The reductions in consumer goods prices that have materialized have not been sufficient to offset the losses to wages under NAFTA. U.S. workers without college degrees (63 percent of the workforce) have likely lost an amount equal to 12.2 percent of their wages under NAFTA-style trade even after accounting for the benefits of cheaper goods. This net loss, calculated by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, means a loss of more than $3,300 per year for a worker earning the median annual wage of $27,500.

 Soon after NAFTA’s passage, the small pre-NAFTA U.S. trade surplus with Mexico turned into a massive new trade deficit and the pre-NAFTA U.S. trade deficit with Canada expanded greatly. The inflation-adjusted U.S. trade surplus with Mexico of $2.5 billion and the $29.1 billion deficit with Canada in the year before NAFTA have morphed into a combined NAFTA trade deficit of $181 billion. The rosy job-creation promises made at the time of the NAFTA votes were predicated on NAFTA improving the U.S. balance of trade. The reality has been the opposite.

 During the NAFTA debate, scores of U.S. corporations promised to create specific numbers of jobs if NAFTA passed. Public Citizen catalogued these pledges, the failure to meet them and even the record of the same firms’ relocation of jobs to Mexico and Canada in a comprehensive report.

 Scores of NAFTA countries’ environmental and health laws have been challenged in foreign tribunals through the controversial investor-state system. More than $360 million in compensation to investors has been extracted from NAFTA governments via “investor-state” tribunal challenges against toxics bans, land-use rules, water and forestry policies and more. More than $12.4 billion are currently pending in such claims. These claims include foreign investor challenges of medicine patent policies, a fracking moratorium and a renewable energy program.

 The average annual U.S. agricultural trade deficit with Mexico and Canada under NAFTA stands at $800 million, more than twice the pre-NAFTA level. U.S. food processors moved to Mexico to take advantage of low wages and food imports soared. U.S. beef imports from Mexico and Canada, for example, have risen 130 percent since NAFTA took effect, and today U.S. consumption of “NAFTA” beef tops $1.3 billion annually.

 Overall imports of food into the United States have risen more steadily and to a greater degree than U.S. food exports under NAFTA. While the total volume of U.S. food exports in 2012 stood only 34 percent higher than the average level in the five years before NAFTA took effect, the volume of U.S. food imports was 137 percent higher. This stands in stark contrast to the promises made to U.S. farmers and ranchers that NAFTA would allow them to export their way to newfound wealth and farm income stability.

 The export of subsidized U.S. corn did increase under NAFTA, destroying the livelihoods of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and about 1.4 million additional Mexican workers whose livelihoods depended on agriculture.

 The desperate migration of those displaced from Mexico’s rural economy pushed down wages in Mexico’s border maquiladora factory zone and contributed to a doubling of Mexican immigration to the United States following NAFTA’s implementation.

 Though the price paid to Mexican farmers for corn plummeted after NAFTA, the deregulated retail price of tortillas – Mexico’s staple food – shot up 279 percent in the pact’s first 10 years.

 Real wages in Mexico have fallen significantly below pre-NAFTA levels as price increases for basic consumer goods have exceeded wage increases. A minimum wage earner in Mexico today can buy 38 percent fewer consumer goods as on the day that NAFTA took effect. Despite promises that NAFTA would benefit Mexican consumers by granting access to cheaper imported products, the cost of basic consumer goods in Mexico has risen to seven times the pre-NAFTA level, while the minimum wage stands at only four times the pre-NAFTA level.

 Facing displacement, rising prices and stagnant wages, over half of the Mexican population, and over 60 percent of the rural population, still fall below the poverty line, despite the promises made by NAFTA’s proponents.
-------------------------

Read the full report here:

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?