The Merida Initiative: United States – Mexico – Central America Security Cooperation

[The Rabbi]

And we aren't helping them enough already? How else do you guys purpose we help them? Government aid, walfare, health care? Or should we just continue to let them come on in to the USA, work the low end jobs that so many supposed people won't work, and then send most of that income back to Mexico. Maybe we should add them into this stimulas package that a select income bracket will be getting.

Gee, I was thinking free trade, promoting the rule of law, and pushing for less regulation in the Mexican economy. They seem to work for everyone else.

[Guest jackdog]

If Nafta has worked so well then why do we still all the illegal migration. How many good jobs were destroyed when companies went to Mexico. Free trade needs to be balanced for both parties, ours is not.

[The Rabbi]

If Nafta has worked so well then why do we still all the illegal migration. How many good jobs were destroyed when companies went to Mexico. Free trade needs to be balanced for both parties, ours is not.

You do realize you are making contradictory points, right? If all the good jobs were destroyed, i.e. sent to Mexico, then logically those jobs will be filled by Mexicans in Mexico, where the jobs went to. Conversely, if we have trouble with illegal immigration, then they must be coming here to take the good jobs that were allegedly destroyed by NAFTA.

Can you supply some evidence as to how free trade is not balanced?

[Guest jackdog]

Well lets see, Rabbi did I say all good jobs were destroyed, I.E. sent to Mexico (no)

When corporations moved to Mexico it was for the good of the corporations not the American nor the Mexican worker. So you leave the Mexican worker with a choice of staying in country at slightly better wages but little or no health benifits or jumping the border for better wages, free medical, Food stamps, and in some cases housing assistance. So no I disagree that my earlier statements contradicts it self. Show me how many free trade agreements with other countries are equal. In the majority of cases our finished goods are smacked with a tariff, where as theirs are usually not hit with a tariff coming into America. Things I know about our Government, When the word war is used were gonna get the shaft. I.E war on drugs ( this is a joke) , The war on poverty( another joke). when we have a program that uses the term free, look out because America is gonna be short ended. Our trade agreements are forged for big business to increase profits not to benefit the average citizen

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, your'e right. The whole thing was just a plot by George Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton to do honest hardworking Americans out of good jobs. That's why the unemployment rate is still as low as its been ever. That's why U.S. exports to Mexico (and Canada) have soared over the decade, creating wealth for many people, including and especially the middle class.

That's why illegal immigration is up and crime figures are skyrocketing. O.K. so maybe the figures show that violent crimes and property crimes are actually down significantly in places with the highest illegal immigrant population. But dont believe the numbers.

It's all a hoax. The numbers are fixed. Don the tin foil hats 'cause the Revolution is coming....

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Fact_Sheets/2004/NAFTA_A_Decade_of_Success.html

[Guest Boomhower]

But dont believe the numbers...........http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Fact_Sheets/2004/NAFTA_A_Decade_of_Success.html

Wow. A document that's almost 4 years old. I bet those numbers haven't changed any.

[The Rabbi]

Wow. A document that's almost 4 years old. I bet those numbers haven't changed any.

Thats correct. The numbers reported for those years have not changed at all. But if NAFTA was really the bollocks some people think, that should have become apparant after 10 years.

[Guest jackdog]

Nafta was sold to the American public as a great plan to increase jobs and prosperity in The United States Mexico and Canada. Would you agree with this statement Rabbi.

The reality of NAFTA is that It failed the workers of all three countries, Mexico Canada and the United States. America lost over 1 million jobs and workers wages were driven downward.

Mexican employment did increase, but much of it in low-wage “maquiladora” industries, which the promoters of NAFTA promised would disappear. The agricultural sector was devastated and the share of jobs with no security, no benefits, and no future expanded the need for low work class mexicans to risk life and limb to cross the border illegally.

Canadian workers saw similar loss of jobs and a downturn in wages.

So based on the way NAFTA was sold to the public in all three countries, Nafta was A dismall failure.

The report you hold up as evidence of NAFTA's success only holds true value to the

who reaped the rewards of Nafta

This a statement from a former forigen minister in mexico.

As a former foreign minister of Mexico once remarked, NAFTA was “an agreement for the rich and powerful in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, an agreement effectively excluding ordinary people in all three societies.” It should, therefore, be no surprise that NAFTA rules protect the interests of large corporate investors while undercutting workers’ rights, environmental protections, and democratic accountability. Hence, NAFTA should be seen not as a stand-alone treaty, but as part of a long-term campaign by the conservative business interests in all three countries to rip up their respective domestic social contract.

In the end you may call this a win ,But in reality every working man in all three Countries lost ground, and the need for illegal immigration was enhanced. NAFTA was put together by large corporations and their political puppets.

The working class from three different nations were sold out by the respective governments.

Edited February 18, 2008 by jackdog

[Smith]

And here comes the union speech. Interesting how it is very similar to Che Guevara's. Which coincidentally is one of the biggest problems with South American industry and economy to this day.

[Guest jackdog]

Sorry, but no union speech here guys.

[The Rabbi]

Nafta was sold to the American public as a great plan to increase jobs and prosperity in The United States Mexico and Canada. Would you agree with this statement Rabbi.

The reality of NAFTA is that It failed the workers of all three countries, Mexico Canada and the United States. America lost over 1 million jobs and workers wages were driven downward.

Mexican employment did increase, but much of it in low-wage “maquiladora†industries, which the promoters of NAFTA promised would disappear. The agricultural sector was devastated and the share of jobs with no security, no benefits, and no future expanded the need for low work class mexicans to risk life and limb to cross the border illegally.

Canadian workers saw similar loss of jobs and a downturn in wages.

So based on the way NAFTA was sold to the public in all three countries, Nafta was A dismall failure.

The report you hold up as evidence of NAFTA's success only holds true value to the

who reaped the rewards of Nafta

This a statement from a former forigen minister in mexico.

As a former foreign minister of Mexico once remarked, NAFTA was “an agreement for the rich and powerful in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, an agreement effectively excluding ordinary people in all three societies.†It should, therefore, be no surprise that NAFTA rules protect the interests of large corporate investors while undercutting workers’ rights, environmental protections, and democratic accountability. Hence, NAFTA should be seen not as a stand-alone treaty, but as part of a long-term campaign by the conservative business interests in all three countries to rip up their respective domestic social contract.

In the end you may call this a win ,But in reality every working man in all three Countries lost ground, and the need for illegal immigration was enhanced. NAFTA was put together by large corporations and their political puppets.

The working class from three different nations were sold out by the respective governments.

Do you have any, any, authority to support these suppositions?

There were possibly a million jobs lost in manufacturing, although how much was due to NAFTA and how much to OSHA is another question. But there were many more than that created, generally higher paying more skilled ones.

You have been sipping the Kool Aid of class warfare and listening to John Edwards. There is no disconnect between "workers" and "big corporations." Big corporations are made up of workers. They benefit workers and stockholders. Stockholders are middle class people like the folks here. I would gladly give up 1M low paying low skilled jobs to get 1.5M higher skilled higher wage jobs.

[Guest jackdog]

There were possibly a million jobs lost in manufacturing, although how much was due to NAFTA and how much to OSHA is another question. But there were many more than that created, generally higher paying more skilled ones.

Well how does OSHA figure in to your equation. What is your basis that many of these jobs were lost due to OSHA.

You have been sipping the Kool Aid of class warfare and listening to John Edwards.

Gee sounds kinda of like a personal attack this is your reasoning. John Edwards ?

Not only do I not pay attention to John Edwards, I think he is the poster child for tort reform.

There is no disconnect between "workers" and "big corporations." Big corporations are made up of workers. They benefit workers and stockholders. Stockholders are middle class people like the folks here. I would gladly give up 1M low paying low skilled jobs to get 1.5M higher skilled higher wage jobs.

If this was true their never would have been a need for labor unions, OSHA, MOSHA, or labor boards. Show me the 1.5 million better jobs created in America because of NAFTA. Your authority is?

Agreed thier are a great many middle class stockholders in this country, On this I will not dis agree. But NAFTA as proposed to the american worker was a scam and it failed that same worker.

[The Rabbi]

Merely restating your belief isn't much of an argument. There has been a net increase in jobs created since NAFTA took effect. How is that shafting the American worker?

Your argument would be a little more persuasive if there weren't record low unemployment in this country. So low in fact that factories end up hiring illegals to fill jobs they cannot fill with legal citizens.

[Marswolf]

I don't know the facts and figures on NAFTA. I do know that some lower paying jobs in my area have disappeared because of it. I'd be interested in how many jobs have been created in this country since it went into effect, how much, if any, the pay has gone up factoring in COL and comparing that to the population increase.

One of the intentions was to increase the number of decent jobs in Mexico so they wouldn't come here for jobs. We know how well that has worked.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?p=65227#post65227

[The Rabbi]

One of the intentions was to increase the number of decent jobs in Mexico so they wouldn't come here for jobs. We know how well that has worked.

Do we?

[molonlabetn]

It doesn't really matter how many jobs they fill if their net effect is a drain on the economy... it's simply that there needs to be a requirement to immigrate legally, so that we're not importing criminals and social-service leeches along with the workers, and so the workers/employers actually pay their taxes.

[Guest 2HOW]

NAFTA a failure http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0411-01.htm NAFTAs failures fuel mexican immigration http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0411-01.htm

[The Rabbi]

You're drawing material from a "progressive" website? Now that's scraping it.

[Smith]

I don't know the facts and figures on NAFTA. I do know that some lower paying jobs in my area have disappeared because of it. I'd be interested in how many jobs have been created in this country since it went into effect, how much, if any, the pay has gone up factoring in COL and comparing that to the population increase.

One of the intentions was to increase the number of decent jobs in Mexico so they wouldn't come here for jobs. We know how well that has worked.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?p=65227#post65227

There will always be jobs that end. As production, supply, demand, technology, innovation expand - the market place (and jobs) will have to change.

It's kinda like the argument that Walmart destroys the mom and pops. What Walmart really does is create new business (ones that specialize) and eliminates the inefficient ones that DO drain on the economy. Those who don't adapt will loose out. For instance, the farmers I know in Arkansas who want to small family farm like they had before are dying. You have to change with the economy.

NAFTA created many new jobs and moved a lot of older ones overseas ect. People here can't make a living in manufactoring Levi's, but Mexicans can. We can make a living on marketing, shipping, logistics, specialty suppliers, ect. Opening the American marketplace to more small business by moving the large machinery out, is a good idea IMO.

[Marswolf]

What I'm seeing here are a number of ad hominems and some post hoc reasoning. I'd be more interested in seeing some figures and reasoning showing cause and effect between NAFTA and the better jobs we now have here in this country because of it.

[molonlabetn]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=4247&type=0&sequence=4

http://www.export.gov/fta/NAFTA/NAFTA_Analysis_2007.pdf

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34486.pdf

All interesting reads...

[Marswolf]

Interesting reading Eddie. Basically it sounds like it hasn't done much of anything overall.

People here can't make a living in manufactoring Levi's, but Mexicans can.

Actually, one of the concrete examples of the effects of NAFTA concerns Jeans. There was a company in Bristol that made jeans. Quite a few people at Bristol Jeans were indeed able to make a decent living manufacturing them. But after NAFTA, they were unable to provide the product at a competitive cost with the cheap foreign manufacturers. The owner of the company expressly blamed NAFTA for their going out of business. The Chinese have now taken much of that business away from Mexico.

[The Rabbi]

Yes, that's what happens. Where the unit labor cost becomes uncompetitive, the business will go elsewhere.

The alternatives are unappealing to say the least. You could put in high tariffs (all NAFTA did was reduce existing tariffs) to protect industry from competition. Then industry becomes bloated and inefficient and consumer costs rise dramatically.

[Marswolf]

You could put in high tariffs (all NAFTA did was reduce existing tariffs) to protect industry from competition. Then industry becomes bloated and inefficient and consumer costs rise dramatically.

The automotive manufacturing industry comes to mind. Absurd wages for semi-skilled work moved the plants to locations where wages could be controlled.