NAFTA's effect on United States employment

Last updated

North American Free Trade Agreement's impact on United States employment has been the object of ongoing debate since the 1994 inception of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. NAFTA's proponents believe that more jobs were ultimately created in the USA. Opponents see the agreements as having been costly to well-paying American jobs.

Contents

Overview

The economic impacts of NAFTA have been modest. In a 2015 report, the Congressional Research Service summarized multiple studies as follows: "In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies." [1]

In a 2003 report, the Congressional Budget Office wrote: "CBO estimates that the increased trade resulting from NAFTA has probably increased U.S. gross domestic product, but by a very small amount—probably a few billion dollars or less, or a few hundredths of a percent." CBO estimated that NAFTA added $10.3 billion to exports and $9.4 billion to imports in 2001. [2] For scale, that was roughly 10% of the trade activity with Mexico in that year. [3]

Several other studies discussed below argue that impacts on particular U.S. industries were more significant and that the U.S. labor movement was weakened by opening trade with Mexico, a lower wage country.

Job loss

The image shows the U.S. trade in goods with Mexico from 1992-2015. NAFTA became effective January 1, 1994. U.S. Trade in Goods with Mexico - v1.png
The image shows the U.S. trade in goods with Mexico from 1992-2015. NAFTA became effective January 1, 1994.

In 1987, the U.S. was the destination of 69.2% of Mexico's exports and the U.S. accounted for 74% of Mexico's imports. [ citation needed ] In 2013, the U.S. was the destination of 78.8% of exports and accounted for 49.1% of the imports to the country.[ citation needed ] The agricultural and manufacturing industrial sectors were the hardest hit areas by NAFTA [ citation needed ][ clarification needed ]

Studies done by Kate Bronfenbrenner at Cornell University showed the effects of plants threatening to move to Mexico and Canada because of NAFTA. Union Elections Threatened With NAFTA Closing (1993-1995).SVG
Studies done by Kate Bronfenbrenner at Cornell University showed the effects of plants threatening to move to Mexico and Canada because of NAFTA.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, the rise in the trade deficit with Mexico alone since NAFTA was enacted led to the net displacement of 682,900 U.S. jobs by 2010. [5] A 2003 paper released by the Economic Policy Institute noted that President George W. Bush and other proponents of trade liberalization often cited only potential job gains from increased exports. The 2003 paper noted that increases in imports ultimately displaced the production of goods that would have been made domestically by workers within the United States. [6]

According to the Economic Policy Institute's study, 61% of the net job losses due to trade with Mexico under NAFTA, or 415,000 jobs, were relatively high paying manufacturing jobs. [5] Certain states with heavy emphasis on manufacturing industries like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and California were significantly affected by these job losses. [5] However, in Ohio, Trade Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA-TAA identified only 14,653 jobs directly lost due to NAFTA-related reasons like relocation of U.S. firms to Mexico. [7] In Pennsylvania, Keystone Research Center attributed 38,325 in job losses in the state to trade with Mexico and Canada. [8] Since 1993, 38,325 of those job losses are directly related to trade with Mexico and Canada. Although many of these workers laid off due to NAFTA were reallocated to other sectors, the majority of workers were relocated to the service industry, where average wages are 4/5 to that of the manufacturing sector. [6]

Opponents also argue that the ability for firms to increase capital mobility and flexibility has undermined the bargaining power of U.S. workers. In addition to enjoying lower tariffs for shipping goods from Mexico to the United States, multinational corporations also benefited from NAFTA's unprecedented section giving multinational corporations the right to sue governments for infringement of "investment rights". [9] According to the Economic Policy Institute, these investor protections facilitated the movement of manufacturing plants to Mexico. [10] Fifteen percent of employers in manufacturing, communication, and wholesale/distribution shut down or relocated plants due to union organizing drives since NAFTA's implementation. [11]

Job creation

U.S. employment increased over the period of 1993–2007 from 110.8 million people to 137.6 million people. [12] Specifically within NAFTA's first five years of existence, 709,988 jobs (140,000 annually), were created domestically. [13] The mid to late nineties was a period of strong economic growth in the United States. When a country is experiencing economic growth (i.e. GDP is increasing), there is usually also an increase in employment. [14] Thus, because trade liberalization can sometimes contribute to increases in GDP, it can help to bring the rate of unemployment down in a country. The U.S. experienced a 48% increase in real GDP from 1993 to 2005. The unemployment rate over this period was an average of only 5.1%, compared to 7.1% from 1982 to 1993, before NAFTA was implemented. [13] Critics of NAFTA argue that the 1990s economic boom was driven by technological change, however, and that employment growth in the 1990s would have been even greater without NAFTA. [15]

Proponents reject the claims of some that the free trade agreement is destroying the manufacturing industry and causing displacement of workers in that industry. The rate of job loss due to plant closings, a typical argument against NAFTA, showed little deviation from previous periods. [16] Also, U.S. industrial production, in which manufacturing makes up 78%, saw an increase of 49% from 1993 to 2005. The period prior to NAFTA, 1982–1993, only saw a 28% increase. [13] In fact, according to NAM, National Association of Manufacturers, NAFTA has only been responsible for 10% of the manufactured goods trade deficit, something opponents criticize the agreement for exacerbating. [17] The growth of exports to Canada and Mexico accounted for a large proportion of total U.S. export gains. [18] However, the growth of exports to Canada and Mexico in percentage terms has lagged significantly behind the growth of exports to the rest of the world. [19]

According to the Democratic Leadership Council, "the most direct measurement of the impact of trade agreements on employment is the number of jobs supported by exports." [20] It is estimated that 8500 manufacturing jobs are supported by every $1 billion in US exports. [13] Because $12 billion of average annual gains in exports were created by expansion of North American trade, more than 100,000 additional US jobs were created, but this measure does not account for jobs lost due to rising imports. [13] More importantly, it has been noted that in export-oriented industries, wages are 13-16 percent higher than the national average. [13]

Others agree with the notion that there has been an increase in net jobs due to NAFTA's implementation, but also believe that these net gains are coming at the price of worker's wages.[ citation needed ] That is, high-paying manufacturing jobs are being lost and replaced by lower paying jobs and is causing wage deflation in certain sectors. However, during the Clinton administration, the sources of new job creation were in relatively high paid sectors and industries. [21]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of Canada</span>

The economy of Canada is a highly developed mixed economy, the world's ninth-largest as of 2024, and a nominal GDP of approximately US$2.117 trillion. Canada is one of the world's largest trading nations, with a highly globalized economy. In 2021, Canadian trade in goods and services reached $2.016 trillion. Canada's exports totalled over $637 billion, while its imported goods were worth over $631 billion, of which approximately $391 billion originated from the United States. In 2018, Canada had a trade deficit in goods of $22 billion and a trade deficit in services of $25 billion. The Toronto Stock Exchange is the tenth-largest stock exchange in the world by market capitalization, listing over 1,500 companies with a combined market capitalization of over US$3 trillion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of Chile</span>

The economy of Chile operates as a market economy and is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank. It is recognized as one of the most prosperous countries in South America, leading the region in areas such as competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, economic freedom, and low levels of perceived corruption. Despite its prosperity, Chile experiences significant economic inequality, as reflected by its Gini index, though this is close to the regional average. Among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, Chile has a robust social security system, with social welfare expenditures amounting to approximately 19.6% of GDP.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of the Dominican Republic</span>

The economy of the Dominican Republic is the seventh largest in Latin America, and is the largest in the Caribbean and Central American region. The Dominican Republic is an upper-middle income developing country with important sectors including mining, tourism, manufacturing, energy, real estate, infrastructure, telecommunications and agriculture. The Dominican Republic is on track to achieve its goal of becoming a high-income country by 2030, and is expected to grow 79% in this decade. The country is the site of the single largest gold mine in Latin America, the Pueblo Viejo mine. Although the service sector is currently the leading employer of Dominicans, agriculture remains an important sector in terms of the domestic market and is in second place in terms of export earnings. Tourism accounts for more than $7.4 billion in annual earnings in 2019. Free-trade zone earnings and tourism are the fastest-growing export sectors. A leading growth engine in the Free-trade zone sector is the production of medical equipment for export having a value-added per employee of US$20,000, total revenue of US$1.5 billion, and a growth rate of 7.7% in 2019. The medical instrument export sector represents one of the highest-value added sectors of the country's economy, a true growth engine for the country's emerging market. Remittances are an important sector of the economy, contributing US$8.2 billion in 2020. Most of these funds are used to cover household expenses, such as housing, food, clothing, health care and education. Secondarily, remittances have financed businesses and productive activities. Thirdly, this combined effect has induced investment by the private sector and helps fund the public sector through its value-added tax. The combined import market including the free-trade-zones amounts to a market of $20 billion a year in 2019. The combined export sector had revenues totaling $11 billion in 2019. The consumer market is equivalent to $61 billion in 2019. An important indicator is the average commercial loan interest rate, which directs short-term investment and stimulates long-term investment in the economy. It is currently 8.30%, as of June 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of Jamaica</span>

The economy of Jamaica is heavily reliant on services, accounting for 71% of the country's GDP. Jamaica has natural resources and a climate conducive to agriculture and tourism. The discovery of bauxite in the 1940s and the subsequent establishment of the bauxite-alumina industry shifted Jamaica's economy from sugar, and bananas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of Mauritius</span>

The economy of Mauritius is a mixed developing economy based on agriculture, exports, financial services, and tourism. Since the 1980s, the government of Mauritius has sought to diversify the country's economy beyond its dependence on just agriculture, particularly sugar production.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of Mexico</span>

The economy of Mexico is a developing mixed-market economy. It is the 13th largest in the world in nominal GDP terms and by purchasing power parity as of 2024. Since the 1994 crisis, administrations have improved the country's macroeconomic fundamentals. Mexico was not significantly influenced by the 2002 South American crisis and maintained positive, although low, rates of growth after a brief period of stagnation in 2001. However, Mexico was one of the Latin American nations most affected by the 2008 recession, with its gross domestic product contracting by more than 6% that year. Among OECD nations, Mexico has a fairly strong social security system; social expenditure stood at roughly 7.5% of GDP.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">North American Free Trade Agreement</span> Agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States (1994–2020)

The North American Free Trade Agreement was an agreement signed by Canada, Mexico, and the United States that created a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994, and superseded the 1988 Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Canada. The NAFTA trade bloc formed one of the largest trade blocs in the world by gross domestic product.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of Thailand</span>

The economy of Thailand is dependent on exports, which accounted in 2021 for about 58 per cent of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Thailand itself is a newly industrialized country, with a GDP of 17.922 trillion baht (US$514.8 billion) in 2023, the 9th largest economy in Asia. As of 2018, Thailand has an average inflation of 1.06% and an account surplus of 7.5% of the country's GDP. Its currency, the baht, is ranked as the tenth most frequently used world payment currency in 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of the United States</span>

The United States has a highly developed mixed economy. It is the world's largest economy by nominal GDP and second largest by purchasing power parity (PPP). As of 2024, it has the world's sixth highest nominal GDP per capita and eighth highest GDP per capita by PPP). The U.S. accounted for 26% of the global economy in 2023 in nominal terms, and about 15.5% in PPP terms. The U.S. dollar is the currency of record most used in international transactions and is the world's reserve currency, backed by a large U.S. treasuries market, its role as the reference standard for the petrodollar system, and its linked eurodollar. Several countries use it as their official currency and in others it is the de facto currency. Since the end of World War II, the economy has achieved relatively steady growth, low unemployment and inflation, and rapid advances in technology.

<span title="Spanish-language text"><i lang="es">Maquiladora</i></span> Tariff-free factory in Latin America

A maquiladora, or maquila, is a factory that is largely duty free and tariff-free. These factories take raw materials and assemble, manufacture, or process them and export the finished product. These factories and systems are present throughout Latin America, including Mexico, Paraguay, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. Maquiladoras date back to 1964, when the Mexican government introduced the Programa de Industrialización Fronteriza. Specific programs and laws have made Mexico's maquila industry grow rapidly.

The Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), official name as the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, was a bilateral trade agreement reached by negotiators for Canada and the United States on October 4, 1987, and signed by the leaders of both countries on January 2, 1988. The agreement phased out a wide range of trade restrictions in stages, over a ten-year period, and resulted in a substantial increase in cross-border trade as an improvement to the last replaced trade deal. With the addition of Mexico in 1994, CUSFTA was superseded by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The economies of Canada and the United States are similar because both are developed countries. While both countries feature in the top ten economies in the world in 2022, the U.S. is the largest economy in the world, with US$24.8 trillion, with Canada ranking ninth at US$2.2 trillion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of North America</span>

The economy of North America comprises more than 596 million people in its 24 sovereign states and 15 dependent territories. It is marked by a sharp division between the predominantly English speaking countries of Canada and the United States, which are among the wealthiest and most developed nations in the world, and countries of Central America and the Caribbean in the former Latin America that are less developed. Mexico and Caribbean nations of the Commonwealth of Nations are between the economic extremes of the development of North America.

The economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration, referred to by some as Clintonomics, encapsulates the economic policies of president of the United States Bill Clinton that were implemented during his presidency, which lasted from January 1993 to January 2001.

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) is a federal program of the United States government to act as a way to reduce the damaging impact of imports felt by certain sectors of the U.S. economy. The current structure features four components of Trade Adjustment Assistance: for workers, firms, farmers, and communities. Each cabinet-level department was tasked with a different sector of the overall Trade Adjustment Assistance program. The program for workers is the largest, and is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor. The program for farmers is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the firms and communities programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Tariffs have historically served a key role in the trade policy of the United States. Their purpose was to generate revenue for the federal government and to allow for import substitution industrialization by acting as a protective barrier around infant industries. They also aimed to reduce the trade deficit and the pressure of foreign competition. Tariffs were one of the pillars of the American System that allowed the rapid development and industrialization of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Manufacturing in the United States</span>

Manufacturing is a vital economic sector in the United States of America. The United States is the world's second-largest manufacturer after the People's Republic of China with a record high real output in 2021 of $2.5 trillion.

Job creation and unemployment are affected by factors such as aggregate demand, global competition, education, automation, and demographics. These factors can affect the number of workers, the duration of unemployment, and wage rates.

The economic policy of the first Trump administration was characterized by the individual and corporate tax cuts, attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), trade protectionism, deregulation focused on the energy and financial sectors, and responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Effects of NAFTA on Mexico</span>

The North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994's effects on Mexico have long been overshadowed by the debate on the Agreement's effects on the economy of the United States. As a kind partner in the agreement, the effects that NAFTA has had on the Mexican economy is essential to understanding NAFTA on a whole. A key factor in this discussion is the way the Agreement was presented to Mexico; namely, that it would increase development of the Mexican economy by providing more middle class jobs that would enable more Mexicans to lift themselves out of the lower classes. Thus, wages, employment, attitudes, and migration all present essential areas of analyses to understand effects NAFTA has had on the Mexican economy.

References

  1. ↑ "CRS-Villarreal and Fergusson-The North American Free Trade Agreement-April 16, 2015" (PDF).
  2. ↑ "The Effects of NAFTA on U.S.-Mexican Trade and GDP | Congressional Budget Office". www.cbo.gov. May 1, 2003.
  3. 1 2 U.S. Census Bureau-Trade in Goods with Mexico-Retrieved August 10, 2016
  4. ↑ Kate Bronfenbrenner, 'We'll Close', The Multinational Monitor, March 1997, based on the study she directed, 'Final Report: The Effects of Plant Closing or Threat of Plant Closing on the Right of Workers to Organize'.
  5. 1 2 3 Scott, Robert E. Economic Policy Institute. 3 May 2011. Retrieved 10 Nov. 2011 Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA.
  6. 1 2 Scott, Robert E. Economic Policy Institute. 17 Nov. 2003. Retrieved 22 Apr. 2008 The High Price of Free Trade.
  7. ↑ Honeck, Jon (February 2004). International Trade and Job Loss in Ohio. A report from Policy Matters Ohio. Retrieved 2016-08-22.
  8. ↑ Keystone Research Center. 2001. 28 Apr. 2008 Job Losses Due to Trade Since NAFTA Deepen Pennsylvania Manufacturing Crisis.
  9. ↑ US Department of State. NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations. NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations Accessed 12 April 2010
  10. ↑ Scott, Robert E. Economic Policy Institute. 25 Feb. 2010. Retrieved 10 Nov. 2011 Trade policy and job loss.
  11. ↑ Woodhead, Greg. AFL-CIO. 2000. AFL-CIO Policy Department. 28 Apr. 2008 NAFTA's Seven-Year Itch: Promised Benefits Not Delivered to Workers Archived 2008-07-04 at the Wayback Machine .
  12. ↑ 24 Apr. 2008 NAFTA Facts. United States Trade Representative. 2008.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hufbauer, Gary C., and Jeffrey J. Scott. NAFTA Revisited: Achievements and Challenges. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2005.
  14. ↑ Hubbard, Glenn, and Anthony P. O'brien. Macroeconomics. Upper Saddle River: Pearson: Prentice Hall, 2006. 233–34.
  15. ↑ Salas, Carlos, Jeff Faux, and Robert E. Scott. Economic Policy Institute. 28 Sept. 2006. Retrieved 10 Nov. 2011 Revisiting NAFTA: Still not working for North America's workers.
  16. ↑ Kletzer, Lori G. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 (1998): 115–36. 25 Apr. 2008 Job Displacement.
  17. ↑ National Association of Manufacturers. July 2005. 28 May 2008 The Truth About NAFTA:.
  18. ↑ Thomas H. Becker, 2010, Doing Business in the New Latin America, p. 37
  19. ↑ Travis McArthur and Todd Tucker. Public Citizen. Sept. 2010. Retrieved 10 Nov. 2011 Lies, Damn Lies, and Export Statistics: How Corporate Lobbyists Distort the Record of Flawed Trade Deals.
  20. ↑ Datelle, David C. Democratic Leadership Council. 1 Oct. 1997. 22 Apr. 2008 NAFTA's Effect on U.S. Jobs: a Small But Positive Impact After Three Years.
  21. ↑ DeLong, Chris; DeLong, Brad; Robinson, Sherman (May 17, 1996). "NAFTA and Jobs: Remember the 'Giant Sucking Sound'?". Brad DeLong's Homepage: Op-Eds. Archived from the original on 2012-03-13. Retrieved 2016-08-21. Adapted from the authors' article "The Case for Mexico's Rescue: The Peso Package Looks Even Better Now", which appeared in Foreign Affairs, vol. 75, no. 3 (May/June 1996), pp. 8–14.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.