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 1993–2005. The unemployment rate over this period was an average of only 5.1%, compared to 7.1% from 1982–1993, 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 1993–2005. 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

Economy of Canada National economy of Canada

The economy of Canada is a highly developed mixed economy. It is the 9th largest GDP by nominal and 15th largest GDP by PPP in the world. As with other developed nations, the country's economy is dominated by the service industry which employs about three quarters of Canadians. Canada has the third highest total estimated value of natural resources, valued at US$33.2 trillion in 2019. It has the world's third largest proven oil reserves and is the fourth largest exporter of crude oil. It is also the fourth largest exporter of natural gas. Canada is considered an "energy superpower" due to its abundant natural resources and a fairly small population of 38 million inhabitants, in relation to its land area.

Economy of Chile Overview of the economy in Chile

The Economy of Chile is a market economy and high-income economy as ranked by the World Bank. The country is considered one of South America's most prosperous nations, leading the region in competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption. Although Chile has high economic inequality, as measured by the Gini index, it is close to the regional mean.

Economy of Colombia National economy

The economy of Colombia is the fourth largest in Latin America as measured by gross domestic product. Colombia has experienced a historic economic boom over the last decade. Throughout the 20th century, Colombia was Latin America's 4th and 3rd largest economy when measured by Real GDP at chained PPPs. Between 2012 and 2014, it became the 3rd largest economy in Latin America by nominal GDP. As of 2018, the GDP (PPP) per capita has increased to over US$14,000, and Real GDP at chained PPPs increased from US$250 billion in 1990 to nearly US$800 billion. Poverty levels were as high as 65% in 1990, but decreased to under 30% by 2014, and 27% by 2018. They had decreased by an average of 1.35% per year since 1990.

The economy of Honduras is based mostly on agriculture, which accounts for 14% of its gross domestic product (GDP) in 2013. The country's leading export is coffee (US$340 million), which accounted for 22% of the total Honduran export revenues. Bananas, formerly the country's second-largest export until being virtually wiped out by 1998's Hurricane Mitch, recovered in 2000 to 57% of pre-Mitch levels. Cultivated shrimp is another important export sector. Since the late 1970s, towns in the north began industrial production through maquiladoras, especially in San Pedro Sula and Puerto Cortés.

Economy of Jamaica National economy

The economy of Jamaica is heavily reliant on services, accounting for 70% of the country's GDP. Jamaica has natural resources, primarily bauxite, and an ideal 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. By the 1970s, Jamaica had emerged as a world leader in export of these minerals as foreign investment increased.

Economy of Mexico Overview of the economy of Mexico

The economy of Mexico is a developing market economy. It is the 15th largest in the world in nominal GDP terms and the 11th largest by purchasing power parity, according to the International Monetary Fund. 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% in that year.

North American Free Trade Agreement Agreement signed by Canada, Mexico, and the United States

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.

A tariff is a tax imposed by a government of a country or of a supranational union on imports or exports of goods. Besides being a source of revenue for the government, import duties can also be a form of regulation of foreign trade and policy that taxes foreign products to encourage or safeguard domestic industry. Tariffs are among the most widely used instruments of protectionism, along with import and export quotas.

Protectionism Economic policy of restraining trade between states through government regulations

Protectionism, sometimes referred to as trade protectionism, is the economic policy of restricting imports from other countries through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, import quotas, and a variety of other government regulations. Proponents argue that protectionist policies shield the producers, businesses, and workers of the import-competing sector in the country from foreign competitors; however, they also reduce trade and adversely affect consumers in general, and harm the producers and workers in export sectors, both in the country implementing protectionist policies and in the countries protected against.

<span title="Spanish-language text"><i lang="es">Maquiladora</i></span>

A maquiladora, or maquila, is a company that allows factories to be 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 economy of North America comprises more than 579 million people in its 23 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 policies of Bill Clinton administration, referred to by some as Clintonomics, encapsulates the economic policies of United States President 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 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. The United States pursued a protectionist policy from the beginning of the 19th century until the middle of the 20th century. Between 1861 and 1933, they had one of the highest average tariff rates on manufactured imports in the world. However American agricultural and industrial were cheaper than rival products and the tariff had an impact primarily on wool products. After 1942 the U.S. promoted worldwide free trade.

Manufacturing in the United States Overview of the manufacturing industry of the United States of America

Manufacturing in the United States is a vital sector. The United States is the world's third largest manufacturer with a record high real output in Q1 2018 of $2.00 trillion well above the 2007 peak before the Great Recession of $1.95 trillion. The U.S. manufacturing industry employed 12.35 million people in December 2016 and 12.56 million in December 2017, an increase of 207,000 or 1.7%. Though still a large part of the US economy, in Q1 2018 manufacturing contributed less to GDP than the 'Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing' sector, the 'Government' sector, or 'Professional and business services' sector.

The share of the industry of Colombia in the country's gross domestic product (GDP) has shifted significantly in the last few decades. Data from the World Bank show that between 1965 and 1989 the share of industry—including construction, manufacturing, and mining—increased from 27 percent to 38 percent of GDP. However, since then the share has fallen considerably, down to approximately 29 percent of GDP in 2007. This pattern is about the average for middle-income countries.

Causes of unemployment in the United States Overview of some possible causes of unemployment in the United States

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.

Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration Economic policies promoted by U.S. President Donald Trump

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

Effects of NAFTA on Mexico

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.

Trump tariffs Tariffs imposed during the presidency of Donald Trump

The Trump tariffs are a series of United States tariffs imposed during the presidency of Donald Trump as part of his "America First" economic policy to reduce the United States trade deficit by shifting American trade policy from multilateral free trade agreements to bilateral trade deals. In January 2018, Trump imposed tariffs on solar panels and washing machines of 30 to 50 percent. In March 2018, he imposed tariffs on steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) from most countries, which, according to Morgan Stanley, covered an estimated 4.1 percent of U.S. imports. In June 2018, this was extended to the European Union, Canada, and Mexico. The Trump administration separately set and escalated tariffs on goods imported from China, leading to a trade war.

References

  1. ↑ CRS-Villarreal and Fergusson-The North American Free Trade Agreement-April 16, 2015
  2. ↑ CBO-The Effects of NAFTA on U.S.-Mexican Trade and GDP
  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.