North American Free Trade Agreement & Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA is the same as NAFTA but includes Central America).
Good or bad?
Discuss.
Good or bad?
Discuss.
NAFTA & CAFTA
- Thread starter Damn True
- Start date
IMO the whole idea is good, bigger markets for SA and CA mean more jobs and better economies.
but on the other side the US should pursue more "fair" things and not let its lobbies to abuse the bargaining power of the US... the US market is unfarly used as a leverage tool for the pharmaceutical lobbies that want to extend its patents in the rest of the americas (which are already as long as in the US)...
but on the other side the US should pursue more "fair" things and not let its lobbies to abuse the bargaining power of the US... the US market is unfarly used as a leverage tool for the pharmaceutical lobbies that want to extend its patents in the rest of the americas (which are already as long as in the US)...
I was hoping you would chime in. This is a topic that interest me, but I don't really know that much about. From a US Nationalist standpoint, it's horrible. It can do nothing but decrease the standard of living here in the US [perhaps that's a good thing?]. From a more global perspective, while it may decrease the US general piece of the pie, it raises that of our neighbors - thereby leveling the playing field. A good thing, imo.
My beef with the situation revolves around the environmental and health protections south of the border. A major factor in moving operations is the lack of regulation, not just cheap labor. As with the US, regulation will only occur with public outcry. What say ye Alexis - are the people ready to stand up for their health? Or are they [much like the US at the turn of the century], to happy to get a paycheck to care about tommorrow?
My beef with the situation revolves around the environmental and health protections south of the border. A major factor in moving operations is the lack of regulation, not just cheap labor. As with the US, regulation will only occur with public outcry. What say ye Alexis - are the people ready to stand up for their health? Or are they [much like the US at the turn of the century], to happy to get a paycheck to care about tommorrow?
I wrote a 45 page paper on this in December. in particular, NAFTA just doesn't work (and makes my life hell shipping things).
In general free trade is a marvelous idea..if it is FREE trade. We will never see it between the USA and any country.
In general free trade is a marvelous idea..if it is FREE trade. We will never see it between the USA and any country.
for the 2nd paragraph, i used to have a completely opposite idea on that, until I realized that i live in a real world and that is "reality that makes the laws" and not "laws make a reality".BuddhaRoadkill said:
of course health and enviromental issues will arise. but they will ONLY as long as there is a surplus of labor... as soon as offer labor balances with labor demand (i hope this will happen someday in SA), then people will start to demand better work conditions (just like in the 1st world post industrial revolution). the more investment in SA the closer SA is from achieving (realistically) a point in which laborers, given the options, will start getting better paid jobs with more benefits.
in paper Peru has one of the world´s best labor laws!!, here, by law, a worker is entitled to health care, free school/college/grad school, an indemnization of 1 month worth of salary for everyyear worked, a 10% of wages retirement fund paid by the employer, 30 days of paid vacations plus like 20 holidays a year since the very 1st year working, workers cannot get fired for no reason unless the labor dept issues a permit, wages can never go down unless the congress aproves and lots of other things that would be a union wettest dream.
the problem is that IN REALITY, only 12% of peruvians work protected by such laws, the other 88% of the workforce work outside it as their employers cannot afford that and because there is so much labor offer that you´ll always find somebody who will work for less....
the only way to improve the conditions for that 88% of people is to increase the demand of labor, so that the labor market itself improves the conditions for the laborers... laws cannot make that happen, it was tried by the socialists in the 70%, and the only thing they got was that 88% of all workers were hired outside the system (thus denying them any labor-right) which in turn increased the likelyhood (by making it extremely more profitable than going the legal way) of sweatshops and under the table jobs...
hahaha, thats so true..Transcend said:
somewhere i remember i read that nafta was like 600 pages long...
i wonder.. what kind of "free" trade agreement needs 600 pages???
for a real "free trade" agreement isnt just enough a few pages to write "0 or standard tariffs"????
I actually held (part of) the rule book for nafta in an international political economy class. It is over 20 000 pages. That's a lot of wasted paper. In particular is goes on and on about what tarriffs will be levied on which items...durr...and it has free trade on the cover. ha! :mumble:ALEXIS_DH said:
No kidding. GM can ship cars across the border, but I still can't send a set of beer glasses as a gift without getting nailed for customs duty to Canada.Transcend said:
My gripe against it (in current form) is that it gives a big company like GM carte blanche to relocate a factory to another country and those jobs are lost in the US (perhaps some blame here can be laid on unions). In doing so GM reaps the benefit of not having to pay into pension funds, not having to pay to ensure worker health and safety standards, muuuch lighter environmental restrictions and they don't have to pay a tarriff on the re-importation of the products built in those countries. It's a lose/lose for workers on both sides and it quite frequently is damaging to the environment in the Mexican or CA/SA countries those factories are built in.
The only winner is the companies like GM, Ford, DC, Toyota etc.
Like a lot of things, it's a pretty good idea, but it's been poorly excecuted.
The only winner is the companies like GM, Ford, DC, Toyota etc.
Like a lot of things, it's a pretty good idea, but it's been poorly excecuted.
Funny thing about NAFTA is I have heard grumblings from manufacturers in Mexico that their jobs are getting sent overseas to China.
The environmental damage is a given (and many times is not only in mexico et all, air and water don't particularly care about borders.Damn True said:
As for the monetary/job damage, you would be surprised how well things balance out. The lower end manufacturing jobs are moved, but in turn more higher end sales/marketing jobs are created. In the long run the types of labour are shifted, but the net jobs are the same.
I am not at home right now, but I can dig out the facts i found if you want later (long live SPSS).
Transcend said:
That's fine unless you happen to be a 40 year old dude who has worked all his life at a Ford assembly plant that has just been relocated. Not many people go from being a welder to working in Marketing Communication.
Very true, but the job market can't stagnate for 50 years either, manufacturing jobs are dissappearing due to mechanization, automation and a generally more educated work force.Damn True said:
There is going to be casualties when attempting to modernize. It may suck, but time moves forward. The work pool needs to change along with it.
These things have to be looked at in the macro and long term. It will ALWAYS look bad in the micro and short term.
Heh - I work in Marketing Comms.Damn True said:
I agree, but I think that people need to realise there is no such thing as a job for life anymore. Here in NZ there is a culture of 'lifelong learning'. At any given time getting on for a third of the population is undertaking some sort of training or study, post compulsory education. This allows people to change jobs and careers far more easily. Maybe the US should start encouraging this type of thing a bit more, although I'm sure it happens already to some extent.
I personally think that the role of manufacturing in a first world country is always going to be on the slide as globalization increases. It's inevitable. Rather than having a city with a central business district full of rich executives and managers, surrounded by industry and blue collar workers, entire states and countries are tending towards becoming these individual zones. There's nothing worng with it either in principal, as long as people recognise it and make positive moves towards it. America is becoming a giant CBD, with the exception of Jeezusland, who are going to have to increasingly realise it's time to step it up or face becoming a second tier part of America - if they're not already.