For many of us, who are neither 'laborers' nor 'farmers/big business' these agreements just seemed a pleasantly cooperative way of working with neighbors and expanding (theoretically) economies for all. However, they seem to have hurt workers, leading to mass illegal immigration and poverty not only in countries like Mexico, but here in the US where poverty is importing itself for the average taxpayer to cover in education and health care costs.
This article has some interesting points, I think.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6085392&ft=1&f=1004
Clearly trade agreements are not the only problem, but they seem to have created a turning point. I am rethinking the assumption that globalism is good, actually, at least until we can separately get our own acts together.
What do you think?
2006-09-16 06:35:35 · 8 answers · asked by DAR 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
Daisy, that is where I am coming out, too. I read something recently that likened world globalization to Catherine the Great's euphoria at developing relationships with other world leaders to exclusion of her own people. I'm thinking globalization is possibly akin to global employer lock out of labor in all countries, by suddenly permissible unity of the global big business class. I'm still looking into it, tho and am interested in different points of view.
2006-09-16 08:09:11 · update #1
Personally, I don't know much about NAFTA, but I think it has not been so great for Canada, either. Just wanted to put that in here to contradict the posters who seem to believe that only the poor USA has been screwed by NAFTA. I know there has been a huge disagreement between the USA and Canada to do with softwood lumber (which I also do not understand), but I know Canada is not happy with it at all and it has cost a large number of jobs for Canadians. So, why don't we just agree that NAFTA was put in place to benefit the large corporations, only, and not the workers, of all 3 countries. I don't agree with corporations moving to Mexico for the "cheaper" labor, either. If they go to Mexico, they should have to pay the same labor prices there that they do in the USA or Canada. This, alone, might help stem illegal immigration from Mexico into the USA if the workers in Mexico could get the same pay at home that those companies pay in the USA.
2006-09-16 07:50:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have noticed both a larger trend of illegal immigration as well as more problems for the US since NAFTA went into effect. I do have to admit I was against it then and continue to be against it now.
Originally, NAFTA was supposed to make it easier for our prodecuts to be transported to Canada & Mexico so our businesses wouldn't get the tarriffs etc. The problem is that all that has been transported to other countries has been jobs and money.
With the way their governments are set up, Filming has become big business in Canada and everything they produce comes right back to the US without any cost to them. SO, we lose out.
Labor is cheaper and easier to get in Mexico, so the products once made here and employed people are now being made there and again are being shipped right back.
The BIG businesses HAVE benefitted from NAFTA in bigger profits, but the smaller businesses have not. WE as citizens CLEARLY have not benefitted. It is time to do away with it.
2006-09-16 06:51:47 · answer #2 · answered by grim reaper 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
i agree and nafta is not helping Anybody notice the price of new cars spiraling downward under NAFTA?
It's no longer just factory work that's moving down to Mexico: Some big U.S. firms like Boeing, GE and Principal Financial Group are outsourcing white-collar computer programming and service jobs to companies south of the border.
Factory workers in the Midwest were some of the first to feel effects from NAFTA. One by one, companies looked to Mexico for cheaper labor and moved, taking thousands of jobs with them. As a safeguard for workers who lost jobs, NAFTA promised to retrain them for the better, higher-paying jobs of the future. But what happened to those workers? nothing good check it out http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/nafta/
2006-09-16 06:53:27 · answer #3 · answered by hayleylov 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
NAFTA was supposed to make moving goods across the borders as easy as from one state to another. for Mexico it was as long as it was moving into the US.
In actuality, it made moving goods much, much more complex and costly for American business. But a whole lot easier for Mexico and Canada.
2006-09-16 06:46:16 · answer #4 · answered by howdigethere 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You hit the nail on the head with this: "developing relationships with other world leaders to exclusion of her own people". This is true of "the war in Iraq", of immigration (legal or illegal), foreign aid, welfare "reform", and similar war on the poor and working class.
2006-09-16 10:20:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
These trade agreements are good for the big business that lobbied for them and bad for the people of all countries involved.
2006-09-16 06:38:33 · answer #6 · answered by remmo16 4 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Lets face facts, the free trade agreements were to benefit corporate profits, not to inrease labour cost and raise living standards. If you look at the side agreements to free trade deals it is quickly clear that they are totaly to destroy wage structures.
2006-09-16 06:47:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Free trade agreements are killing the American worker.
2006-09-16 06:49:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋