Ohio’s Economy Shows Disastrous Impact of NAFTA

[Omaha Steve]

http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/02/28/ohios-economy-shows-disastrous-impact-of-nafta/

by James Parks, Feb 28, 2008

As the 15th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) approaches, the two Democratic candidates for president, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, are criticizing the trade deal, which has cost good jobs in Mexico, Canada and the United States. Republican John McCain, on the other hand, supports free trade agreements modeled after this disastrous NAFTA.

Nowhere is the damage caused by this disastrous trade deal more evident than in Ohio, the site of next week’s Democratic presidential primary. The Buckeye State has lost more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs over the past seven years. Click here to see where all the presidential candidates stand on trade and manufacturing.

Manufacturing cars, trucks and auto parts is one of the most important industries in Ohio. NAFTA has produced a large and growing trade deficit with Mexico in this crucial sector, according to a report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

Here are the facts: In 1993—the year before NAFTA took effect—the United States had a $2.4 billion trade surplus with Mexico in auto parts. By 2007, we had a trade deficit of more than $12 billion, the EPI study shows. (See chart below.)



If you include both vehicles and parts, the U.S. automotive trade deficit with Mexico has ballooned from $2 billion in 1993 to nearly $31 billion in 2007. Nationwide, the auto trade deficit with Mexico has cost us 363,000 jobs, EPI reports.

But this is not all. A previous EPI study shows NAFTA has failed workers in Mexico, Canada and the United States.

* In each nation, while workers’ productivity grew, workers’ salaries remained stagnant or dropped and the wealth of those at the top increased significantly.
* More than 1 million jobs that would have been created were lost in the United States, says EPI economist Robert Scott.
* In Mexico, many of the new jobs that were created were low wage with no benefits and no future, says Carlos Salas, professor at Mexico’s El Colegio de Tlaxcala and Institute of Labor Studies.
* In Canada, the United States’s largest trading partner, wages stagnated and inequality increased, says Bruce Campbell, executive director of the think tank Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives.

EPI economist and author Jeff Faux says the issue is not trade:

The issue is what the rules are. The rules that we have been setting gives global companies the advantage and cuts the bargaining power of workers.

[samplegirl]

1. What I would like to know...

is why there is so much focus on the Clintons for NAFTA when it was initially introduced by Bush Sr.

[OHdem10]

2. Because Bill Clinton signed it . I support Hillary, but I can

remember at the time Nafta was signed I opposed Bill Clinton's
on Nafta.

It is one of those things. A President has to assume responsiblity
for what happens on his watch.

IMO, Since Hillary opposed Nafta when it was passed, she should
have come out way back at the beginning of the Campaign with an
ad explaining her positions on Trade.

[OhioChick]

3. I Can Attest to the Fact

That NAFTA has been disastrous to Ohio, firsthand.

[yourout]

4. NAFTA is...was....and always will be nothing but a shell game for the Rich to get richer.

At the expence of the average American worker.