Jobs blowing out to sea?
As the tenth anniversary of NAFTA approaches, the media portrait of those who opposed or supported the North American Free Trade Agreement is one of extremes, with supporters claiming borders would dissolve and nations would thrive, and opponents warning of an economic implosion:
"The reality of NAFTA at 10 is a still-developing story of winners and losers, split largely by where you work and what you make. What it isn't is the all-or-nothing world painted by critics and supporters during supercharged debates in the early 1990s." - NAFTA: 10 years later, Gains, pains assessed after decade of North American Free Trade Agreement, by Dawn Gilbertson and Jonathan H. Higuera, The Olympian, June 22, 2003
But the reality is that, at least on the opposition side, much of what critics of NAFTA, such as Ross Perot, warned against has happened, although not precisely as predicted:
"NAFTA didn't stem illegal immigration to the United States from Mexico; in fact, there's evidence it contributed to a surge in migration as millions of rural Mexican citizens, their crops virtually worthless, left their homeland in search of opportunity." - NAFTA: 10 years later, Gains, pains assessed after decade of North American Free Trade Agreement, by Dawn Gilbertson and Jonathan H. Higuera, The Olympian, June 22, 2003
Which is exactly what Perot and others said would happen. But what of that "giant sucking sound of jobs heading south"? It's more of a whirlwind, actually, with American factory jobs blowing out to sea, where they often land on Asian soil. Still, American losses to NAFTA are not insignificant:
"Nationally, more than 500,000 workers have been certified by the government as having lost their jobs because their employer shifted production to Mexico or Canada or the business was hurt by imports from those countries." - NAFTA: 10 years later, Gains, pains assessed after decade of North American Free Trade Agreement, by Dawn Gilbertson and Jonathan H. Higuera, The Olympian, June 22, 2003
These losses have been offset, to some extent, by agricultural exports, and the government contends that NAFTA has created jobs, too, up to "900,000, paying up to 18 percent higher than the average American wage," although with the economy hovering on the verge of a deflationary depression, those jobs could soon evaporate.
The real damage done by NAFTA, according to Robert Scott, an international economist with the Economic Policy Institute, is its contribution to globalization and the WTO:
"The greatest impact is not the lost jobs. It's in lost wages and bargaining power employees have had in negotiations. It's the so-called threat effects. For every plant that moves, three or four can threaten to move."
Therein lies the real issue: Globalization. A recent Deloitte & Touche study indicates that, in pursuit of new markets, lower costs and more product innovation, American corporations are driven toward global diversification: "61 percent of manufacturers have moved production to lower-cost geographies." Interestingly, however, the most significant finding of the study may be that corporations are ill-prepared to manage the complexities imposed by globalization:
"Despite globalization,...only 50 percent of companies surveyed have a senior or board level executive in charge of global...processes....supply chains are not fully prepared to support the escalating pace of new product introductions...flexibility is becoming more difficult to achieve...many companies are significantly increasing potential risks...fewer than 8 percent of companies report high levels of collaboration with customers on key initiatives." - Global Manufacturing Benchmark Survey, June 4, 2003, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
As difficult as the transition to a global economy is for corporations, the impact on citizens in all countries, including Americans, is enormous and upsetting. Typically, however, the media downplays the negative by focusing on the extremes, while ignoring and, in many cases even miscasting the middle ground as part of the extreme.
Pat Buchanan, for example, is often vilified by the Press and Republicans, such as George W. Bush, as an "Isolationist" opposed to international trade. This is unfortunate, because it only serves to cloud the issue and drown out the reasoned whispers of those who offer real solutions. In the case of Buchanan, he has remained a staunch advocate of "fair trade," which, like free trade, promotes international trade, but unlike free trade, puts a high priority on mitigating the negative impacts while maximizing the benefits for all citizens of every nation.
The result is a chilling effect, which discourages public awareness and involvement right when it is needed the most:
"[T]he world's corporate and political leadership is undertaking a restructuring of global politics and economics that may prove as historically significant as any event since the Industrial Revolution. This restructuring is happening at tremendous speed, with little public disclosure of the profound consequences affecting democracy, human welfare, local economies, and the natural world." - The International Forum on Globalization
Most agree that globalization is inevitable. What isn't inevitable is that, for most of us, life will improve as a result. The only way we can assure our interests are included in the process is to get involved.
|