Free trade agreements are more harmful than helpful

Good luck to you. Now, for my argument as to why free trade agreements are more harmful than helpful I offer the following contentions:Contention 1: Free trade agreements cause massive loss of jobs and increased trade deficit. Every major free trade agreement that's been proposed to congress, such as NAFTA and KORUS, have been introduced with the promise of revitalizing the economy and making everyone better off. This is not and has never been the case. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed over 2 decades ago, we've seen a loss of over 1 million U. S. jobs and a $181 billion trade deficit. The US - Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) was no better, causing a net loss of 75,000 jobs and a trade deficit of over $12 billion. (Source: Economic Policy Institute) Now with Obama trying to pass the TPP, it's unbelievable that some people still haven't gotten the message. From a strictly objective standpoint, free trade agreements are more harmful than helpful to the average middle class American. Contention 2: Free trade agreements cause unfair competetion between Americans and those in other countries, causing a lower standard of living. Free Trade forces the average American worker to compete directly with the workers in low-wage foreign countries who pay their workers as little as $60 a month. With Free Trade, corporations can move factories to these countries for profit, causing a massive outsourcing of American jobs. When American workers lose their well-paying jobs, they then have no income and are forced to look for a new job, often times a job that pays less. With a lower income and no way to maintain the previous buying they had before, eventually, the unemployed or underemployed worker will have to cut back on his or her spending, lowering their standard of living. Contention 3: Free trade agreements contribute to income inequality. Trade agreements like NAFTA have contributed to growing income inequality and to the declining relative wages of U. S. workers without college degrees. The growth in U. S. trade and trade deficits has put downward pressure on the wages of workers without college degrees, especially those who have no formal education beyond a high school degree. These U. S. workers bear the brunt of the costs and pressures of globalization. A large and growing body of research has demonstrated that expanding trade has reduced the price of import-competing products and put downward pressure on the real wages of workers engaged in producing these goods. Trade, however, is also expected to increase the wages of the workers producing exports, but growing trade deficits have meant that the number of workers hurt by imports has exceeded the number who have benefited through increased exports. Because the United States tends to import goods that make intensive use of skills of less-educated workers in production, the increasing openness of the U. S. economy to trade has reduced the wages of less-educated workers relative to other workers in the United States, causing an increased growth of income inequality. Contention 4: Free trade agreements lead to dangerous working conditions and environmental damage. As underdeveloped countries attempt to cut costs to gain a price advantage, many workers in these countries face low pay, substandard working conditions and even forced labor and abusive child labor. Most developing countries insist any attempt to include working conditions in trade agreements is meant to end their cost advantage in the world market, which allows them to have free reign over the abusive conditions they allow their citizens to work in. In addition, the increase of corporate farms in developing countries increases pesticide and energy use, and many countries ignore the costly environmental standards included in most trade agreements. The greed of those countries involved in free trade agreements often times stops them from thinking morally and in regards to the common man and his environment.