Free Trade

"How big is this impact on wages? A reasonably cautious estimate is that between 1973 and 2006, global integration lowered the wages of U.S. workers without a four-year college degree (the large majority of the U.S. workforce) by 4%. /// Four percent might not sound like that big a deal, but to put it in some perspective, wages of workers without a college degree rose by only 2% over the entire 1973-2006 period. If not for the effects of trade, then this group's wage increase could have been 100% larger." http://www.epi.org... what is the impact of jobs? all fifty states have a net loss of jobs due to NAFTA related activity. http://www.epi.org... http://www.epi.org... i notice that pro has asserted that the average family saves two thousand per year. this is first of all assuming it's better to have more money for some, while no money for others, eg my job loss data. i'd also critique pro for citing a source i cannot read and critique online. this is merely an online debate board and it's too easy to find misrepresented or badly done studies, when one cannot reasonably access the study. i'd also challenge pro to try to use more common sense examples. i gave the example of bob losing his job, while giving others soem savings, ie the money he made. there's only a set amount of money going to him, or the boss, or the community, or another country. in that example, bob lost out. others lose out too. maybe an example that could be arguably good for pro... instead of a union worker making twenty five dollars an hour, two minimum wage workers will be hired, with savings for boss, community, and money to antoher nation. but this assumes it's best to have two lower paid workers, than better paid higher workers. indeed, while many union workers made twenty five starting out, now the common wage is eleven dollars or so... i notice this from just looking at job boards and speaking to people. perhaps pro could assert that instead of making bumpers, the person will make something else, similar to his high tech devices argument. the problem though is that if there's a demand, the rich will find a way to make it happen... even if they have to spend twenty five instead of eleven or less. we're just accepting less in order to help others some, hurt some a lot, while spreading that money to richer people and other countries, instead of here. with more umployed here, as well, there is greater competion for the same jobs, even if there are higher skilled jobs here. and, to be sure, as other nations "catch up" to us, they will be making all the things we do and we will have no comparative advantage. most jobs even in high tech fields do not require much real education... a produiction worker on an integrated circuit line does mostly just formulaic work as much as anyone else. jobs that require real skill like higher up engineers are not as common, and so we could assume that it's a matter of time before other countries steal any "tech" jobs we have. as time progresses, to be sure, even high paid engineers jobs could be in jeopardy. there is a finite way to spread arou8nd the wealth, and if you focus on savings for the rich, and giving money to other countries, we are hurt for it... "According to Ravi Batra's book, The Myth of Free Trade, open trade in the US has resulted in replacement of manufacturing jobs for service jobs, which pay less on average. The product trade deficit results in more investment money flowing into the US as a trade-off. This investment money mostly ends up with wealthy investors and owners; and "trickle down" is not sufficient to compensate for the loss of manufacturing jobs and wages. According to Batra's research, even though free trade may increase GNP, the increases do not flow to rank-and-file workers." the following chart shows how free trade as a percent of GDP harms wages.... except for wages like education and health care, jobs that can't really be outsoured.... the gerneal trends for other professions is that wages either stall or slightly decline, to signficantly decline.... as the trade as percent of GDP increases. http://en.wikipedia.org... free trade as a percent of GDP is the best measure of trade, as it takes into account the fact that it's all proportional to each other, and just because trade might be increasing, it don't mean it's significant when tied to other things like GDP.