Ohio and NAFTA

Spencer: "To a certain extent autos are an exception because you want final assembly to be near the market,but even here parts, engines, etc, are increasingly being imported."

Are you sure about parts and engines being imported?

Honda recently built a $100 million transmission plant in Tallapoosa, GA. Honda claims it purchases about $18 billion in goods annually from North American suppliers.

Nissan's Decherd, TN, engine plant has been open for ten years. It now produces more engines than any plant in Nissan's global network.

Toyoda Gosei North America Group just announced plans to build a factory in Batesville, MS, to supply parts to the new Toyota vehicle assembly plant near Tupelo. This will be Toyoda Gosei's sixth U.S. parts plant.

Hyundai is going to build a transmission plant in West Point, GA, to supply its assembly plant in Montgomery, AL.

The Charleston, SC, plant of Behr America, a subsidiary of Germany's Behr GmbH & Co, produces radiators and other parts for BMW's Spartenburg, SC, vehicle plant. Behr is one of nearly 100 South Carolina suppliers to that plant.

These are just a few examples I quickly found. I'm sure there are dozens more. The vehicle assembly plants of foreign auto companies have created thousands of jobs at local suppliers.

Freedomlover,

I am a woman. And I do. LOL.

Second the union is as political a machine as is politics itself and we cannot blame the people working for the actions of their self interested organization.

So is a corporation. A union is a corporation in fact.

Yesterday's (March 3rd) Wall Street Journal had an excellent editorial comparing Ohio's economy with Texas': http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120450306595906...>

New job creation for the 1997-2007 period was +1.6 million for Texas and -10,400 for Ohio. Net domestic migration was +667,000 for Texas and -362,000 for Ohio. Some of the reasons given were that Texas has no state income tax, less unionization, and a survey shows Ohio third from the bottom in "economic competitiveness". There is more.

STR what is blue collar America? I Belize it still exists, but just looks different. I consider a computer programmer earning $50k blue collar.

"The people and resources that are freed up from inefficient industries get re-employed more efficiently elsewhere, producing more wealth for employees and for owners."

Really?

Anyway.

After listening to some more politics, I have come to the conclusion that arguing about NAFTA is akin to the debates about why the Titanic sunk. Interesting, but of no real value.

Blue collar America will continue to deteriorate, the rich will get richer, and eventually the political blowback will cause some change.

Politics is a pendulum, and perhaps the best we can hope for is that the swings are not too wild.

Methinks,

"Yes, but then I go to another country where I'm exposed to an even greater, previously unimaginable level of BS."

Unfortunately you are again correct. I have done my share of moving around the world and have had the good fortune to see first hand, up close and personal, a variety of different governments and the people that live with them. I did not live in those places with blinders on, and I can tell that you have not as well.

This creates a paradox in how I view our own government here, on the one hand I can appreciate that no one in my family is forced to spend an entire day looking for firewood to prepare the evening meal and maybe heat the hut for awhile in the cold evening. Furthermore, as I do not live near Watts or South Central L.A., I do not fear that a significant number of my neighbors will take up machetes in the night and come sweeping through my corner of the town killing everyone that isn't "them". I know they are out "there", but I don't even really fear the violent left wing radical kooks like ALF, ELF, EF, or our home grown anarchist movement.

So, I agree that of the choices the USA is still the place that offers the longest leash and the most comfortable collar of all.

Now, the other side of the coin that creates the paradox is that I also know that our corporate government has been allowed, nay even encouraged, to wander far far away from the foundation of its constitutional charter. So, I know with dead certainty that life here could be so much better, so much more productive, and free if people weren't so docile about wearing the collar and tolerating the leash.

While I do not, per se, fear the individual actions of my fellow man here in this nation, I do fear their collective action, especially that as advocated by such as muirduck and ilk. My worst fear if of the corporate government of the USA, and I fear the meek docile acceptance of that corporations actions by the common person. I fear the unquestioning acceptance by the people of its lies, distortions, and facile proclamations.

muirduck can not see, and asks me, “What yoke?”, it is the collar of having every single financial transaction you make being available and accessed by a rouge collection agency of jack booted thugs known as the IRS. It is the collar of the financial industry cooperating in those efforts by pushing us more and more to a cashless society where not even I can escape the placing of that collar. (I go into my favorite liquor store here in Houston and at the checkout counter I am asked, “Cash or regular?” I see it as unwitting cooperative conditioning to accept the collar.) It is the collar of being told that you must pay a tax that contributes to school but not to be able to choose the school without forfeiting the value of what you paid. It is the collar that has/is being placed on your child at birth with the hospitals insisting that you submit a form for a SSN for that child before it leaves the hospital. It is the collar we placed by watching the events at Ruby Ridge and the squashing of the Weaver family and doing nothing. It is the collar of watching the attack and murder of the Branch Davidians at Mt. Carmel in the open and on our TV screens and doing nothing at the time or insisting on justice in the aftermath even though the government lies were so evident. If ever there was a test case to see what the American public would tolerate, this was it. It is the collar placed by each county sheriff across the nation meekly accepting the dominance of federal thugs instead of knowing the laws and insisting on them being properly applied, as is his job. It is the collar of ignorance that allows people to accept the conventional wisdom about the law and never dig to see what the laws actually are.

I fear the Patriot Act and its mandated intrusions into our daily life. I fear the leash of the “Real ID” and our inability to travel freely without having documentation to answer the call, “papers please”. I fear recent Supreme court decisions (participated in by members left and right) that permit any “badge toter” to arrest you at any provocation or hint of resistance to his/her demands regardless of how out of line or unreasonable those demands may be. I fear the arbitrary power that gives people who in real life can’t pour piss out of a boot without having the instructions printed on the heel. I fear the realization that the leash is becoming increasingly shorter. I fear the cooperation of other nations in the administration of that collar and leash. “Where ya gonna run to?”

I fear the fact that when I write like this so many, even patrons of this cafe who you would like to think are above average in intellect, who will read my words and think, “What a kook!”

Yes I am a kook, I am an idealist who actually believes that you, I, and all others are individually free, and I know that no where else on Earth is it better; however, I see this one sinking fast. No, I think we’ll be rich for a long long time in spite of the Hillarys, Obamas, and McCains; but, we will enjoy it exactly the way they want us to….don’t step out of line.

Paris Lovett,

I agree that people and resources get re-deployed more efficiently as a result of free trade. But I think the reason they get redeployed is to provide goods and services at a lower cost. The reason for weeding out inefficiency is to reduce costs.

What benefit does lower cost output provide? Some trade opponents believe it increases the wealth of business owners. But competition quickly reduces such returns to owners, and the end result is lower prices to consumers of those goods and services.

Identifying exactly how the workers of an inefficient factory were redeployed might be a good research subject. But I think it would grossly understate the value of free trade. It is the redeplyment of consumer dollars following lower prices - and the resulting increase in standard of living - that accounts for the largest benefit of free trade, IMO.

Methinks

Thanks for interpreting my words the way I would want them interpreted. I hope that catches on.

To sum up: I am on vacation with a lady and I will not look up numbers to compete with Don's. But I'll say that the unemployment rate alone is not conclusive, even if my original comment draws the obvious complaint that the person I have just drawn into the labor force [the wife] probably didn't count toward the unemployment rate because she likely wasn't participating in the labor force. [Then again, Angry Bear will tell you that labor force participation is more important than LFP.]

John Dewey-

I don't think that reduced prices for consumer goods/services and inputs accounts for all the benefits of trade. The people and resources that are freed up from inefficient industries get re-employed more efficiently elsewhere, producing more wealth for employees and for owners. In mercantilist parlance, we get "export opportunities", "generating jobs" (and profits) for people and companies in the U.S.

So what I am interested in is material to make a stronger argument. Particularly, it would be good to be able to describe in human terms the harm that would results from opting out of NAFTA (and I don't just mean that consumer items would be more expensive).

Methinks:

The single biggest source of BS is women, stay clear!

Brian-NJ:

Bottom line is that they're not as skilled as they think they are for this economy for the price they're demanding. Not only that, but "unions" are toxic to management period.

Vidyohs,

LOL, God help me, but you see it, and it is BS, isn't it?

Yes, but then I go to another country where I'm exposed to an even greater, previously unimaginable level of BS. My life has become all about BS minimization.

Brian,

I have never been a union member and I will never be a union member. So, I have not walked in those moccasins. However, both my parents were forced to join unions in the past, so they have walked in those moccasins. My father has come to despise unions so much that for the past nearly three decades he is the only employee in his organization who refuses to join the union. Fortunately, he is very highly skilled and a bit unique, so the union has been unable to force him to join.

first the work of union members is not analogous to working behind the counter at starbucks, they are skilled craftsmen.

While some union members are highly skilled (like my dad), the unionized cashiers and baggers in the grocery store aren't.

Second the union is as political a machine as is politics itself and we cannot blame the people working for the actions of their self interested organization.

Why shouldn't an organization which justifies its existence by claiming to represent its members be held accountable for its actions by said members? And why shouldn't others hold the members accountable for an organization they elected to speak in their name? This is the problem with collectivism. The leaders of the collective will do what they desire and the collective will be...well, collectively held responsible.

Besides that, unions are simply labour monopolies which ultimately hurt labour. What about the guy who doesn't get membership? What about the unemployed? Since the unemployed aren't paying union dues, the union leaders couldn't care less about them. So what if higher wages for the union members lead to less overall employment? At least the union leaders get more income from which to extract dues.

to be clear I mean the mission statement of union work was to produce better quality goods and have a superior workforce due to the incentive of higher wages and the organization as a whole able to train and produce highly skilled workers.

The mission statement laughable. The incentive of higher wages exists without unions - and is usually killed by unions. There is heavy competition among employers for highly skilled labour and they will bid up the price for the most desirable in the labour pool. Workers don't need labour unions to develop skills. They will develop skills in response to the incentive of higher compensation for the development of those skills. And they can do all that without paying juicy dues to union bosses.

Brian, you seem like an open and honest guy and I don't mean to attack you or labour in general. but you said it yourself: "let us not disregard union labor altogether, people will pay a premium if the product is far superior." The workers in the union may have superior skills and people will pay a premium for a superior product. However, unions prevent people from paying a premium for superior skills, talent and work ethic and force a premium for mediocrity.

Median real household income in Ohio rose every year from 1992 (about $42,000) to 2000 (about $50,000), and has gone down every year since (to about $46,000 in 2007).

Excuse me, I wanted to clarify the last paragraph, to be clear I mean the mission statement of union work was to produce better quality goods and have a superior workforce due to the incentive of higher wages and the organization as a whole able to train and produce highly skilled workers. Specialization at its finest, having the company design ways to make better workers takes away from them doing their specialized job, which is designing cars that will compete and distributing them correctly. Specialization works, but both entities dropped the ball.

Who was it that said something to the effect of "do not judge a man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins?"

As a union member and alternate shop steward I understand the situation possibly a bit clearer than some who have posted comments like "overpaid for what they do", before the huffing and puffing starts understand I see my duty as informing my brothers and sisters that our jobs are not to last forever and we do need to be cognizant of change and combat it with education. I have no problem with free trade and see it as a possible method to world peace.

Having said that, there are two issues to understand; first the work of union members is not analogous to working behind the counter at starbucks, they are skilled craftsmen. It is possible that any person can be trained to insert slot A into slot B, but it is as erroneous to assume the job so simplistic as is assuming Free trade hurts the wealth of the nation. Second the union is as political a machine as is politics itself and we cannot blame the people working for the actions of their self interested organization.

My theory as to possible increase in union jobs during said time period is the forced hand dealt to companies filling positions that may not had the need by a retaliating union organization. It is a tactic I suffered through years ago when first let into a specific union, the jobs were forced by tactics I won't explain but in the end it lead to more layoffs and many angry workers, ripe for political fuel, just the sort of mob union officials and politicians need to further their self interested cause.

I am not in favor of these tactics because it is the worker who loses, not only a job but now suffers persecution from those claiming they are not worth the wage and perhaps feeble minded boobs. In the case of GM and Ford I blame the executive decision making, it was their arrogance and failure to compete with better machines, complete lack of innovation. The worker will do whatever they are told to do, build a gas guzzler, you got it, payday on friday.

It would interest me to see the numbers of new union membership during this time period, and if my theory is correct, it would have risen slightly higher than average. Surely we can all understand the origination of the union mentality, but like all things went to far, and unfortunately the price is being paid now, but let us not disregard union labor altogether, people will pay a premium if the product is far superior. That was the mission statement of the unions I belong(ed) to, if it can return to that(and I will do my best to reach a position to help steer said direction) unions can compete in a natural justified way in todays global economy.

Need Alex Tabarrok shout it from the rooftops? Correlation does not imply causation!

Methinks,

You addressed the taboo of all taboos in America today. You broke political correctness in the most horrible way.

You said, straightforward that some people are actually being vastly overpaid for what the do. Damn, lady, you just can't say things like that!

Doesn't matter that you can stand at a bank teller's window waiting while she has a phone stuck to her ear but not talking, and when you ask if you can proceed and get your little check cashed she tells you, "I'm on hold and I can only do one thing at a time." In America being "on hold" is a thing that requires strict attention.

LOL, God help me, but you see it, and it is BS, isn't it?

Yes we are where we are because of the people like the Clintons, LBJ, FDR, HST, JC(Jimmy Carter), the muirducks of the world. But to address the topic, even the obvious odious choice to avoid choices is still a bad choice, and I am speaking of McCain.

In U. of Maryland Anthropology class I learned that Gorillas and socialists are the only two pirmates that will foul their own nest. Your information about Hillary, and muirducks impassioned socialist preaching, only prove that fact out.

Well, certaiCareful Methinks, they have gulags for people who speak plainly.

That's why I'm nervous about the return of a Clinton to the White House, Vidyohs. She's already driven me and my company out of the state of NY. Well, she and the other socialists.

...and just to tie this back into the topic at hand....NY did this by taxing the living crap out of productive folks as the state lost revenue due to the lovely anti-business, pro-union, anti-trade policies she would now like to foist on the rest of the country.

Oh sweet Jesus, but I love it!

NO, but the quality of the jobs are probably now much more aligned with the quality of the employees performing them.

The damage was done by unions which falsely convinced their membership that it needn't acquire better skills because that they can continue to force consumers to overpay for goods produced by the members of labour unions.

Oops.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 3, 2008 1:50:04 PM

------------


Careful Methinks, they have gulags for people who speak plainly.

Or.....ve haf veys ouf makin you disappear.

The only answer for the NEXT generation is hard-core engineering/science/match. That's only to make ends meet, not 6-figure salaries.

Happyjugler -- you are right about the shift in auto jobs to southern states.

However, the big change in manufacturing output and employment stems from the changing composition of output.If you look at the industrial production data you see that since 1980 the average annual growth rate in high tech -- communication equipment, semis, computers, etc,-- output has been 21% while the average annual growth rate in all other manufacturing output has been 0.5% (yes, half a percent). That is why you see weakness in the old rustbelt while states like Washington, Oregon, etc show quite strong growth. They blame the weakness in the rustbelt on NAFTA even though NAFTA undoubtedly had little or no impact on this trend. It is creative destruction at work. Don believes strongly in creative destruction. But as soon as he sees a liberal say anything about it he gets on his high horse and claims it does not happen.

No matter how you cut it the US auto market is saturated and it will never be a growth industry and with decent productivity growth auto employment will decline for years to come.

The southern strategy to attract industries that want cheap labor south can only work for a short time until places like China and Pakistan with even cheaper labor take the jobs. To a certain extent autos are an exception because you want final assembly to be near the market,but even here parts, engines, etc, are increasingly being imported.

Paris Lovett: "has anyone been able to list particular jobs, companies, industries that would not exist without NAFTA?"

I think that would be a difficult what-if game to play. The significant benefit from elimination of trade barriers is a overall reduction in production costs. When a consumer can spend less on good A, he has more to spend on good B. So the supplier of good B depends indirectly on the gains from free trade. But who can identify exactly which of the good B's would not be purchased if NAFTA were eliminated?

While it seems easy to demonstrate that NAFTA has been beneficial in the aggregate, has anyone been able to list particular jobs, companies, industries that would not exist without NAFTA? This would be really useful in public discussion. Has anyone made a credible estimate of the net impact that we could expect if the U.S. were to "opt out"? And has anyone been able to put faces and names on the potential victims? I'm very surprised that no-one has hammered Obama and Clinton by naming the people they propose to harm.

spencer,

According to the New York Times (link above), Ohio manufacturing jobs were higher from 1995 through 2000 than they were in 1993 - the year beforee NAFTA. So I think you are correct that NAFTA did not cause a shift in jobs from Ohio to Mexico and Canada.

What should be obvious is that continued share erosion for U.S. automakers contributed to the loss of many Michigan and Ohio jobs. Some jobs were lost through increased industry efficiency: Honda's Marysville plant vs. GM's Norwood and Moraine plants. Some auto jobs have been moving to places such as Smyrna, TN, Montgomery, AL, Tupelo, MS, and Spartenburg, SC. Some auto jobs were simply lost to automation.

spencer: "something else impacted the unemployment rate data you cited-- for example people migrating to find better economic opportunity."

Job growth remained strong in right-to-work states. Smart workers from Ohio and Michigan probably realized unions weren't helping them as much as they thought. Does anyone outside of the rust belt look for union made labels anymore?

It would be interesting to see wage data for that period.

Spencer,

You make a lot of sense. However it is worth pointing out that new manufacturing jobs are being created in the US, just that they are being outwieghed by manufacturing losses elsewhere in the US.

The intersting thing is where the bulk of those new manufacturing jobs are being located. Using autos as a rough proxy, it seems pretty clear that the prime determinant for location ofnew factories is whether or not a state is a right-to-work state.

Therefore Ohio should give serious consideration to the fact that its unions are hurting Ohio overall, and it is high time to also become a right-to-work state. I can't help but wonder how many people who are highly skilled and experienced in manufacturing in Ohio (and Michigan) simply can't get jobs because there aren't enough stupid employers any more who are willing to lose money employing people whose motto is "take away their profits".

Instead auto manufacturers are opening up shop in states like Alabama, and training newbies how to manufacture quality goods. What an inefficient joke! Training the untrained while at the same time those who are already highly trained refuse to do what it takes to persuade employers to hire them instead.

This data is not conclusive, but it provides significant evidence that something happened after the mid-1990s to cause a sharp slowing in Ohio employment.

One possibility is that unemployment approached a normal minimum.

"Even if we assume the unemployment numbers are accurate, the numbers do not measure the quality of the jobs." -- save the rustbelt

You're probably right; but since you want to use a subjective measure, it could be said that Ohio has lost a couple hundred thousand crappy, overpaid jobs. So what is the measure of a "quality" job?

On the other hand if you look at Ohio employment data you see a significant slowing in employment growth in the late 1990s. In the late 1980s - early 1990s Ohio's annual employment gains averaged around one percent. But 1996 -- two years after NAFTA -- was the last year Ohio employment growth reached one percent. Since 1996 Ohio employment growth has average 0.5%, or about half of what it was in the pre-NAFTA era. Two years probably would be the minimum time it would take to see an impact of NAFTA on employment.

This data is not conclusive, but it provides significant evidence that something happened after the mid-1990s to cause a sharp slowing in Ohio employment. It also implies that something else impacted the unemployment rate data you cited-- for example people migrating to find better economic opportunity.

Economic theory says that trade creates both winners and losers but that there should be more winners then losers. There is nothing in economic theory that says Ohio manufacturing employees can not be the losers. Just like buggy-whip makers lost because of the auto, Ohio manufacturing could lose because of trade.

I personally do not think it was nafta. Rather it was Chinese exports that displaced both US and Mexican products in US markets.

Even if we assume the unemployment numbers are accurate, the numbers do not measure the quality of the jobs.

NO, but the quality of the jobs are probably now much more aligned with the quality of the employees performing them.

The damage was done by unions which falsely convinced their membership that it needn't acquire better skills because that they can continue to force consumers to overpay for goods produced by the members of labour unions.

Oops.

After looking at the unemployment rate chart for Ohio from 1976 onwards, it seems that to the extent that free trade affacts things positively or negatively, that the folks of Ohio ought to be clamoring for "more" FTA's, not less. After all the best period of time on the entire chart came directly after NAFTA.

Even if we assume the unemployment numbers are accurate, the numbers do not measure the quality of the jobs.

Real incomes in Ohio have been declining, as the mix and quality of the jobs declines.

Likely more jobs have fled to China than to Mexico, and trying to renegoiate NAFTA at this point is sorta like buying condoms after knocking up a girl.

The damage is done, now what?

Don would likely say this is the workers fault, and besides they are better off because they can shop at Wal-Mart.

Freedomlover,

Hopefully, Haris will come back and clarify himself butI don't think that's what he meant. The way I read it, Haris just made the observation that one can't conclude that a lower unemployment rate alone indicates that that individuals are necessarily better off. But there are always winners and losers in a competitive environment and I don't think he said that if your skill set is equivalent to a factory worker in Thailand, you are deserving of more pay than he is.

In the same way people think they deserve "free" health care, a lot of them believe Uncle Sam owes them a living too. If you work on an assembly line putting tab A into slot B for $30 an hour, and someone in Mexico is willing and able to do the same job for $3 an hour, then you are getting a government handout of $27 an hour. The only way your wage can be maintained is by erecting trade barriers. And just as the health care is not really free, neither is the $27 handout. It comes out of the pocket of consumers, who have to pay more for the goods the factory produces.

I strongly suggest that everyone visit the link provided by Don. Then click on the first (or second) box. Then adjust the years to the earliest year available. Then click the box that creates the charts. Then actually look at the charts.

Don, I strongly suggest you reprint the last chart (i.e. the unemployment rate chart) with all years available, but print it without the years on it. Then dare the Hillobama crowd to identify the point on the chart that NAFTA was passed.

The second chart is notable too. My only beef with the charts is that they don't include recession bars which would help identify when job losses occur do to "the business cycle" as opposed to job losses for another reason.

Oh and union dinosaurs die out. Nothing can be done to save them. Darwin at work.

Haris:

No one is entitled to a cushy $30/hour assembly line job for life. The key is education and high-end college degrees to get 6-figure salaries.

Harris,

So is that what is happening? What does the evidence say? (I really don't know.)

While I'm certain that Clinton's and Obama's reasons for dissolution NAFTA are not about free trade, I can actually see a free-trade argument in favor of its dissolution. NAFTA (and its siblings like CAFTA) could more properly be named NAMTA (North American Managed Trade Agreement). NAFTA (and the others) become a framework for competitive reduction, industry cartelization and general rent-seeking.

The unemployment rate isn't necessarily a good indicator of economic conditions in Ohio. Imagine an Ohio worker losing a $30/hr job, forcing him and his wife each to take a job at a lower wage. The unemployment rate would decrease because of the spouse's new participation in the job market, but that doesn't mean the family is better off. If this happens repeatedly in Ohio, the unemployment rate could keep falling while income to the Ohioans would be dropping.

This isn't an indictment of NAFTA, which I think has been a boon for all countries involved, and is probably as extensive a trade deal as we can hope to get. I'm just trying to say that the conclusions don't necessarily follow from the evidence presented.

Don,

I hope you don't mind me saying this, but ...

It is clear and perfectly understandable that you are upset with the campaigns of the current candidates.

But please be aware of your nr-1 comparative advantage: You are very good at explaining and elaborating on misunderstandings and half-truth, even outright 'untruths', mixed with a sharp insight and a good sense of humor. People will read what you say and will understand what you try to explain.

But I'm sorry to say: You are not very good at being upset or angry. By then, you become just one of the 'pundits' out there. It significantly reduces your impact.

Please take advantage of your nr-1 asset, and leave the rest to other people.

I rarely quote the NY Times, but David Leonhardt made sense to me last week:

"The first problem with what the candidates have been saying is that Ohio’s troubles haven’t really been caused by trade agreements. When Nafta took effect on Jan. 1, 1994, Ohio had 990,000 manufacturing jobs. Two years later, it had 1.03 million. The number remained above one million for the rest of the 1990s, before plummeting in this decade to just 775,000 today.

It’s hard to look at this history and conclude Nafta is the villain. In fact, Nafta did little to reduce tariffs on Mexican manufacturers, notes Matthew Slaughter, a Dartmouth economist. Those tariffs were already low before the agreement was signed.

A more important cause of Ohio’s jobs exodus is the rise of China, India and the old Soviet bloc ... New technology and better transportation have then made it easier for jobs to be done in those places and elsewhere. To put it in concrete terms, your credit card’s customer service center isn’t in Ireland because of a new trade deal."

The Politics of Trade in Ohio

To expect either of them to utter even one politically inconvenient truth is as reasonable as expecting your pet turtle to recite from memory the Magna Carta.

Completely superfluous. I a pet turtle could READ the Magna Carta, I wouldn't doubt it could also memorize the document.

You obviously lack the audacity of hope.

Pulling out of ABM with Russia = reckless cowboy unilateralism

Pulling out of NAFTA with Canada and Mexico = improving our relations with the world

Alex: "This would lower the unemployment rate. I'd pull up data on labor market size as well."

So, are you going to pull up that data? I think Professor Boudreaux even provided the BLS link.

Argentina is a good example of what happens when you try to protect domestic jobs from foreign competition.

In 2002, Mauricio Rojas of swedish think tank Timbro wrote "The Sorrows of Carmencita", which details Argentina's economic decline, and why argentinians, like the democrats, despite all the evidence to the contrary, still think protectionism is the way to prosperity.

An english translation can be downloaded here:

http://www.hacer.org/pdf/carmencitabyrojas.pdf

I wonder how many workers, dejected after losing their jobs, left the labor market or the state altogether.

This would lower the unemployment rate. I'd pull up data on labor market size as well.

That said, NAFTA is good. It is good for the rich & good for the poor.

In adddition to appealing to economic populism, the anti-NAFTA rhetoric enables the candidates to exploit anti-Mexican sentiment without making any overt ethnic references.