What Is Wrong With Nafta Trade Agreement

According to a 2013 article by Jeff Faux published by the Economic Policy Institute, California, Texas, Michigan and other states with a high concentration of manufacturing jobs have been the hardest hit by job losses due to NAFTA. [97] According to a 2011 article by EPI economist Robert Scott, about 682,900 U.S. jobs were “lost or displaced” by the trade deal. [98] Recent studies were consistent with Congressional Research Service reports that NAFTA had only a modest impact on manufacturing employment and that automation accounted for 87% of manufacturing job losses. [99] If NAFTA had only been a “free trade agreement,” it could have been written on a few pages. Instead, it was more than a thousand pages of complex rules that gave corporate investors – who dominated all sides of the negotiating table – privileged access to the U.S. market for goods produced in Mexico, where wages are low and regulations are weak. The agreement also included a number of exceptional safeguards for investors, including secret dispute settlement bodies with the power to override national labour and environmental regulations, which are seen as a threat to profits. The ability of U.S. employers to relocate and relocate production to Mexico significantly undermines the bargaining power of their American workers.

Combined trade of $1.0 trillion in trilateral trade has increased by 258.5% in nominal terms since 1993. Let`s take a look at the pros and cons of NAFTA. It is difficult to find a direct link between NAFTA and general employment trends. .