While Cohen acknowledges that many high-wage U.S. production jobs have been relocated to Mexico, China and other foreign sites as a result of NAFTA, Cohen says NAFTA has been a good thing for the U.S. economy and businesses. “The aspiring sound that Ross Perot predicted did not appear; many jobs have been created in Canada and Mexico, and [the resulting economic activity] has created a somewhat fluid supply chain — a North American supply chain that has allowed North American auto companies to be more profitable and competitive. In-Depth: Pros and Cons Cons What happens if Trump hurts NAFTA? History and purpose International trade Pros and cons of the trade agreement CAFTA (CAFTA) FREI Trade Agreement Gatt, in addition to promoting youth, talent and cultural diversity, these immigrants also have political effects. In the 2012 presidential elections, Hispanic voters represented 10% of the electorate, up from 8% in 2004. They turn to Democrats and tend to have more liberal views on immigration policy. In an exit poll conducted during the 2012 election, voters were asked what would happen to unauthorized immigrants working in the United States, and 77 percent of Hispanic respondents, compared to 65 percent in total, said they should be given the opportunity to apply for legal status. I agree with you. This article was very one-sided. There is no doubt and no argument that NAFTA has paid well for U.S. production jobs, period! To claim that nafta has created jobs is normal, but the problem with that argument, particularly when we talk about auto production that went to Mexico, is that those jobs would have been created in the United States if that auto production had been built here in the United States. At the end of the day, President Trump is quite right in his assessment of NAFTA and it is time that we finally have a high-level government/political voice in this country to say and act, what everyone knows is true but are cowardly to act in fear of backlash from the mainstream media or minority groups.
Kudos to you, Mr. President!! The United States had already concluded a free trade agreement with Canada in 1988, but the addition of a less developed country such as Mexico was unprecedented. Opponents of NAFTA have taken up wage differences with Mexico, which had only 30 percent of U.S. per capita income. U.S. presidential candidate Ross Perot said in 1992 that trade liberalization would cause a “huge noise” of American jobs fleeing the border. Supporters such as Presidents Bush and Clinton responded that the agreement would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs a year, while Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari saw it as a chance to modernize Mexico`s economy so that it “exports goods, not people.” Not only are none of these other countries a member of NAFTA, but none have a free trade agreement with the United States. Nevertheless, there is something great about this confusion between NAFTA and the letters of globalization.
The agreement “launched a new generation of trade agreements in the Western Hemisphere and other parts of the world,” the CRS writes, so NAFTA has rightly become an acronym for 20 years of broad diplomatic, political and trade consensus that free trade is generally a good thing. With NAFTA coming into force, the world`s largest free trade area was created. The agreement has helped to improve and improve the standard of living of the middle class in all three countries. Other criticisms of NAFTA relate to the impact of the trade agreement on Mexico`s small farmers, many of whom have been unable to compete with large agricultural enterprises under the agreement. Some of the country`s family farms were brought together, and farmers went to factories where the workers, according to critics, had lower wages, less autonomy and fewer working conditions.