iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

U.S. Economy Lost Nearly 700,000 Jobs Because Of NAFTA, EPI Says

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 05/12/11 01:45 PM ET Updated: 07/12/11 06:12 AM ET

Mexico Jobs

When the North American Free Trade Agreement was first signed in 1994, proponents said it would eventually create jobs for the U.S. economy.

17 years later, a new report estimates, the American worker only has hundreds of thousands of job losses to show for it.

According to a report by Economic Policy Institute economist Robert Scott, entitled "Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA," an estimated 682,900 U.S. jobs have been "lost or displaced" because of the agreement and the resulting trade deficit.

The historic agreement, signed just three years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, tore down trade barriers between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, making trade and investment easier for businesses without allowing for the cross-border movement of labor. Despite the agreement being considered a boon for Mexico, the country's economy grew only 1.6 percent per capita on average between 1992 and 2007, The New York Times reported in 2009.

The EPI's calculation of 682,900 jobs lost to NAFTA takes into account jobs created as a result, too. Last year, for example, U.S. exports to Mexico supported 791,900 jobs. It's just that those jobs created pale in comparison to the 1.47 million U.S. jobs that would be necessary without the imports resulting from NAFTA, the report found.

Still, the number of jobs lost to NAFTA looks minimal when placed against the havoc freaked by the financial crisis. Only in 2008, at the height of the crisis, the U.S. economy hemorrhaged 2.6 million jobs, according to CNNMoney.

The U.S. is currently considering a similar trade agreement with South Korea, called U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). KORUS, like NAFTA, could similarly displace American jobs, EPI warns.

Perhaps the most drastic switch post-NAFTA has been in the two country's trade deficit. In 1993, before the signing of NAFTA, the U.S. held a $1.6 billion trade surplus over their neighbor to the south, which supported 29,400 jobs. By 1997, the tides had turned, and Mexico laid claim to a much larger surplus of $16.6 billion. As of 2010, it's not even close. Mexico's trade surplus now hovers around $97.2 billion.

Jobs continue to be lost to NAFTA today. In the years 2007-2010, the U.S. economy has lost 116,400 as a result of the trade deficit created by NAFTA. And last year, the growth of Mexican auto exports to the United States alone created more Mexican jobs -- 30,400 -- than the entire U.S. auto industry.

It's the U.S. manufacturing sector that has suffered most mightily from NAFTA, alone accounting for 60.8 percent -- 415,000 total -- of the jobs lost to the agreement. Specifically, those making computer of electronic parts have accounted for 22 percent of all job losses, and motor vehicle and parts workers accounted for 15 percent of job losses.

Job losses haven't been limited to certain geographic regions, either, as all fifty states have lost jobs as a result. And while the states with the largest total number of job losses, California and Texas, do hug the southern border, it's actually manufacturing-heavy states to the north, such as Michigan, Indiana and Kentucky, that have lost the largest share of jobs to Mexico.

The below chart tracks jobs displaced as share of total state employment:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
When the North American Free Trade Agreement was first signed in 1994, proponents said it would eventually create jobs for the U.S. economy. 17 years later, a new report estimates, the American wo...
When the North American Free Trade Agreement was first signed in 1994, proponents said it would eventually create jobs for the U.S. economy. 17 years later, a new report estimates, the American wo...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 432
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
shrinktalkingheads
Battling misinformation since April 9, 1865
10:33 AM on 05/31/2011
So how do we reverse the trend?

Here are some ugly stats:

The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001.

The United States has lost a total of about 5.5 million manufacturing jobs since October 2000.

From 1999 to 2008, employment at the foreign affiliates of US parent companies increased an astounding 30 percent to 10.1 million.

The United States has lost 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/deindustrialization-factory-closing-2010-9#the-united-states-has-lost-a-whopping-32-percent-of-its-manufacturing-jobs-since-the-year-2000-13#ixzz142zk6nKN
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tierce
We need less government! That empowers the ppl!
03:28 PM on 05/16/2011
OK, so NAFTA didn't work the way it was represented. The mistake is only a mistake, until it becomes a lesson, which is usually when the change to correct the mistake is seen. I don't see the jobs that this country had or new jobs to fill that gap. So has the lesson been learned ? I don't think so. The people need to be empowered to create the lives that we all have envisioned. If our leaders give that empowerment to an other county before it looks to its' own, then where does the loyalty of our leaders lay ?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:55 AM on 05/16/2011
I love all the self righteous whining. We are all enjoying the economic fruits of the slave labor economies we've created in Mexico and China. Where do you think all our toys come from! And of course none of us have/would ever consider doing illegal drugs! It's not the Repubs or the Dems, it's us, the Consumers. You want it to stop. Stop buying the stuff!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Spiggy
Playing with the Special Ones since 2009
01:30 AM on 05/16/2011
I love the way everyone blames NAFTA......NAFTA did not force those companies to move operations overseas....NAFTA did not tell those companies that they should put profits in front of the American worker....NAFTA did not tell them to buy and sell solely imported items

The Companies chose to do all of these things on their own.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Greg 135
One of the millions
10:19 PM on 05/15/2011
Thank you again Mr Bush.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:56 AM on 05/16/2011
"was first signed in 1994"
09:55 PM on 05/15/2011
We need fair jobs trade and get rid of this so called free trade. Free trade is a way for big bussiness to move and send back stuff free to US We even give the big corp tax dollars to do this to us.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:23 PM on 05/15/2011
I saw the famous CNN debate where slick Al Gore debated the authentic and great American, Ross Perot. Of course, the shallow liberal media all championed Gore and the Clinton Admin. throwing away our jobs.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:05 PM on 05/15/2011
Yeah ole Clinton and Gore destroyed us on that deal. I remember vividly the lifelong Republican Ross Perot, Pat Buchanon and others begging them not to do it but the Establishment won the day and America was betrayed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Spiggy
Playing with the Special Ones since 2009
01:27 AM on 05/16/2011
Really??? You Remember that? What I remember about that was the the Democrats had the majority in both the House and Senate and yet more of them voted against it then for it. See now I am confused.....if they held the majority.........and more of them voted against it then for it.........how did it pass? Could it have been the overwhelming support by the Republicans who gave NAFTA its legs to land on Clinton's Desk?

Mind you Clinton can take part of the blame for signing it...however if it was not for the Republicans....he would have never had the opportunity to do so. So when you decide to place the blame....make sure you evenly distribute it to those who deserve it and not just to those who support your weak one sided argument.

Oh and if you question my Factual data just Google "NAFTA vote" and the first two responses should be the Senate and House voting records from their own official web sites.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:00 AM on 05/16/2011
Enjoyed this retort.
03:10 AM on 06/05/2011
President Clinton didn't have to sign the damn thing. NAFTA has distroyed our country.
fourtruth
9th Ammendment, Bill of Rights
04:07 PM on 05/16/2011
At least we can always count on you for proof that our education system is indeed BROKEN.
Linda from Deerfield
Paying attention
05:42 PM on 05/15/2011
If it's true that NAFTA cost us 700,000 jobs, then Japan and China must have cost us 5 million.
05:26 PM on 05/15/2011
NAFTA was preceded by the Canada-US Free Trade agreement signed by Mulroney and Reagan. The overall effect was a huge overnight success for the U.S. Upon its signing US multinational companies closed Canadian based plants and started a third shift at their US plants. Companies like Campbells soup, Gillette blades and others closed their Canadian plants and started shipping from the U.S. The effect in the first year was a loss of thousands of jobs in Ontario. It also affected agriculture with wineries forced to plow under hundreds of acres of vineyards.
When NAFTA was signed many Canadians knew that what happened to Canadian manufacturing was now going to happen in the U.S. It was like looking at an oncoming train wreck and realizing there was nothing you could do about it- truly sad.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:15 PM on 05/15/2011
Clinton and Gore stabbed us in the back.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:01 AM on 05/16/2011
Both parties were involved in this destruction.
fourtruth
9th Ammendment, Bill of Rights
04:05 PM on 05/16/2011
Are you dim? You have been provided more than adequate evidence that your right wing spew is just that = SPEW.
01:01 PM on 05/15/2011
To add insult to injury - we send Mexico Billions of dollars every year and they don't even appreciate it. Can you just imagine what Mexico would be like w/o the U.S.!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:16 PM on 05/15/2011
Well, we have caused a lot of their drug war problems. A lot of dopers in the US.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:02 AM on 05/16/2011
Legalize it then, decriminalize it and get those people ("dopers") the help they need with the billions then.
01:00 PM on 05/15/2011
Looks like we are supporting Mexico in more ways than one. First right here in the U.S. and then in their own Country - thank you Bill Clinton!
fourtruth
9th Ammendment, Bill of Rights
12:32 PM on 05/15/2011
Geez - Bush lost 750,000 jobs EVERY MONTH for how long? I thought NAFTA was a huge sink hole - 700,000 is just a drop in the BUSH bucket.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:18 PM on 05/15/2011
That was caused by the banking crisis via the Community Reinvestment Act, championed by liberals. Unbelievably, the liberals are now doing the same thing again under the Obama admin. They just never learn.
fourtruth
9th Ammendment, Bill of Rights
08:53 PM on 05/15/2011
Let me guess - O'Reilly or Beck?

The 1977 CRA was a simple Act that said if someone of color deposits savings then they must be considerd for a loan - one purpose - to stop redlining. It was IN FACT the Republican ammendments and rules in the years following that created all the deregulation - especially those in 2005, 2007 and 2008. Read it and weep:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

• 2 History
o 2.1 Legislative revision history
o 2.2 Original act
o 2.3 Legislative changes 1989
o 2.4 Legislative changes 1991
o 2.5 Legislative changes 1992
o 2.6 Legislative changes 1994
o 2.7 Regulatory changes 1995
o 2.8 Legislative changes 1999
o 2.9 Regulatory changes 2005
o 2.10 Regulatory changes 2007
o 2.11 Legislative changes 2008
o 2.12 CRA reform proposals
fourtruth
9th Ammendment, Bill of Rights
08:55 PM on 05/15/2011
Oh, an d PS - don't forget to study this Republican beauty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
munki
Global to Local now Local to Global
10:33 PM on 05/14/2011
Wide spread of economic gap and easing rule...

Is this similar to what we saw in meltdown of Wall Street?
04:23 PM on 05/14/2011
NAFTA was brought in by Clinton which is PROOF that the political parties are a sham and that revolution is the only way to save this country. However, that won't happen until things get really bad, when enough people have lost everything. The inflation will squeeze the poor until they are hungry and riot but since a large proportion of the poor are minorities the system will use white fear of black/brown riots as an excuse to quell it. Historically, revolutions have been fought by the masses who were educated and organized by some political movement put together by higher class types who are sick of the king, government ,etc. However, I again see a problem here because America is so divided by race that this may not be possible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IHATEFOXNOISE2
CONGRESS...The best government money can buy !
08:17 AM on 05/15/2011
NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992. It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries in 1993. The House approved it by 234 to 200 on November 17 and the Senate by 60 to 38 on November 20.
fourtruth
9th Ammendment, Bill of Rights
12:31 PM on 05/15/2011
NAFTA started under Bush I -

"Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA