While NAFTA is not responsible for all the problems in the U.S. labor market, it has contributed significantly to the state of the U.S. economy, directly and indirectly. Continued integration of North American markets will threaten the prosperity of a growing share of the U.S. workforce, without significant changes to NAFTA to address uneven levels of development and enforcement of labour rights and environmental standards. The extension of NAFTA, such as the free trade agreement proposed by the United States, will only exacerbate these problems. Past experience shows that workers have good reason to be concerned when NAFTA enters its second decade. Nafta is also controversial. Policymakers disagree on whether the benefits of the free trade agreement outweigh its drawbacks.
Here they are, you can decide for yourself. However, it is difficult to say whether NAFTA is directly responsible for this decline. The automotive industry is generally considered to be one of the most affected by the agreement. However, although the U.S. auto market was immediately open to Mexican competition, employment in this sector increased for years after nafta was launched, peaking at nearly 1.3 million in October 2000. That`s when jobs started to soar and losses became steeper with the financial crisis. At its lowest in June 2009, the U.S. auto industry employed only 623,000 people. While this figure has since risen to 948,000, it remains 27% below its pre-NAFTA level. Third, THE stronger growth of NAFTA has created jobs. According to a 2010 report, U.S.
free trade agreements – the lion`s share came from NAFTA – directly supported 5.4 million jobs, while trade with those countries supported 17.7 million. Hundreds of thousands of jobs in the automotive industry have also been created in the country and most studies [PDF] have found that the agreement has increased productivity and reduced consumer prices in Mexico. 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.” NAFTA has six major advantages.
According to a 2017 Congressional Research Service report, trade between Canada, Mexico and the United States has more than tripled since its adoption. The agreement reduced and eliminated tariffs. Assessing the value of NAFTA is not a simple or simple question. However, many experts believe that free trade agreements are a necessity for the United States when competing in an increasingly globalized world. Partly because of these drawbacks, the United States, Mexico and Canada began renegotiating NAFTA on September 30, 2018. Negotiations between the three countries ended on 30 November 2018. The new agreement is called The Agreement between the United States, Mexico-Canada. The U.S. Congress ended the agreement on January 16, 2020, and two weeks later, Donald Trumped signed the agreement. Mexico ratified the agreement in 2019. It must be ratified by the legislative branch of each country before it enters into force. Currently, the United States and Mexico are waiting for Canda to ratify the agreement.
NAFTA was actually negotiated by Bill Clinton`s predecessor, George H.W. Bush, who decided that he wanted to continue discussions on opening trade with the United States. Bush initially tried to reach an agreement between the United States.
Posted in: UncategorizedLeave a Comment (0) ↓