Fine, then call him López which is his paternal last name and the proper one to use when using only one. After all, it’s Felipe Calderón Hinojosa.
But that is something Balthisar, who I believe has a Mexican wife and has worked in Mexico should be well aware of.
Actually, the thread you linked to does say that NAFTA brought work to Mexico. From the link in the associated thread:
I recall that, but the general consensus of the thread seemed to be that, on balance, NAFTA has not done much good for the common people of Mexico. (It has done a lot of good for the business elite.) (And it has done a lot of good for the people . . . in Canada.) If you have contrary evidence, let’s see it.
Well, there wasn’t any general consensus in that thread, especially about NAFTA’s effect on Mexico. The comment that NAFTA had benefitted mostly a small segment of the Mexican population was made by modernhamlet, and nobody else really commented on it one way or the other. Regardless, Balthazar’s comment was just that NAFTA had increased employment, and modernhamlet’s link showed it did.
Well, at present – and we’re now 12 years into NAFTA – what do you think NAFTA has done for Mexico? And let’s get CBEscapee’s take on this, too!
I think it has benefitted for the most part the upper and middle classes. The most notable effect is consumer goods that weren’t available or were prohibitively expensive are now more abundant and less expensive. These products are still a luxury to many, many people.
I don’t think NAFTA has done anything to make wealth distribution any more equitable here. And that to many of us (not the PAN) is what needs changed. Contrary to what many around here believe, jobs aren’t all that scarce nor were they before NAFTA. The problem lies more in the wages these jobs offer. As an example, my daughter graduated from a prestigious private university last December and started working for an American company here in Guadalajara at a monthly salary of $8500mn (approx. $800usd). She has recieved calls from the US offering work as a nanny for $12usd an hour plus room and board which is more than twice what she earns here.
As far as López Obrador wanting to renegotiate NAFTA, he has stated that he would not honor an agreement signed by Fox that will eliminate duties on corn and beans in 2008, something that will devastate many small farmers here that cannot compete with the heavily subsidized farmers in the US.
Tell her not to bother. She’s probably be spending more than twice as much just to live. (A fact a lot of would-be immigrants seem to overlook, and then they get a shock when they get here.)
Well, if it’s legit, room and board are paid for. And $12 per hour at 40 hours a week is pretty good money with room and board paid for. But I’d be worried about a scam being perpetrated.
Sums to $24,960/year. You think a single can live comfortably on that in the U.S.?! She’d be better off staying in Sonora or wherever.
Furthermore, there’s no guarantee (stated) that it would include any health insurance or other benefits – or even that it would be a 40-hour-a-week job!
It wasn’t a scam. The people had hired a friend of my daughter’s several tears ago. That is where they got our phone number. This was in the SAn Francisco area and the people are apparently very comfortable financially. My daughter gave it some thought. She was looking at it as more of an adventure than a job and she could have had some fun exploring the Bay area. But the woman reneged on the plane ticket so that was the end of that.
The odd thing is, there are quite a number of wealthy Americans recruit middle class bilingual Mexican girls with college educations to work as nannies. They don’t seem to be all that worried about the legality or the ethical question. Some of these girls do it for exactly the reason my daughter contemplated, sort of a paid vacation. And these girls families are not poor even by American standards.
I guess that my ivory tower is actually made out of porcelain enamel. But yes, a single person can definitely live comfortably, especially with someone else paying for 3 hots and a cot, on $24,960. Sorry for the continued hijack.
As for Calderón, is it certain that he’ll respect all parts of NAFTA? I always thought that one of the major factors of increased illegal US immigration from Mexico was that small Mexican farms just couldn’t compete with US grain exports to Mexico from major US corporations like ADM?
But has Calderon ever suggested he has a problem with that?
For one thing, Calderón recieved 35% of the vote, as did AMLO. That certainly doesn’t give him a mandate. So he’ll have to deal with political pressure from all sides. I don’t really think anyone here is completely against NAFTA. Many, myself included, think there are certain parts that need to be reconsidered. The heavily subsidized agribusiness in the US needs to be addressed. Free trade should be fair trade.
By Mexico subsidizing its own farmers, or demanding the U.S. stop subsidizing ours, or what?
Cut the subsidies in the States. Mexico and many other deveoping countries simply can’t afford to subsidize crops such as is done by the US government. the EU is equally guilty.
With Room and Board paid for? Yes! Quite well.
You mean like this:Apply here for US visa
“Obrador’s” not an oversight; it’s quicker than writing both the patronymical and that matronymical, and the fact that I only do it for him is a sign of my contempt – to a Mexican it may make me look ignorant, but I don’t care; US message board ;).
My “knowledge” isn’t tainted by American conciousness; I’d be a liberal perredista were that the case! Instead my views are reflections of (1) my family, all of whom are panistas, but also to a great deal of free thought weighed by Republican ideals and principals. Freedom, ya know?
You think that the 2/3 of entire friggin country that voted against Obrador were influenced by the American point of view?
And for the idea of re-elections being ridiculous, you’re right. I specifically said as a means of ridicule (same root word here): “had Obrador won, I bet we’d see a change to the constitution whereby re-elections for presidents are now okay.”
That wasn’t meant as a truly serious assertation, and I am big enough to step forward and say that I apologize for the confusion. It was just another way to strike out at the idiot that he is.
Surely the results of his little tantrums, digging at nothing, and being proven wrong at every step of the way has made you see that this bozo isn’t the “great man” you thought he was, right? I mean, he’s making a fool of himself!
I dunno. What influenced the 2/3 who voted against Calderon?
[/quote]
All I know is he’s doing what Kerry should have done after the 2004 election, but I’m fuzzy on the details. On what points has he been “proven wrong” so far?
There do, after all, appear to have been some real irregularities:
Maybe it is the cleanest election in Mexican history, but that’s like, you know, “Disco’s greatest hits.”
OTOH, I will admit some of Obrador’s accusations appear rather silly. Like subliminal advertising.