That’s certainly a debatable proposition. Cheaper clothes and consumer goods made overseas certainly benefits the average consumer. More affordable and better made cars – which we would not have seen without competition from overseas – certainly benefit the average consumer. Jobs in sectors that export goods overseas certainly benefit the average worker.
Since all groups benefit from free trade, this is a dubious proposition. However, this type of horse-trading goes on all the time in free trade agreements. Certain concessions are made towards lower barriers and other concessions are made towards protecting certain industries.
Since all of these things hurt the working man, I’m not sure that would be all that great of a trade-off.
Look, it’s really simple: regardless of the fact that some prices have gone down, or some jobs have been created, the median household income was the same in 2005 as it was in 1998, adjusted for inflation.
That means that, with respect to what stuff actually costs, the average American family is in exactly the same place it was seven years ago, even though the American economy as a whole is a lot more prosperous now than then.
What’s such a debatable proposition about this?
It’s as if I had pulled out the MLB stats to show that the number of stolen bases is decreasing, and you argue that’s not so because so-and-so stole a pile of bases this year in games you watched.
Nice. Horse-trading between some industries and others.
Who could possibly feel left out? :rolleyes:
And I see this assertion, besides flying in the face of common sense, is as cite-free as the rest of your post.
So what? Why did you pick 1998? Our move towards free trade did not start then. If you are trying to say that free trade does not benefit the poor, then you can’t use 1998 as your starting point.
Your post was notable for its lack of cites, too, so don’t go calling me black, pot.
Notable from the last paper, discussing the effects of a minumum wage hike in Ohio:
As for universal health care, in counties (such as Canada) the poor suffer more from the crappy quality of care and long waits for service because, unlike the rich, they cannot buy themselves alternative care. If you are poor in Canada and you need an MRI, the average wait is six months. If you are rich, you just come to the U.S. and get one immediately.
As for unionism with teeth, it sure seems the UAW has that with the auto industry in Michigan. It’s really working out for them, huh? Perhaps it’s not so smart to demand lavish pay and benefit packages that will bankrupt your companies.
What’s debatable is your assumption that free trade is the only thing that actually affects whether median household income rises or falls. During that same 1998-2005 period, gasoline prices tripled, which should have had a massive inflationary effect like it did during the crises of 1973 and 1979. Except that, as your cite proves, there was no net loss in median income with respect to inflation, which I could just as easily argue is due to free trade allowing median income to rise at a pace with gasoline prices.
It very clearly is responsible for wages to drop and skilled jobs to be shipped overseas. This is clear. It is a system to supress wages and increase profits. The profits go up the ladder. 3 % of the people own 53 % of the stocks in this country. The stock market numbers show where the money is going.
Please explain in detail how NAFTA allowed American companies to move customer service departments, programming staffs, and IT departments overseas. Show your work. (5 points)
The most recent year for which we know the median household income is 2005. It’s $46,326 in 2005 dollars. Then (novel method, I know!) I ran my finger down the column until I found a similar number - $46,508 in 1998.
Does free trade benefit the poor in some times but not others? Was not NAFTA in effect throughout the period?
You are saying that our economy has benefited from free trade during recent years. I agree. I assume you would say that that’s true for the 1998-2005 period; feel free to let me know that that’s incorrect.
But if we agree on that, then the fact that the median household income hasn’t grown over that time means that someone else has been soaking up the benefits of free trade, which are bypassing average Americans.
Well, I claimed that median income hadn’t grown in the past 7 years, relative to the cost of living. I backed that up with a cite. I didn’t need to argue that GDP was increasing, or that free trade was part of the stimulus for that; others had provided GDP numbers to support the former, and you seemed to agree with me on the latter. Seems like that covers the waterfront.
Notable from 1996, the last time we had a minimum wage hike: employment was affected so immeasurably that nobody’s been able to measure it, and median household income steadily increased through the period.
Let’s see now: the poor can’t afford health care at all, so you’re arguing that they’re better off in America where they would have the right to buy themselves alternative care that they’d be unable to afford, than in Canada where they’d get free health care.
And if you are poor in the U.S., but not poor enough for Medicaid, and need an MRI that you can’t afford, the wait is…?
Maybe it’s got something to do with sclerotic auto company management, hitching their profits to monster SUVs in an era of scarce oil.
The weird thing is, a lot of Rust Belt industries would really benefit from universal, single-payer health care, because it would get them out from under a good share of their legacy costs. Yet they would rather sink under the weight of those costs and be true to their class, than betray their fellow plutocrats and fight for universal health care.
Read carefully. NAFTA did not send the phone response centers ,or xray readers to India. It showed that using “free trade” as a mantra ,we could get anything we want shipped abroad. Who does it benefit to ship our auto manufacturing to China.? Who does it benefit to ship jobs that require education abroad.?
Do these actions benefit the American worker,or is it the owners who get cheaper labor.\
When Perot came out against NAFTA it was the only one . It worked so well we are shipping every job we can abroad. India, China etc. came later. But they are the same problem.
The promise was that wages would rise in these countries and ecological standards would have to be met. Hows that working out.
I’m not arguing that at all. Let’s boil it down to the basics:
During 1998-2005, real GDP increased rather substantially. (Source: GDP numbers in this thread.)
Some of that increase was due to NAFTA and other trade barrier-reducing agreements. (I believe we concur on this, so no source needed. If not, speak up.)
During 1998-2005, median household income didn’t increase. (OK, it went up, down, and back up a bit, but wound up in the same place.)
Conclusion: the increase in real GDP over the period didn’t benefit the typical American household, regardless of the source of the increase.
Not necessarily; we don’t know what would have happened to the median American income had there not been an increase in real GDP. If real GDP had not increased, would the median American income have fallen? If that’s the case, then there is no “inequal” distribution of the benefits of GDP, as you are arguing.
You’re right: in that case, there is no “inequal” distribution of the benefits of GDP increase.
But we’re not in that case.
Instead, you’d have the rich sucking up their increased share of GDP directly from average Americans, instead of getting there by vacuuming up all the increase in GDP.
Maybe that would call for a different sort of negotiation between the rich and everyone else, but that’s still what it would call for.