The Hollywood changes slipped past me. I’d gather that they started as an initiative to get Pacific nations to crack down on film piracy in their region in return for gaining more work from the US and Canada (which makes sense and I’m fine with) but, it looks like, that section got expanded outside of the limit of what makes sense for an international agreement to stuff that seems to just be US domestic law.
But, in terms of “losing jobs”, that’s nonsense; all the jobs went away in the 70s. If you look at the division of labor in the US, by industry, over the last century, manufacturing and other jobs that could be off-shored all did so decades before Ross Perot warned about a “giant sucking sound” of jobs going abroad. With foreign workers costing 1/30th the price of an American, as soon as one American executive discovered that they could make stuff cheap and ship it to the US, international agreements be damned, manufacturing is going global. That’s just an immense gravitational force away from the US for any off-shorable task. All that things like NAFTA and Most Favored Nation accomplish is to direct the focus of that pressure.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, you would need to set tariffs at 900% to make up the difference in labor cost between the US and China, if you really wanted to impact our domestic labor market. When that’s true, the TPP is effectively irrelevant to US workers. They just have to work in air conditioned offices, whether they want to or not. No sweaty, dangerous work conditions for them. But, we do get to decide which countries get most of the money. The TPP can help with that.