Candidates' replay of NAFTA debate misleads wary voters
USA Today Editorial
When Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry emerged as the Democratic presidential front-runner in January, the nation found itself reliving a debate over the Vietnam War — how the decorated veteran's tour in the Asian country compared with President Bush's stateside duty in the National Guard.
Now, as Kerry tries to sew up the nomination against North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in today's 10-state Super Tuesday contests, voters are being subjected to another re-examination of times past, this one over the North American Free Trade Agreement. Edwards has attacked NAFTA as a job-killer as he tours economically struggling regions of Ohio and New York. In response, a defensive Kerry is hedging his support of the 1994 deal that slashed tariffs on U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico.
These themes play well in communities that have borne the brunt of the 2.4 million jobs that have disappeared since 2001. Workers across the country feel left behind by globalization, and trade is a convenient scapegoat. But the NAFTA-bashing overstates the pact's impact on U.S. job losses and ignores the economic benefits NAFTA — and world trade broadly — provides.
A more constructive debate would focus on ways to assist American workers who've lost their jobs to get better retraining and other help to cope in an ever-more globalized and competitive marketplace.
Among the realities overlooked by the emotional attacks on NAFTA:
The treaty has had a pos itive impact. Since NAFTA took effect, U.S. trade has tripled with Mexico and risen 62% with Canada. Gary Hufbauer of the Institute for International Economics estimates the expanded commerce has created 1 million new U.S. jobs. That's nearly double the number of workers U.S. firms report have lost their jobs because of trade with Canada or Mexico.
Jobs aren't going to Mexico. The USA's fastest-growing trading partners are Asian nations, not NAFTA partners Canada or Mexico. As U.S. companies strive to cut costs, they are "outsourcing" service jobs to China and India. Even Mexico is worried about a loss of jobs to those lower-wage countries.
Trade isn't the main cause of job losses. A bigger factor than trade is technology, which allows employers to produce more with the same or smaller workforces. Productivity gains were 4.3% last year and 4.8% in 2002, the fastest growth since the early 1960s. Economists say rising efficiency helps explain why companies have expanded business at a healthy clip for two years without needing to hire workers.
NAFTA's opponents say Kerry and Edwards are serving the nation well by highlighting the damage the accord has caused. Critics point, in particular, to a flight of manufacturing jobs across the Mexican border. And Kerry rightfully has complained of Mexico's lax enforcement of NAFTA provisions aimed at raising the country's environmental and labor standards. As a result, many U.S. companies are taking advantage of Mexico's low wages, poor working conditions and minimal environmental rules.
Such failings, however, can be repaired without jettisoning an accord that has been a net plus for the U.S. economy.
A more balanced debate on NAFTA might not win many votes today in an Ohio union hall. But it could help the nation seek strategies to make trade a winner for everyone.
Find this article at:
usatoday.com |
