"There’s an argument over what trade agreements do to workers in the nation’s rich countries, but there is no question they have a positive impact on people in the poorer ones.
. . . .
Democrats point out that some workers have been hurt by trade deals. And that’s true. Most manufacturing job losses have been caused by technological improvements.
But those manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back. The best way forward is to increase the number of high-quality jobs in the service sector. The Pacific trade deal would help."
Hey, David, don't you think that before Congress approves the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the effect on American workers should be known? True, economics is not an exact science, but if the Trans-Pacific Partnership has the potential to harm American workers, shouldn't that damage be carefully delineated?
And what's this nonsense about writing off American manufacturing and manufacturing jobs? American (and Israeli) hi-tech should be allowed to revive American manufacturing with attendant growth in employment.
This time, House Democrats (and Hillary - it hurts me to say it) got it right.
"some workers" ?? does that include the one million USA manufacturing jobs that migrated to Canada after NAFTA by 2002, because Canada's unit labor cost does not include medical insurance?
ReplyDeleteThe real issue is that no one should trust Obama with fast-track authority on anything.
Mr. Brooks is still captive to that post-industrial service economy idea that caused Mayor Bloomberg to cancel vocational education in high schools, because, after all, everyone should become lawyers who needs no auto mechanics, or plumbers, or even to deploy city workers to repair the sewer lines before causing a deadly gas explosion.
Mr. Brooks fails to notice how many German and Japanese manufacturers have factories in [red state]the USA, where labor and energy costs make sense.
Mr. Brooks needs a vacation in the BMW complex in Spartanburg, South Carolina to understand why manufacturing matters.
k