From what I have heard it is very true that the United states of American has a whole not necessarily a certain part of the country but all have been effected by this agreement. This agreement has had negative consequences on us because it has made us lose numerous amounts of jobs.
The United States big business, politicians and wall street wizards have sold the average American down the river. The lower class and middle class have been sacrificed for the short term quick buck. I feel that it is treasonous that this has happened to Americans. I understand that Free Trade was supposed to even the playing field for wages and living conditions across the globe. It was sold as a way to lift up the living conditions of the third world countries and to provide Americans with cheaper goods. Manufacturers were all for it and it seems that they got their reward of higher profits off the backs of cheap over seas labor, no regulations of workers environment or global environment and of course no import taxes paid. Which is why we now have lost the middle class industrial jobs along with employer provided health care resulting in a broken economy and a health care crisis. The Fat Cats and our politicians have sacrificed this country to fill their pockets. We are a weaker country because most of our necessary products needed to live are manufactured over seas leaving us more vulnerable if we were engaged in a world war. Even the majority our military needs are not manufactured in this country. We are sitting ducks......Yes to fair trade....No to free trade.
Companies do not encounter any obstacles if they wish to relocate abroad - mostly to Mexico. However, this seems to be the best thing to do for companies and this agreement is not the only reason for the hardship the Rust Belt has to face. It could nevertheless have contained a clause regarding relocation.
Too many jobs are being ripped from the hands of those who live within the Rust Belt. These companies that have long-standing traditions in the United States have been taken away and sent to countries where the labor is cheap and the ability to make parts quickly improves. However, it has been shown that the quality of the products also go down, because they are working so quickly. We need to keep our own Americans employed.
The NAFTA allowed companies to move all their production plants into other countries like Mexico, where they do not have to pay minimum wages, health benefits and other restrictions that exist in America. This has always been an option for companies, what has changes is the cost of shipping the products back into America is next to nothing. This means that it is cheaper and easier to make it somewhere else and ship it half way around the world than it is to make it locally. This agreement is bleeding money out of America into other countries with very little coming back in because we produce nothing any more but raw resources.
It is a verifiable fact that tens of thousands of jobs have fled south of the border because of NAFTA. Just take a look at North Carolina's textile industry as an example. Textiles used to be one of the top industries in North Carolina until the passage of NAFTA when industries began closing down because they could no longer compete with cheaper goods from Mexico.
By allowing these jobs to be stolen from an important industry bearing economy, we are creating a vacuum within our internal support structure that may very well spell the downfall of what is left of our industry bearing society. This may cause a shift in power that could ultimately deteriorate our status among the world superpowers within the allied forces.
The Rust Belt region has suffered heavy job losses since NAFTA was enacted. It became more beneficial for companies to close their factories and companies in this area, and so they did. This lead to unemployment so high that it became an issue during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Many have suggested repealing NAFTA in the hopes of helping the local economy resurrect itself.
Mexico is a country with a large population and a large labor force accustomed to low wages. The North American Free Trade Agreement allowed manufacturing companies from the United States of America to shift operations to the United States of Mexico. In simple economic terms, the supply of labor went up so the market price of labor went down - below the prevailing wages in the Rust Belt. So jobs disappeared.
NAFTA looks good on paper. But unfortunately, it looks not so good for the American worker. As revenue was funneled more to the top, and away from the workers, jobs started to go away, especially in the poorer areas of the country like the Rust Belt. When those industries moved away or downsized, it affected whole towns who were dependent on the direct and indirect income from the jobs those corporations offered.
The trade agreement NAFTA has actually increased trade for American companies. This has led to more employment being created because of the increased economic activity. The more free trade worldwide, the more beneficial to American employees.
International economics clearly illustrates that any protection of jobs, whether it be through takes, tariffs, or, in other words, trade that is not free, only protects jobs at the cost of the consumer. We, in America, must pay more for a good than we should, if it is manufactured in the U.S., rather than elsewhere. If we were willing to pay, then we would not need to protect jobs. And, if people were willing to work for reasonable wages, then we would not need to protect jobs. The only thing that stands as a barrier to trade protection is an inflated standard of living for people that don't deserve it.
The North American Free Trade Agreement opens trade lines and removes tariffs between countries in North America. Industrial supplies and factory-made cars are generally imported from overseas, with a price premium because of tariffs. Although there are some sectors of the economy that may have been hurt by this, the Rust Belt is not one of them.
Free trade agreements are an important economic freedom, and should be supported. I don't think the North American Free Trade Agreement has taken too many jobs away from the rust belt, because I don't believe those jobs "belong" to rust belt workers. They belong to whoever is willing to do the work at the best price. In general, people from Mexico need the jobs more than U.S. citizens do. Though individual jobs may be lost, the Free Trade Agreement tends to benefit all of the signatory countries.
The Act in question commonly referred to as NAFTA has minimal if any negative impact on jobs lost in the Rust Belt areas. Granted jobs have seeped away from this industrial area, but they are in heavy industries such as iron steel production and heavy machinery. Those jobs did not move to plants in either Canada or Mexico. The lost jobs have moved to areas in Asia for the most part where they are much more competitive. The nature of the American economy is changing and this area must adapt to this change.
The North American Trade Agreement has moved some jobs from the United States to Mexico because it is more cost efficient to produce things in Mexico and they have labor for that. The U.S. labor market is now oriented to different tasks, more technological and less in the manufacturing area. So, the trade agreement is making available more specialized jobs in the United States and providing better products and less expensive products to consumers in all three countries.
I don't believe that North American Free Trade Agreement has taken too many U.S. jobs away because although there are still factory jobs being shipped overseas these jobs will soon be extinct. Technology is advancing in the era of the computer. Soon we will pretty much program the computer to do just about everything. Those who have the knowledge of computers will be in for great jobs around the U.S.