Zippyjuan
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Messages
- 49,008
Perhaps paradoxically, jobs moving to Mexico is helpful on the illegal alien issue. If there are more jobs in Mexico, there is less incentive to leave the country looking for work and if jobs are leaving the US then there are fewer reasons to come here.
But as many probably know I don't believe in the NAU or the Amero and nor do I support losing jobs from this country to another country. Sure we benefit by getting cheaper goods but at the cost of lower pay and fewer opportunitites for work here. People buying the cheap goods are not concerned about that- they are merely looking at the price they pay out of pocket.
If people make more money they have more money to spend in the economy on other things and support other people's jobs.
But as many probably know I don't believe in the NAU or the Amero and nor do I support losing jobs from this country to another country. Sure we benefit by getting cheaper goods but at the cost of lower pay and fewer opportunitites for work here. People buying the cheap goods are not concerned about that- they are merely looking at the price they pay out of pocket.
If people make more money they have more money to spend in the economy on other things and support other people's jobs.
Austrian Econ Disciple
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 8,264
You are confusing numerative values with the purchasing power. The actual number amount you earn means nothing. What you can purchase with that means everything. Merely having "more" money, doesn't necessitate more "wealth".
I am against NAFTA because it is not free-trade, it is Neo-Mercantilist bullshit.
Free-Trade does not reduce jobs, it both increases employment and increases standard of living. Anyone with any knowledge of Division of Labor will tell you this. This has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt more than 200 years ago. Why are we still having to talk about it?
Let's abolish NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, etc. and have unilateral free-trade agreements with every country (Free entry of goods. Doesn't need 1000+ pages, only needs one).
As a steadfast believer in free trade, Rothbard argued that peace between nations cannot rest on negotiations between state managers. Peace is kept by the network of exchange that develops between private parties. This is why he opposed false "free trade" such as Nafta and Gatt, which have more in common with neo-mercantilism, and he was the first to forecast the disaster Nafta has become.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_3/20_3_4.pdf
^ This is a great read. It is the correspondence between Walter Block and Milton Friedman. Recommend it to everyone.
Zippyjuan
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Messages
- 49,008
Free trade tends to balance wages over the long run which means lower wages in the higher income country and higher wages in the lower income country. Jobs which can be done cheaper in one country will leave the other country and that is what has been happening to the United States. There is little net difference in impact between having a multi-lateral trade agreement vs having single country agreements- only the complexity of them.
Manufacturing jobs in this country used to be fairly well paying ones. The jobs which are remaining are in either government or the service industry which pay less money (and I am talking real wages- how much stuff you can get in exchange for each hour you work- not just getting a higher dollar number on your paycheck).
The net effect so far is lower prices on imports to go with lower real incomes. Are we in net better off right now for that? Or are we hurt by losing employment? I don't have numbers (maybe there aren't any) to say for certain.
Similar threads
