Comments (15) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
One way to push a jobs agenda
Tools
Union members chose Labor Day to stage a rally in downtown Chicago, opposing a proposed new Pacific Rim free-trade agreement.
Several hundred activists called for "a fair deal or no deal," asserting a simple multi-party agreement to reduce trade barriers could "jeopardize jobs, health and the environment," the Chicago Sun-Times reports.
The rally took place as negotiators for Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States prepared to gather at the Hilton Chicago for the eighth round of talks on the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
"Hundreds of thousands of workers here in Chicago and all over the Midwest are out of jobs because of bad trade agreements like NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) that did so much to push down the value of people's labor in this country ... " Tom Balanoff, president of the Service Employees International Union Illinois State Council, told the gathering.
But American factories paid higher wages than the rest of the world for decades because America led in capital formation and technical innovation, meaning each hour of American labor was really worth more. America's economic power also came from the lack of tariff barriers between the 50 states -- "free trade" on steroids, dating back centuries.
As the rest of the world adopts those methods -- even as Washington's taxmen and regulators pile new costs on American businesses -- isolating this nation behind tariff walls can't help. Protectionism is a two-way street; no nation can long expect to "protect" inefficiencies and unrealistic wages without seeing its own products frozen out, overseas.
The Obama administration contends it's pushing the trade pact, saying it's committed to increasing those exports and -- thus -- creating more domestic jobs.
Great. But why then has the administration failed to send to Congress final legislation on three other pending free trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama -- deals that were signed more than four years ago by George W. Bush, but went nowhere in a Democrat-controlled Congress?
Together, those three trade agreements could account for another $3 billion in U.S. agricultural exports.
Even some Democrats now favor the three stalled free-trade pacts, agreeing that opening more markets to U.S. goods will bring long-term economic benefits.
"It's becoming absolutely excruciating for the business community," John Murphy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told The Associated Press.
The Obama administration has already added to the agreements a sop to organized labor via more spending on "job training" for workers who, according to the unions, lose their jobs because of free trade.
So what's left to debate? As President Obama returns this week to his on-again, off-again "laser-like focus on jobs," the White House should make these deals a top priority, delivering them to Congress for quick approval.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
the more the empty suit applies its "boot on the neck" to u.s. entrepreneur-employers, the faster they set up shop off shore. any shore. it's only common sense. that applies to u.s. businesses large and small. even to citizens that've worked hard and accumulated some assets. it's only sensible move them out of the way of a careening bus with a drunk at the wheel.
Does anyone remember 1992 Independent Presidential candidate Ross Perot and what he said during one of the presidential debates? Mr Perot claimed there would be a "Giant Sucking Sound", the sound of American jobs going to Mexico and other places if NAFTA passed. Bill Clinton, supported NAFTA, which went into effect on January 1, 1994. Boy, that Ross Perot sure was wrong about all the jobs leaving America, right??? America prospered before all of the FREE trade agreements were signed. Free trade= Americans without jobs and Multinational Corporations with billions of $. . .
it's only common sense that ford would follow the money. with india's now 1 billion potential customers, seems to me that there's room for indian, chinese, european and american showrooms there. likely the indian designed/built cars will be $3-4k but will lack the "needed", "for the children", for the buyer's "own good"... side airbags. some mph crash bumpers, roll bars, non glare knobs, anti-lock brakes, multiple stage "smog" devices, "computer command" black boxes, etc. and they'll get 50 + mpg and have enough room for ma, pa plus one bambino and/or box of groceries. such a car wouldn't "be available" in the u.s. under the designs permitted by the professional pant seat polishers in washington. the same ones that can't open the hood of their own car. yet for some reason those same dolts think that a 2 wheeled motorcycle that can't stand up by itself, is "safe". safe without seat belts, air bags, roll over protection, at interstate highway speeds.
Ford At Greater Risk of Strike After Avoiding Bailout Money
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/09/05/ford-at-greater-risk-strike-after-avoiding-bailout-money/
Ford to build billion dollar plant in India: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/28/us-ford-india-idUSTRE76R0OA20110728
Several hundred activists called for "a fair deal or no deal"
The English language version of the Treaty between Brunei, Singapore, Chile, and New Zealand -- which I guess is what we're talking about adding our name to -- is 160 pages long. If the government would just do *nothing* we'd have free trade.
BIG Government. Great news for lobbyists and International Lawyers.
"Fair" trade means Americans get screwed for the benefit of the special interests.
Public Employee Unions are ruining the United States...including LVMPD and CCFD.
"hundreds of thousands" of chicagoans are "out of work" [at their former wage & benefit packages]. who is at fault ? the more industrious, hungrier workers down the street, in the next state, or in *any* other country ? the unionized drones have to look no further than their paid union "leaders".
This is another thought free, knee jerk RJ editorial. Like crabby old men, the just gripe about their pet peeves. Without endorsing the actions of US union leaders, I would love to ask the RJ editor to explain Germany. The value of their export trade is greater than ours, the average German worker makes a lot more than a Malaysian or Chineese worker, and Germany is heavily union and socialist. How do they survive? For those who are willing to learn, could there be a lesson or two there?
Open more markets to US goods? What US goods...jobs? This is opening more markets to increase our trade imbalance and nothing more. Why not free trade with Bangladesh, I hear they can't wait to get their hands on the new Camaro.