Getin the ring
Verified User
It is ok to be a nationalist
#MAGA
#MAGA
You do realize he has gone full fascist in his speeches
- Thread starter reagansghost
- Start date
Great. So then no whining when we call you Nazis.
it's a big deal because it greatly increases car companies use of parts made here.
it directly effects auto assembly and content production jobs from not being outsourced to cheaper labor in Mexico. Mexico is still cheaper in some cases - but NAFTA doesn't encourage job flight like NAFTA 1 did.
And that money is a big deal for Mexican labor
No.it means foreign supply chains are not significantly cheaper anymore. Make and buy North America
Obama was negotiating TPP - not a new NAFTA.
With Canada in now the agreement is much better for the US and better for NAFTA2 countries as well
How so? 12.5% is a weird number to land on as an increase. What makes up that 12.5%? Like, what components would shift from being made here vs. overseas? It's silent on that.
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
You need to slag a female or two and praise an Aryan nationalist.
It's still cheaper in all cases. $16/hr is where union wages START. So if we're raising some Mexican wages to $16/hr, that's still a level below union and non-union wages.
So this is just like lowering the corporate tax rate to 21%...it's lower, sure, but it's still higher than the tax rate in most of the countries to where businesses have outsourced. So it accomplishes nothing. And raising Mexican wages to $16/hr still makes them cheaper than American labor. So why would any labor shift back to the US since the Mexican wage is still below that of US wages? All that does is increase the cost of production, which is passed onto consumers.
If the goal was to shift production from Mexico back to the US, the wage for the Mexican workers needs to be higher in order to create that opportunity cost incentive.
But they're still cheaper. They're just not significantly cheaper, but they're cheaper nonetheless.
And I thought the goal was to get jobs back from Mexico, not spur more jobs there by raising the wage, but not raising it enough where it's competitive with the average wage US workers get, which is significantly higher than $16/hr.
i edited that to
instead of using parts that are just 10% more then 1/2 made here - it brings the content requirement up to 75%
Sanctions can be applied by one country on another within NAFTA ( not sure if that is just for labor though)
Look at the whole package - it's superior to old NAFTA . Trump did it, and now I hear he's pissed at India..lol
The Trade Deal We Just Threw Overboard: Donald Drumpf wants to rewrite NAFTA, but someone else already did. Here’s how it went down.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ree-trade-deal-obama-renegotiate-nafta-214874
There was never a formal announcement of “NAFTA Modernization Talks.” There were no presidential tweets mocking the original agreement. But behind the scenes, President Barack Obama’s negotiators spent more than three years haggling and battling to update and upgrade the 1994 deal, and they eventually got a lot of what they wanted. Canada reluctantly agreed to give American farmers modest but unprecedented access to its tightly protected dairy industry; Mexico grudgingly agreed to labor reforms with more bite than NAFTA’s toothless union protections. The new deal opened up service sectors like insurance, accounting and express delivery where the United States tends to excel, along with e-commerce and other digital industries that didn’t exist when NAFTA was born. The United States also secured new restrictions on government-owned businesses, new protections for intellectual property and new safeguards for the environment.
But none of those hard-won concessions are going into effect. That’s because the Obama team negotiated all of them as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the 5,500-page Asia-oriented trade agreement among the three NAFTA nations and nine other Pacific Rim countries. TPP was at the heart of Obama’s strategic “pivot to Asia.” But Drumpf saw it as another fleecing of America, and with great fanfare he yanked the United States out of TPP during his first week in office, before Congress could even vote on whether the deal should take effect. That means its upgrades to NAFTA—regarding dairy, labor and everything else Mexico and Canada agreed to—are probably moot.
So Obama was trying to broaden the trade pact with Mexico and Canada to include the other TPP nations. They had already worked out all the things Trump is trying to take credit for.
These changes were already agreed to back when Obama was trying to do TPP; Canada and Mexico were both a part of TPP. The very things that Trump is pretending to take credit for are things Obama had successfully negotiated with our NAFTA partners long before Trump was President.
No, it allows supply chains to be competitive in price to Chinese - decisions are now made on quality and transport etc., rather then just "buy cheap Chinese"
The goal is to grow jobs. Both Mexico and the USA have to win in this agreement. or they won't sign.
By getting more jobs in the NAFTA sector it allow more MExican production but also less outsourcing of existing US auto plants/jobs
Right, but a component isn't 10% built, it's either 0% or 100%. There's no in-between. You don't build 10% of an axle, you build 100% of an axle.
OK?
It's superior in the sense that it improved nominally in some areas...it's still the same NAFTA deal with minor tweaks.
And those tweaks were worked out by Obama in the years prior to Trump, when he was negotiating TPP. Pretty much everything new in this NAFTA agreement came from the deal Obama had worked out with the NAFTA partners, and the rest of the TPP nations.
the problem wit the TPP was it's gargantuan reach in scope and size.
I can't remeber all the details - but the free trade aspects were out weighed by loss of sovereignty.
International corporate lawyers for. ex. could directly sue the USA, not jut US corps.
I'm going by memory on this, but it think that's it. Besides it was just too unwieldly to effectively allow dispute resolution. small nations had inordinate power
I'm sure that is autoparts, not just bare components. either way the economic principle remains the same.
More NAFTA content - less advantages forr Chinese part.
So...manufacturers never did quality control prior to assembling new vehicles? That doesn't sound correct.
Secondly, what decisions are made on transport? That's vague.
Yeah, too bad this doesn't do that. For workers, the only nominal benefit is the increase to the wage of Mexican workers. In total, there are 700,000 Mexican autoworkers. How does raising their wage to that of where union wages start going to grow jobs?
So you want to create jobs in Mexico, not the US. So how does that grow jobs in the US? It doesn't. If anything, by raising the Mexican wage to merely $16/hr, you've created more incentive, not less, for American companies to outsource production to Mexico. Why? Because the $16/hr wage is still lower than what most auto workers get in the US.
All you're doing is increasing the cost to consumers by increasing Mexican labor costs.
You're not creating any jobs by doing that. You're just maintaining the status quo for workers in the US, but making it suckier for consumers who will pay a higher cost.
Raising Mexican wages to $25/hr would have been impactful and would have created a viable debate among manufacturers as to where they should exploit labor.
This doesn't do that. It just maintains the status quo.
That's not a problem. It has to be large because it includes several of the largest economies in the world like the US (largest), Japan (#3), and Canada (#10).
I thought Conservatives liked when things were big. Isn't that one of Trump's hooks? "Bigger and grander"?
Right, and who is challenging that sovereignty in courts? Hint: it's not any government.
Sounds like a free market problem, not a government problem.
Would you support not allowing corporations or individuals to challenge the sovereignty of a nation in international court? Think carefully how you respond.
LOL!
HILARIOUS coming from Conservatives whose only political power comes from inordinate, disproportionate representation in our government. Oh, the delicious irony of it all...
Over-representation is A-OK when it comes to Wyoming getting as many Senators as California, but it's not OK when it comes to international trade deals. Got it.
reagansghost
eternal
I could simply watch Faux News to hear your tired horseshit