Prof. Gordon Lafer: Obama's NAFTA-style Korea trade treaty would cost U.S. jobs

[brentspeak]

http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/25935778-47/jobs-trade-treaty-korea-nafta.html.csp

While most Oregonians have all their energy focused on keeping their families economically secure, few may be aware that President Obama, congressional Republicans and the nation’s biggest corporate lobbies are teaming up on something that will undermine middle-class job prospects for years to come: another North American Free Trade Agreement-style treaty, this time with Korea.

snip

We’ve seen almost 5 million jobs leave the country since NAFTA was passed — many of them well-paying manufacturing jobs that were the backbone of the middle class. If we continue on our current path of NAFTA-style agreements, competition will slowly but inevitably bring America down to the level of our lower-wage trading partners. No amount of cleverness and no high-tech “jobs of tomorrow” can replace the millions of middle-class jobs that keep disappearing from our economy. On the contrary, it’s become increasingly common for even higher-wage professional and technical work to be outsourced to lower-wage labor abroad.

President Obama claims that the Korea agreement will create 70,000 new jobs by boosting American exports. This is true. But what he doesn’t say is that, according to the administration’s own study, the number of jobs lost to foreign imports will be even greater. When you need to hide or manipulate numbers to make your case, it’s not the sign of a sound policy.

snip

There is really only one reason for elected officials to support these treaties: to curry favor with big-money corporate donors. While the American people are against more NAFTAs, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the nation’s biggest corporations are salivating at the prospect of yet more opportunities to hire ever-lower-paid workers. The Chamber of Commerce is the largest lobby in the United States, and when senators look to where they will raise money for their next election, they inevitably turn first and foremost to wealthy individuals and big business.

snip

Gordon Lafer is an associate professor at the University of Oregon’s Labor Education and Research Center. In 2009-10 he served as senior labor policy adviser for the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Education and Labor.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brentspeak]

7. I'm sure the military sons and daughters of the soon-to-be laid off US workers

will be thrilled to know that Obama intends to continue to stupidly throw them into Death's way chasing a phantom enemy on behalf of a corrupt government in Afghanistan. Well done.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brentspeak]

13. Apparently, your job here is to distract readers' attention from a thread's actual content

through the use of insults and clumsy smears.

I sure don't remember you lambasting idiot son. Hmmm....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1940780&mesg_id=1943727
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-19-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Hamiliton would have despised Bush

As would all the other Founders. Bush has played games with the Constitution and neglected national security (30 day vacation), not to mention inserted more religion into the government than the Founders would have ever tolerated.

But all the Founders to a man would be steaming mad if they knew the kind of political bribery (lobbying) that has taken over American politics.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x801036

brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue May-01-07 09:10 PM
Original message
The problem, people, has been George Bush (and Dick Cheney).

Edited on Tue May-01-07 09:16 PM by brentspeak
The problem for the past seven years has always been George Bush and Dick Cheney. It hasn't been Dick Durbin, or Nancy Pelosi, or John Edwards, or Fu Manchu, or Donald Duck.

Even if every Republican in Congress had been opposed to the Iraq War, it wouldn't have mattered a bit in the end: Bush was going to invade Iraq, no matter what. Rick Santorum could have gone on a hunger strike, naked, outside the White House, to protest against any upcoming invasion, and still Bush would have launched the invasion. Tom DeLay could have held a peace-in, marching hand-in-hand with Wavy Gravy and Jesse Jackson, and yet the war would have happened, regardless. (Not like those two miscreants didn't help foster the war -- they did, quite a bit -- but their support wasn't necessary, for all practical purposes.)

If I didn't know better, you'd think it was Dick Durbin or Nancy Pelosi themselves who signed the veto today, the way some people have made it sound. Sheesh.

[Union Scribe]

23. And it's worked, look at the mess they made in this thread.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

6. "While most Oregonians have all their energy focused

on keeping their families economically secure, few may be aware that President Obama, congressional Republicans and the nation’s biggest corporate lobbies are teaming up on something that will undermine middle-class job prospects for years to come: another North American Free Trade Agreement-style treaty, this time with Korea."

Isn't that why they have Senators and Representatives? Wait...

"As chairman of the Senate’s subcommittee on International Trade, Oregon’s own Sen. Ron Wyden will play a key role in determining whether the new treaty is approved or shelved, and he is officially undecided on the issue."

Treaty still have to be ratified by Congress.

[brentspeak]

8. And this is why we elected a Democratic president?

[ProSense]

9. He was elected to run the country

Not everyone is going to agree with all his policies. In fact, there are Democrats, including some who voted against NAFTA, who support the current agreement.

[brentspeak]

10. Yes, he's not just the president of the average Joe, but also of sociopathic Wall Streeters

Particularly the latter. And if the majority of the nation is http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2008/56_want_nafta_renegotiated_americans_divided_on_free_trade">against NAFTA and NAFTA-like legislation, well...that just means that "not everyone is going to agree with all his policies."

Remarkable observation of yours', by the way, that "not everyone" is going to agree with "all" of Obama's policies. Really nails things down with pinpoint specificity and settles any issues one might have with Obama once-and-for-all.

[ClarkUSA]

29. dupe

[ClarkUSA]

30. ... whose excesses he reined in via his Wall Street reform bill. Just ask Elizabeth Warren.

NYT: "Bankers Line Up To Meet Elizabeth Warren"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x621181

And yes, President Obama represents the entire country and its interests, not just those of the people who have nothing good to say about him. It's a balancing act, and there will always be those who will attack him for not doing exactly as they wish.

[amandabeech]

16. It costs much, much more to run for the House and the Senate than it did

when NAFTA was passed back in the '90s.

And now the Supreme Court has laid waste to campaign finance reforms.

That only means that each seat will cost even more money.

And who are the people who have money today?

That's right. The people who will get even more money if this trade agreement passes.

For those of you at ProSense who don't remember Watergate and didn't take the class or see the movie, here's the key sentence: "Follow the money."

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[StarsInHerHair]

15. well I know these corps. are too STUPID to understand that without those

jobs, their corporate crap won't sell!

[Vinca]

17. What jobs are left to give away?

Will we be outsourcing burger flippers and Walmart greeters? The race to the bottom continues.

[PVnRT]

18. We already have free trade agreements with South Korea

I know because they are exempt from the requirements of the Buy American Act for government contractors.

In fact, according to the Procurement people where I work, per FAR 25.402, South Korea is a member of the NAFTA Act. So I'm not sure what "new" deals we could actually be signing here.

[vaberella]

19. It's a hit piece to rile people against the President---facts don't matter here. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

20. Not anymore. nt

[Union Scribe]

22. Yeah a hit piece by a labor professor. Right.

You're right that facts don't matter here, but it isn't the way you think.

[polichick]

25. Why not argue the issue if you can? nt

[Exilednight]

32. Total bullshit. Here's a copy of FAR 25.402. Nowhere does it even mention South Korea.

25.402 General.
(a)(1) The Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2501, et seq.) provides the authority for the President to waive the Buy American Act and other discriminatory provisions for eligible products from countries that have signed an international trade agreement with the United States, or that meet certain other criteria, such as being a least developed country. The President has delegated this waiver authority to the U.S. Trade Representative. In acquisitions covered by the WTO GPA, Free Trade Agreements, or the Israeli Trade Act, the USTR has waived the Buy American Act and other discriminatory provisions for eligible products. Offers of eligible products receive equal consideration with domestic offers.
(2) The contracting officer shall determine the origin of services by the country in which the firm providing the services is established. See Subpart 25.5 for evaluation procedures for supply contracts covered by trade agreements.
(b) The value of the acquisition is a determining factor in the applicability of trade agreements. Most of these dollar thresholds are subject to revision by the U.S. Trade Representative approximately every 2 years. The various thresholds are summarized as follows:
Trade Agreement Supply Contract (equal to or exceeding) Service Contract (equal to or exceeding) Construction Contract (equal to or exceeding)

WTO GPA $194,000 $194,000 $7,443,000
FTAs
Australia FTA 67,826 67,826 7,443,000
Bahrain FTA 194,000 194,000 8,817,449
CAFTA-DR (Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua) 67,826 67,826 7,443,000
Chile FTA 67,826 67,826 7,443,000
Morocco FTA 194,000 194,000 7,443,000
NAFTA
—Canada 25,000 67,826 8,817,449
—Mexico 67,826 67,826 8,817,449
Oman FTA 194,000 194,000 8,817,449
Peru FTA 194,000 194,000 7,443,000
Singapore FTA 67,826 67,826 7,443,000
Israeli Trade Act 50,000 — —


https://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2025_4.html

[dionysus]

21. you win, obama is EVIL....i'm a larouche man now!

:woohoo::party::woohoo:

[polichick]

24. Yet another silly post because you have no argument. nt

[ClarkUSA]

28. LOL!

:rofl:

[bvar22]

26. K&R for America's Working Class.

Looks like a few people really made a mess upthread.

Hey! I've got a great idea!
Lets remove all regulations from Corporations so that they can have access to slave labor anywhere in the World!
Who is FOR it?


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


"By their works you will know them."

[ClarkUSA]

27. Does the author have any proof to back up his crystal ball prediction?

How does Lafer know that exports to Korea won't create more jobs in the US than anyone is expecting?

[robcon]

31. Free trade is a job creator and a boon to the economy.

Free trade should be the rule everywhere.

[former9thward]

33. Free trade is a job killer.

All 50 states have lost jobs due to NAFTA. But don't let facts get in the way of your chant. http://www.epi.org/pages/briefingpapers_nafta01_impactstates/