If Mexican trucks can move across the border, and the Mexican port at Baja is almost done (2014)...

[NightWatcher]

What's to keep the business that comes in to the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach from being relocated 150 miles South of Tijuana where I'm sure they could find workers willing to work for less than at the American ports?

The Port of Los Angeles employs more than a thousand direct employees and indirectly over a million people have jobs because of the port. http://www.portoflosangeles.org/about/facts.asp

The Port at Long Beach... 30,000 jobs (about one in eight) in Long Beach. 316,000 jobs (or one in 22) in the five-county Southern California region. and 1.4 million jobs throughout the U.S. are related to Long Beach-generated trade. http://www.polb.com/about/facts.asp


Please tell me that I'm wrong and this isn't another horrible offshoot of NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT.......

[jdlh8894]

1. Are they Union?

[lob1]

2. I think you're right. Our ports will become too expensive

to keep.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. How would this be "another horrible offshoot of NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT" -- ?

ANYTHING Mexico does is now described as being an offshoot of NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT -- or as part of an evil invasion of poor Mexicans intent on taking our jobs.

--d!

[NightWatcher]

6. NAFTA fucks over the Mexican workers just like it fucks over American workers

I'm not blaming the Mexicans, had we not ruined their rural farm structure with our Uber Farms, many of the the migrant workers would not have had to flee here for work. I fault no one for going where the work is, I'd do the same.

NAFTA was a gift to the globalist corporations at the expense of the workers of the world.

[HereSince1628]

4. God bless Walmart, it needs to keep those smily faces

on the isle ends.

[AndyTiedye]

5. Doesn't That Area of Mexico Have a Bit of a Crime Problem?

What will happen to those truckloads of valuable stuff driving up the road through Mexico?

Mexican longshoremen may be cheaper, but losing your entire shipment may offset the savings.

[Mugweed]

7. That was the point in buildng it.

It will be the replacement, cheaper, Mexican alternative. That's why they first had to make sure trucking was taken care of before the port was finished.

[Thunderstruck]

12. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner here! Tell him what he's won, Rod!

[Citizen Worker]

8. Think the entire west coast ports being shut down and rerouted through ports in Mexico. Several

years ago ILWU Local 19 had a map of planned port construction in Mexico. Recalling that map there were 9 new ports being proposed. My guess, given the acceptance of Mexican trucks on US roads and highways, is that those ports are now complete and ready to begin putting US west coast ports out of work.

Another rarely mentioned rule change necessitated by NAFTA is that trucks are now permitted to carry gross weight loads of 105,500 pounds in accordance with the standards in Mexico. Our roads, bridges and highways were built for gross weight vehicles of 80,000 pounds, a 25% increase in weight limits. Do you think that this may cause damage to roads, bridges and highways? You bet, they already have. Just remember that the next time you pay a toll to travel on that new roadway or cross that bridge. You're paying for the damage caused by 105,500 pound GVWR trucks. Happy days!

[Turbineguy]

10. The Americans put out of work will have

more money to buy shit. Repub Econ 101. Those fucked up roads? Don't fix them, privatize them!

[taught_me_patience]

9. Probably won't have much affect

Wages are just a fraction of port and transportation costs. One guy in a crane can offload millions in merchandise off a ship.

If there is less port traffic, it would mean less smog for those of us that live in Long Beach, though!

[soryang]

11. You're not wrong, this is the plan n/t

[greendog]

13. I think most of that freight will travel into the US by rail.

The new port will compete with US ports but the trucking industry probably wont be affected.

That said, the new rules allowing Mexican trucks into the US will impact US drivers by taking a lot of good freight (long miles) away from higher paid US drivers.

The other potential issue is Mexican fuel which is cheaper and dirtier. They'll enter the US with full tanks and travel several hundred miles before refueling. Maybe their trucks can be made to meet our emission standards or maybe we'll look the other way?

[a la izquierda]

18. Mexican fuel is cheaper?

Negligibly so, if at all. And Pemex's infrastructure is crumbling, so it won't be cheaper for long.

[greendog]

19. I was a long haul driver in the late '90's.

I always assumed their diesel was less expensive. Don't know if that was something I read or just made up because it seemed logical. Pretty sure I read their fuel had a higher sulfur content.

[a la izquierda]

Ohhh, duh.

I wasn't even thinking about diesel. You may very well be right about that, but they produce their own oil, so I don't know for sure.

[a la izquierda]

24. Delete-dupe Computer Fart

[Mimosa]

21. Greendog is right. We are being turned into beggers, serfs. n/t

[jwirr]

14. The ports and the union workers in them have just be outsourced.

Nice deal Obamna. :puke:

[Throd]

15. It is an end run around the Longshoremen

[county worker]

16. I heard this morning that the plan is to move shipping to Mexico

[Stinky The Clown]

17. You are not wrong to worry

[Hugabear]

20. Ross Perot was absolutely right about what would happen...

Crazy as a fucking loon, but he was dead right about this one particular issue.

[Mimosa]

22. I remember. Perot was an ENEMY to the Bush Family. n/t

[MadHound]

23. Funny how that's all working out now, isn't it.

This is exactly the plan that's going to go down. A large part of our shipping and ports industry is going to go south of the border, where labor is cheap.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

25. What Bush started is what Obama is finishing. nt