SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Only concessions obtained through tough negotiations by labor, environment, and consumer activists made it any better than the status quo. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch--Pool/Getty Images)
U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement--Weak Tea, at Best
The USMCA will in no way offset or reverse the massive devastation caused by the original NAFTA agreement.
Dec 09, 2019
The revised U.S.--Mexico--Canada Agreement (USMCA), announced today by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and endorsed by the AFL-CIO, represents a significant improvement on the draft agreement first released in 2017. Negotiators for labor and House Democrats strengthened the provisions on labor rights, environmental standards, and the enforcement of these rules, and also removed costly and egregious new protections for corporations, including giveaways by the Trump administration to pharmaceutical companies.
But the changes embodied in the USMCA still constitute Band-Aids on a fundamentally flawed agreement and process. Powerful multinational corporations have used and controlled the negotiation of trade and investment deals to facilitate offshoring and the deregulation of the U.S. and global economy, as noted by the Machinists Union, which has announced its opposition to the USMCA. The original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) resulted in the loss of at least 680,000 U.S. jobs due to growing trade deficits with Mexico alone. It also caused downward pressure on the wages of nearly 100 million U.S. workers and the devastation of manufacturing communities across the United States, especially in the industrial Midwest and battleground states--with far-reaching social and electoral consequences.
The USMCA will result, at best, in roughly 51,000 new manufacturing, mining, and farming jobs over the next six years, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission, and it will add a few tenths of one percent to gross domestic product (GDP) growth over this period. On the other hand, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts that the United States, and the auto sector in particular, will be a net loser from this agreement. Thus, these projections are not at all robust. The benefits are tiny, and it's highly uncertain whether the deal will be a net winner or loser, in the end.
As a result, the USMCA will in no way offset or reverse the massive devastation caused by the original NAFTA agreement. Nor is the deal a "model for future trade agreements." The United States should pursue a freeze on all trade negotiations until strategies and policies are put in place to raise living standards, especially for working Americans, as proposed by former EPI President Jeff Faux.
Despite these concerns, the USMCA may yield benefits for workers in a few industries, such as glass and steel. And it may result in significant improvements in labor rights for Mexican workers, which could help them in the long-run. But those changes will have virtually no measurable impacts on wages or incomes for U.S. workers, as shown (unintentionally) by the United States International Trade Commission's USMCA report. Supporting the USMCA is better than having President Trump withdraw from NAFTA, which would pitch North America into economic turmoil, especially for Mexico and Canada. At the end of the day, the USMCA is the best of a set of bad choices. And only concessions obtained through tough negotiations by labor, environment, and consumer activists made it any better than the status quo. As a result, it is better than the alternatives.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Economic Policy Institute
Robert E. Scott
Robert E. Scott is the Senior Economist and Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Research at the Economic Policy Institute.
Thea M. Lee
Thea M. Lee is president of the Economic Policy Institute.
The revised U.S.--Mexico--Canada Agreement (USMCA), announced today by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and endorsed by the AFL-CIO, represents a significant improvement on the draft agreement first released in 2017. Negotiators for labor and House Democrats strengthened the provisions on labor rights, environmental standards, and the enforcement of these rules, and also removed costly and egregious new protections for corporations, including giveaways by the Trump administration to pharmaceutical companies.
But the changes embodied in the USMCA still constitute Band-Aids on a fundamentally flawed agreement and process. Powerful multinational corporations have used and controlled the negotiation of trade and investment deals to facilitate offshoring and the deregulation of the U.S. and global economy, as noted by the Machinists Union, which has announced its opposition to the USMCA. The original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) resulted in the loss of at least 680,000 U.S. jobs due to growing trade deficits with Mexico alone. It also caused downward pressure on the wages of nearly 100 million U.S. workers and the devastation of manufacturing communities across the United States, especially in the industrial Midwest and battleground states--with far-reaching social and electoral consequences.
The USMCA will result, at best, in roughly 51,000 new manufacturing, mining, and farming jobs over the next six years, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission, and it will add a few tenths of one percent to gross domestic product (GDP) growth over this period. On the other hand, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts that the United States, and the auto sector in particular, will be a net loser from this agreement. Thus, these projections are not at all robust. The benefits are tiny, and it's highly uncertain whether the deal will be a net winner or loser, in the end.
As a result, the USMCA will in no way offset or reverse the massive devastation caused by the original NAFTA agreement. Nor is the deal a "model for future trade agreements." The United States should pursue a freeze on all trade negotiations until strategies and policies are put in place to raise living standards, especially for working Americans, as proposed by former EPI President Jeff Faux.
Despite these concerns, the USMCA may yield benefits for workers in a few industries, such as glass and steel. And it may result in significant improvements in labor rights for Mexican workers, which could help them in the long-run. But those changes will have virtually no measurable impacts on wages or incomes for U.S. workers, as shown (unintentionally) by the United States International Trade Commission's USMCA report. Supporting the USMCA is better than having President Trump withdraw from NAFTA, which would pitch North America into economic turmoil, especially for Mexico and Canada. At the end of the day, the USMCA is the best of a set of bad choices. And only concessions obtained through tough negotiations by labor, environment, and consumer activists made it any better than the status quo. As a result, it is better than the alternatives.
Robert E. Scott
Robert E. Scott is the Senior Economist and Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Research at the Economic Policy Institute.
Thea M. Lee
Thea M. Lee is president of the Economic Policy Institute.
The revised U.S.--Mexico--Canada Agreement (USMCA), announced today by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and endorsed by the AFL-CIO, represents a significant improvement on the draft agreement first released in 2017. Negotiators for labor and House Democrats strengthened the provisions on labor rights, environmental standards, and the enforcement of these rules, and also removed costly and egregious new protections for corporations, including giveaways by the Trump administration to pharmaceutical companies.
But the changes embodied in the USMCA still constitute Band-Aids on a fundamentally flawed agreement and process. Powerful multinational corporations have used and controlled the negotiation of trade and investment deals to facilitate offshoring and the deregulation of the U.S. and global economy, as noted by the Machinists Union, which has announced its opposition to the USMCA. The original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) resulted in the loss of at least 680,000 U.S. jobs due to growing trade deficits with Mexico alone. It also caused downward pressure on the wages of nearly 100 million U.S. workers and the devastation of manufacturing communities across the United States, especially in the industrial Midwest and battleground states--with far-reaching social and electoral consequences.
The USMCA will result, at best, in roughly 51,000 new manufacturing, mining, and farming jobs over the next six years, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission, and it will add a few tenths of one percent to gross domestic product (GDP) growth over this period. On the other hand, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts that the United States, and the auto sector in particular, will be a net loser from this agreement. Thus, these projections are not at all robust. The benefits are tiny, and it's highly uncertain whether the deal will be a net winner or loser, in the end.
As a result, the USMCA will in no way offset or reverse the massive devastation caused by the original NAFTA agreement. Nor is the deal a "model for future trade agreements." The United States should pursue a freeze on all trade negotiations until strategies and policies are put in place to raise living standards, especially for working Americans, as proposed by former EPI President Jeff Faux.
Despite these concerns, the USMCA may yield benefits for workers in a few industries, such as glass and steel. And it may result in significant improvements in labor rights for Mexican workers, which could help them in the long-run. But those changes will have virtually no measurable impacts on wages or incomes for U.S. workers, as shown (unintentionally) by the United States International Trade Commission's USMCA report. Supporting the USMCA is better than having President Trump withdraw from NAFTA, which would pitch North America into economic turmoil, especially for Mexico and Canada. At the end of the day, the USMCA is the best of a set of bad choices. And only concessions obtained through tough negotiations by labor, environment, and consumer activists made it any better than the status quo. As a result, it is better than the alternatives.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.