I linked a different article by mistake, so no, the article doesn’t match what I excerpted. My mistake, sorry.
The actual article I wanted to link was this one:
http://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/04/21/automation-job-loss/
Although to address your question, I think it’s a red herring to look at trade volume as indicative of economic health, in any way.
Recall that the US was the fastest growing economy during 1850 and 1950, and we actually had minimal international trade.
So the volume of trade with Mexico (or any other country) is actually irrelevant. Trade follows economic growth (because you produce surpluses), it doesn’t cause it.
That being said, I think trade was healthier before NAFTA, because right now there are hundreds of thousands unemployed, whereas before this wasn’t an issue.
Looking only at bilateral trade can be very misleading.
Trading for what Mexico produces best can mean that we have a better deal with a different country.
You have to look at overall trade, in all areas.
The dollars that go to Mexico have to be spent somewhere. Maybe they are traded to Europe or China, which then spends them in the U.S.
There are many definitions that have to be taken into account. The old definitions ignore or disguise advantages and disadvantages.
It is no where as simple as this author makes it to be.
Having said that, I am not a pure free trader. Many of the “deals” we have made have resulted in the theft of intellectual property of U.S. property owners.