Skip to comments.Wrong About Mexico
Posted on 03/03/2008 5:08:46 AM PST by Brilliant
After watching the Obama-Clinton debate ... I came away convinced that both candidates ...want to run this country like Argentina... In that country, Juan Peron-inspired labor syndicates ...dominate the economy... have ensured Argentina's isolation from international commerce and investment, and a slow but steady decline in living standards...
If an American lost a job in the past decade, the charge goes, it's because in Mexico business has no labor obligations. This claim is not only untrue, it is the opposite of reality. Mexico is home to militant, high-powered unions and the most burdensome labor regulation in North America...
Nafta has done a lot for Mexico but there are some things it can't cure. Chief among these are the infirmities caused by too much labor-market regulation. Hiring...a worker is so costly that employers go to great lengths to avoid taking on new employees. This produces an excess of workers relative to demand, depressing wages and benefits.
Yet it is not only high mandated costs that reduce opportunities. Employment ...requires union membership -- there is no such thing as a "right-to-work" state in Mexico -- and if a worker is expelled from the union, he loses his job. This gives union bosses extraordinary power... harms productivity and helps explain why Pemex, the oil monopoly with one of the country's most dominant unions, registered a net loss of $484 million last year, when oil prices were sky high...
With such harassment, it's easy to see why many workers end up in the underground economy where exploitation is more likely...
What could be done to slow Mexican emigration is to liberalize Mexico's labor markets. But if last week's debate is any indication, what the candidates have in mind is not to make Mexico's labor market look more like the U.S.'s but vice versa.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Hard to believe... she's a Mick!
Actually its George Bush thats is the Peron-ista.. GW is Juan Peron?... Ugh Oh!.. the Bushbots are not to going to like that a bit..
“Mexico is home to militant, high-powered unions and the most burdensome labor regulation in North America.”
Oh really. And what hourly pay have these “high powered unions” manged to win for their members from American corporations that have relocated to Mexico? Is it up to total compensation of $2.00 per hour yet? Maybe $3.00.
Union shut downs of factories don’t necessarily result in higher wages. But they hurt the economy nevertheless.
“Actually its George Bush thats is the Peron-ista.”
Your assessment is correct in my opinion. I am amazed that the fellow Peronista’s at the WSJ actually published this except to draw attention away from McCain and Bush.
Note my tag line.
“At a labor rally in Mexico City, the general secretary of the union said that they planned to tell the candidate that the opening of the agricultural sector under Nafta is the cause of migration north and that if something isn’t done, the “social crisis will intensify and tomorrow you’re not going to be able to control it.” This is puzzling since the Obama campaign says “this [the meeting] is not happening and never was.”
Is this news to someone? NAFTA opponents stated in 1992 and 1993 that the agreement would undercut small farmers in Mexico and increase illegal immigration into the US.- Just as it was known that Mexico would have to devalue the peso after NAFTA passage. They did and it made illegal entry to the US even more attractive as the dollar bought even more when sent back to Mexico.
The maquiladora plants that preceded NAFTA , and NAFTA were both sold as schemes that would decrease illegal immigration from Mexico. Both had the opposite effect, as illegal entry has increased steadily for two or more decades.
Guess we can wait for the next “solution”.
“If an American lost a job in the past decade, the charge goes, it’s because in Mexico business has no labor obligations. This claim is not only untrue, it is the opposite of reality. Mexico is home to militant, high-powered unions and the most burdensome labor regulation in North America...”
No, if an American lost a job, it’d be because wages in the US were probably $12 - 15 per hour while wages in Mexico were around $2.00 per hour.
The WSJ and other free trade ideologues love to spin scenarios where all these other factors are the reason, when in reality it’s the cheap labor that is always the overriding reason for moving production to Mexico, China or other cheap labor nations.
Bothersome unions, corruption and other factors might be complicating factors in those nations, but keep that wage around a buck or two per hour and there will be no shortage of corporations from America and other nations willing to produce there and export to the US.
They devalued the peso because they inflated before their election and couldn't hold the peg.
“They devalued the peso because they inflated before their election and couldn’t hold the peg.”
That might be true, but as it related to the NAFTA debate, Gore and others made much of the fact that we had an almost $1 billion trade surplus with Mexico. That was being helped along by the overvalued peso which made Mexican exports to the US more expensive. Once the peso was more realistically valued after NAFTA passage, it was obvious that Mexican exports to the US would be cheaper and therefore increase. And US exports to Mexico would become more expensive and that small trade surplus would be long gone.
That played a part in the debate, but every half honest person (which included few proponents of NAFTA) knew that small trade surplus would be gone in flash as soon as the peso was devalued.
You're funny! Learn some history.
Once the peso was more realistically valued after NAFTA passage, it was obvious that Mexican exports to the US would be cheaper and therefore increase
And if NAFTA didn't pass and the peso was revalued, what would have happened?
And US exports to Mexico would become more expensive and that small trade surplus would be long gone.
Hmmmm......it almost sounds like you're not blaming NAFTA for the trade deficit with Mexico.
From the US Government web site:
NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance
If Imports from Canada or Mexico Cost You Your Job . . . Apply for
NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance
NAFTA-TRANSITIONAL ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) Program was established under the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 1993. The NAFTA-TAA Program combines aspects of two laws that have been in effect for many years: Title I of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Program, under the Trade Act of 1974.
The NAFTA-TAA Program assists workers who lose their jobs or whose hours of work and wages are reduced as a result of trade with, or a shift in production to, Canada or Mexico. The NAFTA-TAA Program provides affected workers with both rapid and early response to the threat of unemployment and the opportunity to engage in long-term training while receiving income support.
The NAFTA-TAA Program offers help to workers whose companies have been directly or indirectly impacted as a result of trade with or a shift in production to Canada or Mexico, known as primary and secondary firms, respectively. Primary firms are those adversely affected by trade with Canada or Mexico, or who shift production to Mexico or Canada. Secondary firms are those which supply materials to primary firms and/or assemble or finish products of primary firm. Family farmers and farm workers that do not meet the group eligibility requirement are also considered under the procedures for secondary firms.
The NAFTA-TAA Program provides a comprehensive, timely array of retraining and reemployment services to all affected workers. The program extends rapid response and basic readjustment services to those who are eligible. Workers in primary firms receive these benefits under the NAFTA-TAA program, however, workers in secondary firms receive assistance under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act.
HOW TO APPLY
A Petition for NAFTA-TAA may be filed by a group of three or more workers, their employer, union or community-based organization. Petition forms may be obtained from the local State Employment Security Agency or from any agency designated by the governor to provide reemployment services under the NAFTA-TAA program.
Petitioners should complete and sign the petition and send it to the address indicated on the back of the petition form. If a petition is filed by an employer, a union official, a community-based organization, a family farmer or a farm worker, only one petitioner signature is required. Otherwise, the petition must be signed by at least three workers.
ESTABLISHING ELIGIBILITY FOR NAFTA-TAA:
A FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP
Overall responsibility for investigating the worker group’s eligibility is shared by the governor of the State where the workers’ company is located and the U.S. Department of Labor, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. When the state receives a petition for assistance, the governor makes a preliminary finding as to whether the petition meets certain eligibility criteria. This finding must be issued within 10 days of receipt of the petition. The U.S. Department of Labor then makes a final determination of eligibility within 30 days of receipt of the preliminary finding.
In order for the U.S. Department of Labor to issue a Certification Regarding Eligibility, the following requirements must be met:
(1) that workers have been totally or partially laid off, and
(2) that sales or productions have declined, and
(A) that increased imports from Canada or Mexico have contributed importantly to worker layoffs, or
(B) that there has been a shift in production to Canada or Mexico.
Once the U.S. Department of Labor issues a Certification Regarding Eligibility, trade affected workers may apply for benefits under the NAFTA-TAA Program.
When a determination by the U.S. Department of Labor states that petitioning workers do not meet the eligibility requirements under this program, the petition is immediately reviewed under the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to determine if coverage is available.
Workers whose petitions for NAFTA-TAA are denied by the U.S. Department of may appeal the denial or request administrative reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor’s finding within 30 days after publication of the final determination in the Federal Register.
The request for reconsideration must be in writing, including the NAFTA-TAA investigation number and a description of the group of workers on whose behalf the petition was filed, and must cite specific reasons why the workers consider the decision to be in error, either according to the facts, the interpretation of the facts, or the law itself. Requests for reconsideration should be mailed to the U.S. Department of Labor, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room C-5311, Washington, D.C. 20210, (202) 693-3560.
Workers may also file an appeal seeking judicial review of the U.S. Department of Labor’s negative determination or redetermination within 60 days of publication of the denial in the Federal Register. Appeals for judicial review must be filed with the Office of the Clerk, U.S. Court of International Trade, One Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, (212) 264-7090.
The NAFTA-TAA program emphasizes a comprehensive, timely array of retraining and reemployment services tailored to meet the needs of the individual workers. Major activities and services include:
Rapid Response Assistance and Basic Readjustment Services When the Dislocated Worker Unit in a State is alerted to the possibility of a layoff or plant closing, it responds quickly with on-site services. These may include efforts to let workers know they are eligible to apply for the NAFTA-TAA program and to enroll them in it. Once in the program, workers receive an assessment of their individual skills and abilities as well as financial and personal counseling to prepare for job transition.
When the U.S. Department of Labor certifies eligibility, workers are provided a broad range of adjustment services, including:
Reemployment Services such as career counseling, job placement assistance services, supportive services, skill’s assessment, job development and job search assistance and referrals.
Training for employment in another job or career. Workers may receive up to 104 weeks of approved training in occupational skills, basic or remedial education, or training in literacy or English as a second language.
Income Support known as trade readjustment allowances (TRA) are weekly cash payment available for 52 weeks after a worker’s unemployment compensation (UC) benefit is exhausted and during the period in which a worker is participating in an approved full-time training program. Income Support is a combination of UC and TRA benefits for a maximum of 78 weeks (26 weeks for UC and 52 weeks for TRA).
Job Search and Relocation Allowances which provide reimbursement for approved expenses while job hunting and/or for relocating to a new job.
BENEFITS APPEAL RIGHTS
Workers must meet individual eligibilities established under each benefit in order to receive such benefit. All benefits have different time constraints; therefore, workers must file application for such benefits on a timely basis. If, however, workers are not satisfied with the determination of their individual application, they have the same appeal rights as are provided under their State Unemployment Compensation Law. The determination notice which they receive after filing their application will explain their appeal rights and time limits for filing an appeal.
OTHER TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES AND REEMPLOYMENT SERVICES
Workers who have lost their jobs or are informed that they will lose their jobs may be covered by several programs that target laid off workers. Workers may be eligible for training, reemployment assistance and other services under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act, or other Federal job training program.
This is one of a series of fact sheets highlighting U.S. Department of Labor programs. It is intended as a general description only and does not carry the force of legal opinion.
Very informative, so what’s your point?