Thing is, a good % of them opposed it to protect WC jobs. I wonder how this situation affects jobs.
-
-
-
The most likely effect was neutral or slightly positive for jobs in the aggregate. Some factories would've moved, but US companies would've gotten more customers, and the costs of consumer goods and manufacturing inputs would've gone down. Some people lose jobs, others gain jobs.
-
87% of manufacturing job loss in the US over the last two decades has been due to automation, not trade. Some industries see jobs move due to trade, but it's better to help those people than sacrifice everything else in the hope of saving jobs that robots will do soon anyway.
-
Well said. The distinction between automation & trade is what people fail to understand.
-
Yes, let's ignore the $600-$700 billion annual manufacturing trade deficit, and blame the robots. Or ignore that we had the same number of manufacturing jobs in 1971 that we had in 2000 (17.2 million). automation shedding 4.8 million manufacturing jobs is a dangerous myth.
-
So what did shed 4.8m manufacturing jobs?
-
The trade deficit in manufactured goods, and then the collapse in demand following the 2001 and 2007-09 recessions.http://www.epi.org/publication/manufacturing-job-loss-trade-not-productivity-is-the-culprit/ …
-
Thanks!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Could you source this for me? Previous FT and WaPo coverage noted protections remained intact.https://www.ft.com/content/c5cdd3aa-c82d-11e7-ab18-7a9fb7d6163e …
-
I reacted to statements by Wendy Cutler, the former US deputy trade representative, and this report in Politico:https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/21/trump-nafta-trans-pacific-partnership-companies-trade-215851 …
-
David Parker (NZ Trade Minister, involved in negotiations) says environmental and labour standards are still part of CPTPP. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/11/12/59799/the-fight-for-multilateral-trade … I'm not sure where Politico sourced their info, but seems likely they're just wrong.
-
Seems like you should retract your original tweet.
-
A couple people have posted this, but I don't see a direct contradiction. Parker: "providing enforcement mechanisms to hold countries to account if they didn’t meet labour and environmental standards." Doesn't specify which standards. Nor that new TPP's are identical to old TPP.
-
Your tweet (and Politico) clearly suggest to readers that labour and environmental standards had been scrapped completely, not just tweaked or weakened.
-
I didn't read the Politico article that way, and that's not my position. Zero labor or environmental standards would be ridiculous, and really easy to disprove.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What was good about making patent and copyright protections longer and stronger? The gains from the deal were almost zero according to the USITC. Is there some obligation to support any deal big Democratic contributors cook up?
-
Improves cost-benefit analysis for R&D But there are good arguments this provision's net negative TPP's economic benefit wasn't big. But the geopolitical benefit was. Strengthen US relationships with 11 countries, contain China. Much bigger long run impact than copyrights/patents
-
If the point was to "contain" China it was pretty poorly designed, Note the rules of origin are very lax. The country that benefits in that story is China, which will have much of its output re-exported to U.S. with TPP preferences
-
Geopolitically, not economically. It's not a tariff scheme. But it did strengthen America's relationships with the 11 PacRim countries, and give the US some influence over regional trading rules. Withdrawing alienated those countries and squandered that influence.
-
Our politicians should be able to make pacts that don't threaten the health of tens of millions of people and worsen inequality.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.