North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta)

Imagine being crammed in a un-air conditioned room with hundreds of workers in the Mexico heat. Imagine sewing all day and developing sore wrists which can lead to tendonitis. Imagine after nine grueling hours of work not getting paid enough to purchase food and other necessities for your family. Maquiladoras are very well known among the Mexico and US border. They conduct under tariff free materials which are imported to the companies. The North American Free Trade Agreement has a huge advancement and have grown by employing tons of Mexican workers. NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) promised to increase workplace efficiency, help corporations, and to improve the lives of many workers. In my opinion, NAFTA did not keep their promise. They definitely did not improve the lives of many workers and everything else they guaranteed. NAFTA has not kept its promises because they work in terrible conditions, they do not get paid enough, and they are giving up hope.

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/26/257255787/wave-of-illegal-immigrants-gains-speed-after-nafta. NAFTA boosted regional trade but had some undesirable effects. The Mexican government used to subsidize corn. It kept the crop price high so small farmers could stay in business. And it kept corn product prices low so poor people could eat. The trade agreement removed tariffs in order to lower costs and encourage investment between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The Mexican government ended its corn subsidy, and the U.S. government continued to subsidize highly productive American corn producers. Seventy-five thousand Iowa farmers grew twice as much corn as three million Mexican farmers at half the cost. U.S. corn flooded Mexico. Illegal immigration led to massive militarization of the border. In Mexico, manufacturers built new factories for cars, TVs and other goods, replacing some jobs that used to be in the U.S. NAFTA benefited corporations operating in all three countries, but it led to flat or lower wages for the working classes in all three

Impact of NAFTA on Mexico’s manufacturing industry – Effect on Productivity, Wages rates, Incomes, and Investments in FDI

In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was enacted between two industrial countries and a yet still developing nation. This was an agreement that was the first of its kind due to the relationship that the countries had and the investment opportunities that it presented. The United States, Canada, and developing Mexico decided to work towards eliminating most tariffs and non-tariff barriers between the three in order to increase the flow of trade in goods and services. Since its enactment NAFTA has led to the providing of over 40 million more jobs throughout the countries, and it has also tripled merchandise trade between the three participants to an astounding $946 billion USD in 2008 (NAFTA Now). However even then it is still not very clear whether enacting NAFTA was worth the time and effort and in fact the United States may have been better off not having joined NAFTA.

When NAFTA was created, no one really understood the impact that the measure would have on the world economy. Drilling down, NAFTA impacts put Mexican farmers out of business due to the “government-subsidized U.S. Farm products.” (Source: https://www.thebalance.com/disadvantages-of-nafta-3306273) As described in the New York Times, exports from the US to Mexico of “corn and other staples” that were subsidized on average of $20,000 per year by the US Government, resulted in “small farmers finding themselves unable to make a living. Some two million have been forced to leave their farms since Nafta.” (Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-nafta/under-nafta-mexico-suffered-and-the-united-states-felt-its-pain

the Mexican agricultural industry had to compete with the far more industrialized US farm industry. Even though the amount of exported products tripled since the institution of NAFTA [according to the economist], most of those exports were maize. The United States was producing a greater amount of grain products and importing them cheaply into Mexico. The amount of American imports overwhelmed the Mexican market and forced them to sell to America and Canada. The theory the United States held was NAFTA would decrease the amount of Mexican immigration. However, this hurt the Mexican economy enough until around 2008 to force millions of Mexicans into the United States, doubling the Mexican-born population to twelve million in 2013 (Sergei, M. 2014).

The North American Free Trade Agreement, commonly known as the NAFTA, is a trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico launched to enable North America to become more competitive in the global marketplace (Amadeo, 2011). The NAFTA is regarded as “one of the most successful trade agreements in history” for its impact on increases in agricultural trade and investment among the three contracting nations (North American Free Trade Agreement, 2011). Supporters and opponents of the NAFTA have argued the effects of the agreement on participating nations since its inception; yet, close examination proves that NAFTA has had a relatively positive impact on the economies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

NAFTA was a very hot topic in the 1990's and was pushed by mainstream media as the savior of the western world. The propagandists pushing NAFTA were met with heavy resistance from proponents that were ultimately proven right. Ross Perot famously stated there would be a "giant sucking sound" and all jobs would start to move southward into Mexico.

The North American Free Trade Agreement created the world's largest free trade area. It links 450 million people together all around the world. Its member’s economies generate $20.8 trillion in gross domestic product. NAFTA was hidden in controversy. Advocates of NAFTA viewed the agreement as a valid extension of U.S. trade liberalization policy, while adversaries of NAFTA criticized the agreement as a result of a great business. Facing severe opposition in the United States, NAFTA gave rise to a diverse partnership of environmentalists, organized labor, protectionist Democrats and general independents. They claimed that the approval of NAFTA would result in a mass exodus of jobs from the United States and Canada into Mexico, where wages were

Since 1993, total trade between the three signatory nations has gone from $290 billion to $1.1 trillion in 2016, with foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico increasing by over $90 billion (“NAFTA’s Impact on the U.S. Economy,” 2016). In addition, per capita American GDP growth is estimated to have been around $400 (“NAFTA’s Impact on the U.S. Economy”). Critics, however, still have plenty of material to work with. Though American jobs created by the deal pay on average 15-20% more than jobs lost, across the border in Mexico wages have stagnated with an increase of only 400,000 new jobs (“NAFTA’S Impact on the U.S. Economy”). It is also reasonable to argue that free trade has come at the price of necessary regulation. Since companies could move operations north or south more easily, many unions lost their bargaining power and some businesses began ignoring environmental regulations (Faux, 2013). Mexican small businesses also suffered, giving rise to the claim that NAFTA could have caused more illegal immigration (Faux). As far as FDI was concerned, the U.S. and Canada benefitted significantly more than Mexico (Feils & Rahman, 2008, p. 162). Job losses in labor intensive industries like auto manufacturing were felt the most as the low wage labor became available elsewhere (“NAFTA’s Impact on the U.S. Economy”). Inevitably, these various effects created groups of winners and losers that struggled to agree on NAFTA’s true

It caused a huge labor scare where critics warned that hundreds of thousands of American Jobs were going to be lost to cheap Mexican labor. However five years later, it has been proven that the labor scare that NAFTA produce was unfounded. It is true that the United States lost many jobs but it gained more jobs in return. What critics of NAFTA failed to understand is that trade agreements like NAFTA, where manufacturing jobs are shifted from the developed world to the developing world, are necessary. They are necessary not only to develop the developing world but also to continue in America’s path of development. America has long since passed the industrial revolution. Employment in the United States is now more related to the service industry than manufacturing. The growth of the service industry in the United States while the stagnation of the manufacturing industry shows us that the United States is entering another stage of development. Mexico on the other hand is becoming industrialized and its manufacturing sector is rapidly growing. More people are being employed in manufacturing jobs as less and less people are working in agricultural production. Mexico too is passing into another stage in its development. Mexico is being industrialized while the United States is leaving the industrialized phase and entering a new era where the service business dominates. Trade agreements like the North

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), came into effect on January 1, 1994, creating the largest free trade region in the world, generating economic growth and helping to raise the standard of living for the people of all three countries participating. By strengthening the rules and procedures governing trade and investment, the NAFTA has shown to be a great base for adding to Canada’s prosperity and has set a valuable example of the benefits of trade liberalization for the rest of the world. NAFTA was designed with many economic results in mind. Hopes were that not only trade would be easier, cheaper, and easier for all countries involved, but economic wealth and growth would follow. The support for NAFTA was spilt among the

The formation of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) has brought many advantages among the nations of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Since its inception in 1994, it is difficult to see the great effect NAFTA has economically whether it is good or bad due to currency fluctuations, and economic growth (Villarreal & Fergusson, 2014). This is why the paper will go into the advantages that NAFTA has brought to the countries mentioned above. The advantages that will be discussed are the reducing or elimination of tariffs amid the three nations, and production domestically (Ebert & Spielmann, 1994; Villarreal & Fergusson, 2014).

What emerged from these back-room dealings was a monumentally flawed agreement. On the issue of job creation, the central focus of pro-NAFTA campaigning, it is fair to measure NAFTA's real-life results against its supporters' expansive promises of hundreds of thousands of new, high paying U.S. jobs. However, even measured against more lenient "do no harm" standard, NAFTA has been a failure. Consider this recent opinion poll of Americans on NAFTA's performance:

Many experts agree that NAFTA has played a major role in the modernization of Mexico. For one, manufacturing exports have grown at an annual rate of 16% since 1994 (Salas, 2001). In addition, NAFTA has allowed Mexico to trade freely with more industrialized nations, namely the United States and Canada. Mexico has now become the fourth largest supplier of goods to Canada growing at an annual rate of almost 16% (Campbell, 2001). In addition, Mexico has replaced Japan as the second largest trading partner with the United States, growing at an annual rate of 17.5% (Salas, 2001). This activity stimulates industrial and economic growth as more and more the positives of maintaining a modern nation are realized. In addition, with more capital flowing into Mexico, more jobs were created in the industrial and manufacture sectors of the economy.