Jobs lost by state ..... thanks to the trade deals... 1994-2000

[cthrumatrix]

http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/ib184/ib184.pdf


Changes due to growth in:
Exports Imports Trade balance

State (jobs gained) (jobs lost) (net jobs gained or lost)
Alabama 40,703 -103,943 -63,239
Alaska 2,549 -9,521 -6,972
Arizona 42,597 -75,058 -32,461
Arkansas 26,860 -64,329 -37,469
California 309,877 -619,639 -309,762
Colorado 35,417 -70,400 -34,982
Connecticut 48,776 -80,206 -31,431
Delaware 11,818 -18,286 -6,467
District of Columbia 6,042 -12,600 -6,558
Florida 96,523 -196,570 -100,047
Georgia 69,340 -159,076 -89,736
Hawaii 5,299 -12,416 -7,116
Idaho 9,155 -20,176 -11,021
Illinois 153,399 -292,936 -139,537
Indiana 86,022 -188,895 -102,873
Iowa 29,404 -61,175 -31,770
Kansas 27,625 -50,873 -23,248
Kentucky 38,288 -89,236 -50,948
Louisiana 29,190 -74,130 -44,940
Maine 9,617 -31,974 -22,357
Maryland 32,116 -63,173 -31,057
Massachusetts 80,722 -145,156 -64,434
Michigan 122,976 -275,037 -152,061
Minnesota 58,251 -108,176 -49,925
Mississippi 21,676 -63,014 -41,338
Missouri 59,107 -127,499 -68,392
Montana 4,820 -12,341 -7,521
Nebraska 15,496 -30,808 -15,312
Nevada 13,840 -30,333 -16,493
New Hampshire 17,584 -30,520 -12,936
New Jersey 88,487 -173,236 -84,749
New Mexico 12,732 -29,465 -16,733
New York 156,925 -336,213 -179,288
North Carolina 92,573 -225,792 -133,219
North Dakota 4,349 -10,136 -5,788
Ohio 155,688 -290,827 -135,139
Oklahoma 27,572 -69,838 -42,266
Oregon 31,966 -73,090 -41,124
Pennsylvania 137,206 -279,427 -142,221
Rhode Island 20,887 -50,052 -29,164
South Carolina 51,185 -105,418 -54,233
South Dakota 8,105 -16,563 -8,458
Tennessee 62,995 -159,350 -96,355
Texas 187,214 -414,774 -227,559
Utah 19,706 -42,228 -22,523
Vermont 7,753 -14,036 -6,283
Virginia 53,045 -119,129 -66,083
Washington 52,885 -98,624 -45,739
West Virginia 14,207 -28,666 -14,458
Wisconsin 76,981 -150,458 -73,476
Wyoming 3,213 -10,189 -6,977

Total 2,770,762 -5,815,004 -3,044,241

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and author’s calculations.

[Ress1]

1. There was article in our paper the other day

that said Walmart (and it's low wages) is now the largest employer in 21 states

[laura888]

2. yes, obviously, there's been some job growth

... are there any statistics as far as break down of what type of jobs were lost, and what types of jobs were created?

[Mel]

3. in other words

show me the money!

What we are seeing with these numbers is the loss of the manufacturing jobs.....next study like this will include more job loss and that time around it will be jobs that are more in the 'white collar' fields.

Look at my State

North Carolina (gain)92,573 (loss) 225,792 (total) 133,219


the satistic above isn't even counting those 4000 Pillowtex workers whos jobs went away forever. With training, half? of those workers will ever make what they where before?
Also consider the ages of a lot of those people if you think there isn't age discrimination in a 'work at will' state your fooling yourself. I call it 'fire at will'
Work at will is a great thing for the corporations it's easier for them to get away with firing their workers.
Thanks right-wing think (crank) tanks for giving us that piece of propaganda crap!

[GreatAuntK]

4. Jobs being outsourced

or 1 in 8 high tech jobs are to be sent overseas in the future, it's a conscious decision being made by the very powerful corporations who are gaining the most from the tax cuts. There was a heated discussion in Congress one day last week, and it's frightening what you'll find if you google it. China, India, Russia - they're even pulling jobs out of Mexico.

[bearfan454]

5. Look people

This is all part of the plan for economic globalization. That is what they call it now instead of the New World Order. I wish I was wrong but I don't believe I am. I haven't heard one Democratic candidate running for President say they will stop this. Have you guys heard that ? Inquiring minds want to know.

[GreatAuntK]

6. GW's Simplistic World View

GW was asked about the loss of jobs overseas, and his solution, as described in his press conference, is to give every person out of work $3,000 (but don't hold your breath on a promise from the World Class Liar). He said Americans need job training, and just raved about the importance of community colleges. In my view, he insulted our highly trained professionals who are losing 1 out of 10 high-tech jobs to overseas.

I don't "get" the complicated trade issues, but it's obvious GW doesn't either, and that is scary. Here's the other thread about jobs.

Auto makers are opening plants in China, by the way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=121234&mesg_id=121234

[bearfan454]

7. It looks like there will be no way to

stop this trend. Damn I wish Kerry or Dean would say this is wrong and it has to stop !

[revcarol]

8. Kucinich: repeal NAFTA, withdraw from the WTO,

and NEGOTIATE bi-lateral trade agreements.

You asked!! THERE IS A CANDIDATE WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT GOOD-PAYING AMERICAN JOBS LOST OVERSEAS.

His name is Kucinich, and he doesn't follow the DLC and Republican line!!Aren't you glad you have a choice?

[AntiLempa]

10. Kucinich is on record

Kucinich wants to get us out of the WTO and NAFTA. He was at the WTO protests in Seattle. The other's, aside from Gephardt, support these agreements. Some use Clintonese and say they want to have environmental and labor regulations added. Apparently they have been talking to Clinton. NAFTA already has environmental regulations. In fact, they developed the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). It has a nice title and a cathcy website. Here's a link to the website http://cec.org/who_we_are/index.cfm?varlan=english

Don't believe Dean when he talks about supporting Fair Trade. There is such a thing as Fair Trade and it sure as hell isn't NAFTA with some slight modifications. As a Fair Trade activist, I am insulted when I hear Dean use Fair Trade and NAFTA in the same breath.

For information on Fair Trade, visit http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/. For information on what Dean and Clinton support, visit the already existing CEC (http://cec.org/who_we_are/index.cfm?varlan=english).

[revcarol]

11. The environmental provisions of NAFTA have been "such a success"

with regard to the Rio Grande River,NOT!!

NO MONEY TO CLEAN UP MEXICAN POLLUTION. Maquiladoras(multi-national corporations) keep secretly dumping and piping waste into the river. The commission meets and KNOWS WHAT HAS TO BE DONE, but the river is WAAAAY more polluted now than when NAFTA went into effect.

[KG]

9. notice the dates - 1994-2000 - the reign of St William of Clinton.

the exodus of good paying manufacturing jobs started 20 years ago, and accellerated during the St. Clinton years as as both dems and repooks fell all over themselves to enact 'free trade' agreements.

bushco is only continuing the policies of favoring corporations over working people that started gaining steam during the '90s.

time to wake up to the fact that working class america is getting boned by both parties.

edit - 'free trade' for 'fair trade'

[AntiLempa]

12. free trade not fair trade

That's free trade agreements, not fair trade.

[KG]

14. thanks for point out my error

cause changing that one word changed the whole dynamic.

[jafap]

22. giving the big Dawg his day

A quick check of the BLS web site gives me these stats

Jan 1994 ** Jan 2000
non inst. Pop. 195,953 ** 208,702
labor force 130,667 ** 140,910
participation 66.7 ** 67.5
employed 121,971 ** 135,221
unemp. rate 6.66 ** 4.03
manufacturing 23,027 ** 25,406
hours worked 41.7 ** 41.7
avg. wage 11.03 ** 13.50

If it is true that 3 million jobs were lost due to NAFTA, it is still true that we had a net gain of over 13 million jobs, including over 2 million goods producing jobs (manufacturing and construction). Something was being done right. Of course, from August of 1998 until August of 2001 I was working a no-benefits temp job because I could not find a better one so I was a little bit outraged about George Will types who were always talking about how great things were.

[Merlin]

13. Oh, PLEASE, people! Quit bitching about the facts of life.

I especially like all those people saying we should "stop" it. Right!

Sadly, most Democrats don't know squat about economics. They consider it to be a dirty subject. Money and personal gain are thought to be a sordid goals. It's no wonder, then, that these folks do not have a clue what is going on now.

You think this whole thing is caused by NAFTA and the WTO? You think withdrawing from both will end it? You think it's actually within the power of any one person, let alone any one nation--even one as powerful as the US, to stop it? You couldn't be more off-base if you tried.

This, my friends, is a world-wide revolution in economics brought about by cheap transportation and communication, and by the third world's discovery of the fact that strong governmental protections of private property rights will lure foreign investment and help develop their economies.

This is as unstoppable as was the the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, or the internet.

What you should be trying to do is guide it, not stop it. What Clinton was trying to do was to establish the precedent of requiring certain reciprocal conditions would be met making it in the other country's best interest to comply.

Our job now should be improving those agreements, strengthening the WTO so that we can enforce requirements around the globe--such as those for permitting labor to organize and collectively bargain and strike in every nation on earth. THAT would be a worthy and achievable goal!

[bearfan454]

15. I still want a Democratic candidate to say that

this is wrong. Will any of them say this ? Really. Think about it for a second.

[Merlin]

16. What do you mean by "this is wrong."

Do you mean they should say, for example, the flooding in the midwest is "wrong" or the famines in Africa are "wrong" or AIDS is "wrong?"

These things are not "wrong." They just are. So, too, is globalization.

What's wrong is our failure to attempt to deal with it in a thoughtful way. And, yes Dem candidates have spoken to this. Gephardt, for example, just proposed a world-wide minimum wage that would be enforced via the WTO. It sounds a little naive to me, but he's on the right track.

I so wish others on this forum would focus on the real issue which is how to advance the cause of labor rights throughout the world so that this globalization winds up enriching not simply the third world investors, but also third world laborers. We liberals must not sit on our hands and fail to guide this profound, revolutionary economic trend.

In the end, such a program will benefit our own workers, too. As third world living standards rise, so, too, will wages, lessening their competitive advantage with wages in the USA.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. Got to agree here.

The concept of "comparative advantage" is behind all of this.

Unless we build back the tariif walls and restore Smoot-Hawley, there's little that can be done. And those solutions are far worse than the problem.

Anti-trade people are looking at this thing through the wrong end of the telescope.

Long before the WTO and NAFTA, companies were looking for and getting the cheapest sourcing, and it's easier now. If anything, trade agreements actually have the potential to restore some of the balance, with environmental, labor rights, dumping, and other rules. NAFTA's effect was not simply to export more jobs to the maquiedoras, that was already happening, but to potentially increase exports to Mexico by eliminating their tariffs and restrictions.

The Clinton administration cut some of the toughest trade deals around, and with all the Republican whining about his trade people, they never admitted that he was successful in getting exports, and limiting some of the balance of trade damage.

At any rate, go into a Wal-Mart and try to find anything made here. Or even Europe or South America.

It's all Asia. China and South Asia factories are getting better with their quality control, and are flooding us with cheap and decent goods now. Outfits like Wal-Mart are perfectly happy to find a product and clone it in their Chinese contract factories to sell to you for half the price.

There's what, a couple of billion Chinese and Indians looking for work and they have governments that will do anything to get it for them. Including jailing them and forcing them to sew clothes for no pay, at least ion China's case.

So, what do we do? Beats me, but moving toward parity in wages, evironmental impact and workers rights is probably the the only way to go in the long run. Bring comparative advantage back to real advantage, rather than just government subsidies and slave labor. That won't be pretty, though, since raising Chinese wages means that cheap stuff at Wal-Mart will cost more, and a hundred million better-off Chinese driving cars stresses the supplies of oil and steel...

[sandnsea]

25. We just want our party to stand for this LOUDLY

I don't think there can be one standard minimum wage, but there can be SOMETHING. Otherwise we'll never raise the standard of living in these countries which is part of the goal to begin with. There also needs to be basic regulation, like child labor, and environmental regulation. I would like to see this be a central issue of this election. Other people have some ideas about controlling it from the corporate end, but either way, something has to be done.

Otherwise I swear we will be a country of investors and those who serve the investors. I don't want to see that, but I fear it might even be the plan. Why else would Edwards propose a savings plan that the government will match? Get the American people moving towards the idea of being the capitalist part of the economic equation instead of the worker part. I think that would be a disaster for democracy.

And good lord the Democrats absolutely DO known about economics. Look at which party has led the greatest economic times in our history. The Republicans are worthless. They lose wars and jobs. They're the people who start businesses with 'somebody else's money', run them into the dirt, file bankruptcy and start all over again.

[revcarol]

28. Tune in to Kucinich on C-Span1 at 9:30 ET

and you can hear him talk about trade, rights that foreign workers must have....He's NOT just a naive stumblebum off the street. He deals in actuality AND potentiality.

[NashVegas]

17. re: Transportation

Don't it kinda make you wonder: what's going to happen when oil and gas run out? Likewise, coal may be abundant, but it's still a limited resource. Let's say the Bush doctrine works, and the US controls all oil supplies in 10 years. What happens when production is on the downside of peaking? So far, no realistic substitute for goods transportation has appeared on the scene.

It is vital to US interests that at least some portion of goods manufacturing be centered locally.

[AntiLempa]

18. The race to the bottom is inevitable?

NAFTA and the other free trade agreements, if nothing else, accelerated the race to the bottom. Secure, good paying manufacturing jobs quickly left for Mexico after the signing of NAFTA. Coincidentally, many lawsuits against state and national laws were filed under NAFTA's notorious Chapter 11. Even more coincidentally was the fact that many of the lawyers who helped author NAFTA were filing these lawsuits.

Agreements, and I use that word loosely, such as NAFTA and the WTO don't help the workers or common folk, they help the corporations that helped write them and force them through. Those that worship the University of Chicago and Austrian Economics might think that high unemployment and the race to the bottom is a good thing (or should I say "competition"), but those of us that care about jobs, the environment, education, and other needs think otherwise.

NAFTA and the WTO can't be reworked. By nature they are investor protection agreements. When the world elite are serious about protecting the environment, jobs, and the rest of the planet, why not get serious and do it through the UN General Assembly? That way each country would have one vote and Multinational Corporations wouldn't be able to buy every vote.

The simple answer is that this would never happen and the reason is because the UN is democratic. Both the Chicago Economists and Austrian Economists realize that democratization of the Economy isn't in the best interest of those who currently hold the power. Of course they don't say that, but that is what they mean.

[Merlin]

20. Come on! Please at least try to think things through before posting.

You are so far off base it's hard to believe. Nearly everything you say is incorrect.

Jobs were going elsewhere long before and in spite of NAFTA. NAFTA meant many of them went to Mexico rather than Asia. It also meant Mexico was required to import more from the US in exchange.

NAFTA and the WTO could "help the workers or common folk" if we liberals got off our collective asses and pushed over time for ever increasing standards as part of those agreements. That's how all law has developed over time. First the general legal structure is established. Then, over time, more and more specifics are added to tighten the effect. Our job is to work with it, not to bitch and moan about it.

Finally, the UN is precisely NOT the place to push for labor reforms in other countries. Why? Because it would have not teeth. Think about it! The way to get such reforms is to get them incorporated into NAFTA and WTO where there are built in, enforceable, costly sanctions for violations.

To understand these things, you need to know more than just the terminology "University of Chicago" and "Austrian Economics." You need to stop knee-jerking your conclusions and think things through. I'm sick and tired of hearing liberals bitch about these agreements. It's a way for them to wash their hands of the hard work of understanding them and working to improve them.

[cthrumatrix]

21. Are you saying NAFTA worked...? Job loss accelerated..

"
In three years, NAFTA has already cost more than 600,000 U.S. jobs. The evidence of NAFTA's job losses is described in detail below. Among the total NAFTA job loss are over 109,000 specific jobs certified by the U.S. Department of Labor under one narrow NAFTA job loss assistance and retraining program called NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA TAA.)"

http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7106

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

24. NAFTA worked great - the rich got richer, and workers became "flexible"

NAFTA did exactly what it was designed to do. The question is whether anyone in the Democratic party can do anything to stop it. Kucinich and Gephardt are the candidates that are clearly opposed to corporate globalization.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

23. Your post is very insulting and misleading

There is nothing inevitable about sending jobs overseas - it's done because the government allows it and promoted it.

"Jobs were going elsewhere long before and in spite of NAFTA. NAFTA meant many of them went to Mexico rather than Asia. It also meant Mexico was required to import more from the US in exchange. "

This is correct and irrelevant - jobs come and go, NAFTA accelerated job loss to lower wage countries. It happened becuase Republicans and Democrats promoted it and got the agreements passed.

"Finally, the UN is precisely NOT the place to push for labor reforms in other countries. Why? Because it would have not teeth. Think about it! The way to get such reforms is to get them incorporated into NAFTA and WTO where there are built in, enforceable, costly sanctions for violations."

The UN is *precisely* the place for labor reforms - international corporate agreements like NAFTA and the WTO shouldn't exist at all - they are anti-democratic on their face. The UN is set us like a Republic, similar to the US, and it's the perfect place to set standards. "Us liberals" should concentrate on making sure multinational corporations are heavily regulated by the UN, and we should end any and all corporate agreements like NAFTA and GATT.

As far as calling the poster off base, knee-jerking, and the like, I've always noticed that pro-corporate diatribes usually come with an attitude of self-righteous entitlement.

[AntiLempa]

27. my reply (it is more polite than yours)

Thanks for the polite and informative response. The funny thing is that I could have posted your response for you. The proNAFTA and WTO folks always say the same thing.

I'm well aware of the fact that jobs were leaving the US before NAFTA, but NAFTA did accelerate the move. What's your point? You then go on to insult all "liberals" that oppose investor's rights agreements. Your idea is to add a CEC that works for labor. That will surely do the trick! NAFTA can't be reformed. By it's nature it is an INVESTOR'S rights agreement. It's goal is to make more money for the investor's and corporations. NAFTA has been extremely successful, and that is the problem.

So please tell us, what should we unknowing liberals do to reform NAFTA and the WTO?

And I don't know about the other liberals that you hate, but I don't want to see NAFTA and the WTO reformed, I want to see them disolved. The legal framework is not there to improve things for everybody, the framework is there to protect investors and multinational corporations.

Next you are going to tell me that the World Bank and the IMF are successful. Have you been to Latin America lately?

You also managed to prove my point with the UN. Free Traders prefer it that way. They don't want to see a democratic organization have any power. That is the exact reason so many free traders want to decrease the size of government and increase corporate power. Democratic governments are at least somewhat accountable, corporate tyrannies are not. Maybe in a fantasy world they are, but in the real world they are not. (If you disagree with me, try to unionize a WalMart.)

I'm sorry that you didn't like me bringing up the University of Chicago and Austrian Economics. I did that not to name drop, but to let you know that I have read the material that they put out (not all of it of course). I don't oppose NAFTA and the WTO because it's the cool thing to do, I oppose them because they are fundamentally flawed. I have developed a value system that is based on fairness and respect, not Social Darwinism.

If you want to respond, please let me know where you think I am wrong instead of insulting me and everyone else who doesn't agree with your Social Darwinism.

And by the way, I do work to promote a cleaner environment and more sustainable economic models. It is for that particular reason that I don't make much money or have many of the luxuries that the Walton family does.

[Yavin4]

26. Merlin, May I Ask What You Do For A Living?

I work in IT, and I'm living day by day. I would really like to know what it is that you do for a living and what do you recommend that millions of American ITers should do for a living. I would really like to know.