I dont think NAFTA has anything to do with American manufacturing jobs leaving. I think whats more to blame is heavy defense spending. Now in America the only type of manufacturing that happens is geared towards defense contracts which are inherently more lucrative than, for example, consumer electronics.

Obviously the DoD has no ceiling to the amounts they can spend while a consumer product company does. If you are a manufacturer in the US, and you can get $100k for a 3-month defense contract, would you rather do that or a $10k, 3-month long consumer product contract? The answer is obvious, and that's the reason that those manufacturing jobs have moved overseas (or over the border to Mexico) where they are glad to get $10k USD.

You claim that NAFTA took away manufacturing jobs, and then you quote Chinese trade deficit figures to back up the claim. China has nothing to do with NAFTA. It's not part of NAFTA. It's only Canada, the US and Mexico.

Under NAFTA, the US EXPORTS far more manufactured goods to Canada than it imports. That trade surplus accounts for nearly 600,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs in America, but is hurting Canada. (citation) The agreement also gives America guaranteed access to Canadian oil. Even Canadian companies don't get preferential access.

It helps America that in Canada a trade agreement becomes the law of the land. Meanwhile the U.S. simply overrides NAFTA - from softwood lumber to durham wheat to livestock to trucking to manufactured goods - at the whim of any lobby group.

As for Mexico, remember Michael Moore's movie "Roger & Me", about all the auto industry jobs that disappeared to Mexico? That was BEFORE NAFTA. NAFTA helped level the playing field, and send some exports in the other direction.

And if you don't believe that jobs went in the other direction, just take a look at the effect of the tariffs Mexico imposed on a few items in retaliation for the US not honoring the trucking part of the agreement. According to a report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, those tariffs have resulted in the loss of $2.6 billion in U.S. exports and 25,000 American jobs. Texas agricultural products have been particularly hard hit. (citation)

"But the number that best displays the nonsensical nature of the debate is 66% - the increase in the manufacturing output of American industry since 1993." [when NAFTA was signed]

[...]

"Put another way, the main job killer of the past 14 years has not been the "giant sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico, as enunciated by Ross Perot. Rather it has been that giant humming sound of machines replacing humans." (citation)

The US has the largest manufacturing base of any country, and it's only increasing. (citation)

Please stop making me defend Gingrich.

Roger continually trolls in support of NAFTA, but he consistently touts only the jobs created while ignoring the sum of jobs created plus jobs lost, which is negative. He also touts the value of created jobs while ignoring that the total earned from the created jobs is much less than the total earnings lost from lost jobs, because wages for the new jobs are overall lower than pre-NAFTA wages.. This is simply a Newt-level sociopath arguing in favor of the 1%, who benefit from all this.

Added:

Mr. Strong tries to deflect criticism of his economic distortions with references to radio antennas and Jews. That speaks for itself. Roger lies frequently and easily, as many people who have run across his path have seen.

Odd how whenever there is ANY mention of NAFTA on Reddit, Roger pops up and argues in favor of it. Any mention. Almost like he frequently searches for it. What agenda for that?

Here as always in his Nafta defenses he lies in a key way - he refuses to acknowledge the vast losses of US manufacturing jobs, and tries to end-run by implicitly counting lower-paying service and clerical jobs as replacements. This is a subtle way to distort the meaning of the numbers. For example, if I take 100 dollars from you and replace it with 300 pennies, that's not a net gain no matter how much you argue that 300 is more than 100.

Mr. Strong's citations are often official looking but contain hidden distortions or omissions, affecting their validity. He often cherry-picks such citations on that basis, then refuses to acknowledge when his sources are shown to be distorted.

pork2001 doesn't like me because:

a) I publicly disagreed with his claims that a radio antenna in Alaska is responsible for creating earthquakes around the world, and

b I publicly disagreed with claims that Jews were responsible for the Holocaust, 9/11 and everything else that has ever gone wrong in the world.

NAFTA created far more jobs in America than it ever took away. Unlike pork2001 I provided proper citations.

That fact that hundreds of thousands of jobs were created in America - 600,000 jobs for exports to Canada alone just in manufacturing - means higher wages through higher demand for workers.

You're both oversimplying the issue.

Even if you could successfully argue that jobs were created or destroyed, you still haven't discussed whether the jobs are high paying or low paying McJobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA%27s_effect_on_United_States_employment

pork2001 doesn't like me because:

a) I publicly disagreed with his claims that a radio antenna in Alaska is responsible for creating earthquakes around the world, and

b I publicly disagreed with claims that Jews were responsible for the Holocaust, 9/11 and everything else that has ever gone wrong in the world.

NAFTA created far more jobs in America than it ever took away. Unlike pork2001 I provided proper citations.

That fact that hundreds of thousands of jobs were created in America - 600,000 jobs for exports to Canada alone just in manufacturing - means higher wages through higher demand for workers.