Daily Archives: 15 July 2013

An Outcome of Free Trade

Posted on by
Reply

Since NAFTA was ratified, here are some of the results, as outlined by George Schultz, former Secretary of Labor, Treasury, and State; former OMB Director; currently Distinguished Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution—a guy who might know little about his subject matter.  As of 2010,

  • the three countries [the US, Canada, and Mexico] constitute around one-fourth of global GDP
  • they have become each other’s largest trading partners.

Moreover, the trade is tightly integrated:

  • 24.7% of imports from Canada were US value-added
  • 39.8% of US imports from Mexico were US value-added

The (legal) movement of people among the three of us has burgeoned, also, together with the economic benefits of such mobility.  Tourism:

  • Canadians made 21.3 million trips to the US in 2011 and spent $23.9 billion
  • US visitors made 11.6 million trips to Canada and spent $7.7 billion
  • Mexican visitors made 13.5 million trips to the US and spent $9.2 billion
  • US visitors made 20.1 million trips to Mexico and spent $9.3 billion.

Border-crossing truck shipping:

  • 10.7 million [border crossings] between the US and Canada
  • 9.5 million between the US and Mexico.

And so on.  There’s more concerning energy and energy independence both for NAFTA and for the three of us individually.

Of course some object to the loss of jobs.  But outside the results of the Panic of 2008*, the job losses were temporary for those truly interested in working.  They simply rotated into new jobs generated by the new opportunities flowing from the burgeoning (free) trade.  The increased trade, over all, led to a net increase in employment in each of the three of us.

 

*The results of the Panic, including the loss of job mobility, have naught to do with free trade or specific free trade agreements.  These outcomes stem directly from subsequent Federal policies aimed explicitly at the Panic and not at anything systemic in our economy.

One Aspect of the New Employment Numbers

Posted on by
1

It’s temporary work, whether under contract or not.  It’s also part-time, whether under contract or not (OK, that’s two aspects.  Sue me.)

The nation’s unemployment rate still stands at 7.6%, but there is one area showing significant improvement: temporary and contracting work.

An estimated 17 million people are employed in these areas of the labor force, making up 12% of all employed people in the US.

Here’s a clue of why that is:

Full-time workers come with benefits packages that tend to include health care and retirement plans, which come with a hefty price tag for companies still unsure of the economic recovery.

Health care and pensions—for those employers still using these instead of 401(k)-like retirement plans—are horribly expensive.  And no, this isn’t another anti-Obama screed.  Even before Obamacare and public service union pension-caused city bankruptcies, health and pension benefits were horribly expensive.  The Panic of 2008 just brought those to light, and Obamacare only made a terrible health side worse.

And there’s that uncertainty about this failed recovery and when it will start in earnest.  Here’s James Sherk, senior policy analyst in Labor Economics at The Heritage Foundation:

In many cases, employers are not confident to bring in regular, full-time employees because it may hurt the entire firm.  This is the most disturbing trend, due to the weak economy.  It’s an economy and situation where employers aren’t seeing their shelves pick up, so they won’t commit to hiring a full-time employee.

“Hurt the entire firm.”  This is an area where Obamacare exacerbates an already bad situation.  A full-time employee costs the employer a minimum $2,000 in health benefits—that’s the fine the employer pays for not providing benefits that suit the Federal government’s definition of adequacy.  If the business isn’t there to cover that added cost, the employer would be stupid to hire that employee, at least full-time.

Another downside is that part-time workers or contract workers who know their contract expires in a few months (another version of part-time work) have their own uncertainty about the future—their future.  This makes them less willing to spend the money they do earn until they have to.  That reduced demand lowers the ability of employers to sell their product.  Those reduced sales lower the employers’ interest and ability to hire.  That reduced hiring incentive….