I've heard many folks complain about TPP on the premise that it will destroy and/or degrade American jobs. I believe there is lots of truth to that--people in other countries are usually willing to work for less than Americans.
Even so, TPP will help job-hungry people in other countries (at least slightly) by dumping more jobs into their job markets. So, if we're going to help Americans by ditching TPP, we're going to do so at the expense of people in other countries.
Is that the right trade? Helping Americans by hurting others? Maybe it is.
Or maybe I'm missing something... Thanks for your thoughts!
I work in global trade - jobs generally go to where labor/costs are most efficient. Apparel and shoes will probably never be produced in the US again because the manufacturing process is rather low tech / low skill and countries with lower labor costs have a comparative advantage here.
Some economists believe that ultra cheap container shipping has had more to do with globalization than any FTAs have... if you haven't read "The Box" by Levinson it's worth a checking out.
TPP is actually projected by industry to be a net income to US companies of around 8 billion - a lot of this will be coming from lower import tariffs on shoes and apparel from vietnam.
* TPP is actually projected by industry to be a net income to US companies of around 8 billion - a lot of this will be coming from lower import tariffs on shoes and apparel from vietnam. *
How much of these 8 billions will go to US workers, though? Last few decades suggest that very little, if any.
Probably little directly but it will help US companies remain cost competitive in the global marketplace (and remain profitable) which does mean that a lot of the high level jobs (marketing, supply chain, design, etc) are still in the states.
As much as HN wants to believe, TPP is not just a giant conspiracy.
Sure there are some questionable copyright/IP details, but there are a lot of benefits here for US manufacturers as well - historically import tariffs in SE asia have been quite high which makes it difficult for US exporters to be competitive there.
The deck is stacked against US manufacturing in several major economies. If you don't believe me, look at import tariffs in china and brazil (and most of south america and asia). It's quite prohibitive to import many finished goods into these countries as they've been very diligent about protecting their manufacturing base.
I'm generally in favor of open trade. To the extent that particular American jobs disappear, American consumers are usually better off, which broadly allows the creation of other jobs.
However, I think there are a lot of good concerns raised when these things come up. E.g., why should you lose your career just so I can get mildly cheaper stuff? Thus the common solution of trade adjustment assistance, where tax money is used to pay to retrain you.
Another legitimate concern is the value of those jobs in other countries. Even in countries that are net receivers of existing jobs, those jobs may not be particularly great ones, in that they may harm traditional industries. Or be controlled by (and mainly benefit) foreign capital. Or be jobs that only exist for a while until wages rise a little and jobs shift to yet poorer countries. Or that the external capital flows may increase opportunities for corruption, worsening local governmental problems.
So although I'd agree that some trade opponents feel (or at least play on) American nativism and isolationism, I don't think that's the only motivation for trade limitations, and it's definitely not the most interesting one.
The U.S. approach to TPP negotiation was to try to attempt to protect the American jobs that are seen as high-value "jobs of the future," by exporting strong IP protections to our trading partners.
IP-heavy jobs in the U.S. tend to have higher salaries and better benefits. Think: software, pharmaceuticals, recorded entertainment, and complex machinery like cars, trucks, airplanes, turbines, etc. We hold competitive advantages in those industries, and export a lot of those things.
In industries with less IP, like textiles, hardware, food, and oil, the U.S. attempted to export some of its labor and environmental standards to other TPP nations. This was the right thing to do, but it also helps the U.S. competitive position because these are non-negotiable costs to U.S. companies.
Software jobs probably don't benefit from "intellectual property" all that much. If you risk treble damages for "willful" patent infringement (or whatever the extra damages are), you're not going to look at software patents. You're going to invent that wheel for yourself. There's also some evidence that Silicon Valley works better than the Boston area because programmers only produce company's "intellectual property" on the clock. After hours, whatever you do in California is yours. Also California doesn't enforce non-compete agreements.
So I don't think the situation is as simple as strong "IP" protections are thought to benefit the USA economy. Unless you're a big faith-based believer in "IP".
This isn't quite zero-sum. There is also the aspect that any trade deal that removes existing tariffs represents a tax reduction for any businesses that do international trade, and a corresponding reduction in government revenue for participating countries. On both sides, it represents a wealth transfer away from government and towards business. You may interpret that as good or bad depending on your point of view, but either way it's a policy change.
Another side of this is that free trade allows businesses to move production to whatever country has the weakest labour laws and environmental protections. In effect, it rewards countries economically for having lax regulations, and encourages a "race to the bottom". In the short term, it may be good for workers who now have jobs, but in the long term we don't want employment to only be economically competitive if it's indistinguishable from slavery.
The concept you are referring to is called "nationalism". Jury is still out on whether it is a good thing or not. Ultimately every human should be equal but at the same time we don't want to feel the pain equality will bring.
The problem is that equality in the working class, internationally, means wages will become lower - because textile manufacturing in China is so cheap, for example. But it wouldn't mean equality across the board - i.e. the rich / higher management / 1% having to share their wealth with the bottom 99%. Another commenter mentioned 8 billion in less expenses for the US due to lower income tax, but those savings wouldn't end up at the working class, it'd be a benefit for companies and their higher management and shareholders.
Better financial results rarely / never mean higher income or conditions for employees.
Your username is highly relevant here. We need to price arbitrage around standards of living and especially environmental regulation into our tariffs. Right now we aren't doing that at all, and it means that everyone suffers.
For whom? I would say a nation, or should I say a national government, particularly one that is a constitutional republic (republic in this case meaning representative democracy) eg a constitutional representative democracy, which only has power by way of the people (say what you will about the realpolitik current situation, the governments mandate comes from the people and can be revoked by the people, as matter of principle, law, and natural rights), should work to serve the interests of those people. If those peoples interests are so self-sacrificing as to limit their own benefit to help others, then that is what the people say, then sacrifice for the "greater good".
In my opinion the problem is that the Constitution of America has been gutted, the people are no longer properly represented, because corporations, particularly supranational corporations, have gamed the system into a fine art of semi-legal but oft im/amoral bribery, corruption, blackmail, quid-pro-quo, and legal and financial arbitrage.
I knew the TPP was probably going to pass, when I saw my representative, a rep in what is considered the most conservative district in the US, answered concerns about the unconstitutionality of the fast-track with a single line: "I have heard from many constituents who are concerned that TPA would equate to Congress turning over its Constitutional authority to the President. This is untrue."... he continued:
"President Obama and the Administration have currently been negotiating TPP without TPA and can continue to do so as Article II of the Constitution grants President’s that authority—you can read more on this from the Heritage Foundation. If Presidents can and do have the authority on their own to negotiate trade agreements, why is TPA needed? Basically, it’s a tradeoff. Congress gets an enhanced role in the process of approving trade agreements and Presidents get a quicker process to have the agreement approved. Thus, the name “Fast Track”."
...and that was that. No more discussion about the fundamental passing of power from congress to the executive, no nuanced analysis or explanation. Just a half-assed justification that free-trade is good for America (I think NAFTA and similar have disproved this), and that the POTUS would be held accountable (while failing to mention the 150 objectives of POTUS are optional!).
What this is, is the fundamental question about national sovereignty and an ever increasing threat of world government. I understand many will balk at this statement, consider me a conspiracy theorist, or otherwise dismiss the notion, but I think the facts support the idea that the world is increasingly edging towards such a system. At the very least an increase in centralization as we return to a tri-polar world (hello neo-cold war!).
In truth, I have talked to an alarming amount of people who are supportive of such broad supranational government schemes on both sides of the spectrum, and I understand their reasoning. I simply disagree with it.
For the neoconservative, in reality they think that free trade is just a smoke screen for us throwing around our financial, political, legal, and finally military might to get a better deal for ourselves while pretending to be egalitarian to other nations.
For the leftist, they think tend to focus on the abuses and inequality of the world, and think that a world government is what could level that playing field out more, and make life more "fair", primarily economically.
The problem with the first is that when the neocon thinks "America wins", who really wins are the owners and board members of the supranational oligarchy, not the American people. The problem with the second is that centralization of power for altruistic front-purposes almost always leads to easier corruption and eventually abuse... but this time it will be on a global scale! The problem with both is that they ignore the fundamental principles that if they agree to basically accept the end of national sovereignty, the the nations government is technically, NO LONGER LEGITIMATE!
Lot's of people, especially Europeans want to rail on about how American exceptionalism is a myth and a product of jingoistic nationalism and indoctrination, and in many ways it is, but this ignores the fundamental exceptionalism of America that isn't those things: Our bill of rights, our constitution, and our declaration of independence.
I am an Iraq combat vet, and I, like other military members, congress, the president, and some police departments, all swear an oath to the Constitution. Not to the queen, not to the president, not to the United States government, but to the Constitution for which it stands. What I think is that we have forgotten about our "domestic enemies", enemies of the Constitution, and allowed them to take too much power and control inside our own institutions, and the real threats to the constitution are certainly not Islamic, indeed they are generally members of the old-boys-club and wear suits and ties, and reside in the the beltway and on wallstreet. In the foreign realm, I would consider the City of London to be their other haven.
I for one think that we have been exporting war for far too long, and that the best way America could bring more equality and freedom, economically and politically, to the world, would by leading by example. We need to fix our own shit first, before falsely exporting revolutions of power disguised under pretty narratives about democracy.
What the world needs is a constitutional representative democracy, and one that actually works and represents the people. We have the best theoretical structure in place, the only question is if the people will recognize the threat in time to prevent the slip into a totalitarian dystopian future or not.
Honestly, I'm skeptical, but given that I think oaths actually mean something, and perhaps because I was so thoroughly indoctrinated, I will fight the good fight while it is still there to be had. I mean this in a concrete way too, as I am currently exploring my options for running for congress.
>all swear an oath to the Constitution. Not to the queen, not to the president, not to the United States government, but to the Constitution for which it stands.
Technically the United States Armed Forces oath of enlistment is sworn to the Constitution and the President which can create quite the pickle when the President decides to violate the Constitution.
>"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
> which can create quite the pickle when the President decides to violate the Constitution
The oath states outright
> will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice
Going against the constitution would be an unlawful order wouldn't it? Which means it should not be obeyed?
Even so, TPP will help job-hungry people in other countries (at least slightly) by dumping more jobs into their job markets. So, if we're going to help Americans by ditching TPP, we're going to do so at the expense of people in other countries.
Is that the right trade? Helping Americans by hurting others? Maybe it is.
Or maybe I'm missing something... Thanks for your thoughts!