Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 07:40 AM Jan 2015

3.2 MILLION US Jobs lost to China (so far) - PNTR worse than NAFTA?

A Tale of Two Charts
1/23/15

In his last year of office, President Bill Clinton called on Congress to make normal trade relations with China permanent. So legislation was introduced to the House on May 15, 2000 by Rep. William Reynolds Archer (R-Texas) with three co-sponsors — saying that permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China was a top priority, and was vital to the U.S. agriculture market (to gain access to a market with one-fifth of the world’s population).

...Since then, China has recently passed the U.S. to be the world's largest economy — partly because, American companies have been offshoring so many jobs to China (and other countries). Not to mention: 1/3 of current American jobs are STILL prone to being offshored/outsourced. That would help to explain the Bureau of Labor and Statistics' new report about why so many American workers now fear losing their jobs.

...China was supposed to help provide America with superior markets in industry, agriculture, and technology. The down side to this was: no markets could provide and receive China’s goods like the United States' markets could. But still, legislation was passed by the House of Representatives on May 24, 2000 giving China "permanent normal trade relations" (PNTR). Then it passed in the Senate on September 19, 2000 and was signed by President Clinton on Oct 10, 2000.

Now fast forward to 2015. From Forbes: America's Trade Deficit - The Job Killer -- "There is another big factor that is not often mentioned and has a huge effect on both the manufacturing sector and jobs. That factor is the growing trade deficit, which is really the ultimate determinant of job creation in the U.S."

Since passing PNTR for China, there have been three attempts to repeal it. One attempt was in 2005 when Rep. (now Senator) Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and sixty one co-sponsors introduced legislation. Rep. Sanders said to the house, “Anyone who takes an objective look at our trade policy with China must conclude that is an absolute failure and needs to be fundamentally overhauled.” Sanders then delved into numbers on the trade deficit and the number of American jobs being lost to our overseas competitors.

A few years later, Representative Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) attended a press conference to announce the introduction of new legislation to repeal PNTR with China. As a cosponsor of the bill, she offered the following statement:

"I would like to thank my colleagues, especially Congressman Sanders and Congressman DeFazio, for leading us in the fight to protect American workers against unfair trade policies. Five years ago, I joined 196 of my colleagues in the House to vote against granting permanent normal trade relations to China. Since then, we have lost more than 2.7 million manufacturing and technology jobs. These jobs have been outsourced by corporations that don’t care about people but only about filling their coffers. Yes, corporate greed is alive and well in this country and it is costing real people real jobs right here at home. PNTR is devastating to America’s middle and working class families – technological, textile, and steel manufacturing jobs are being lost. We need to encourage American companies to create jobs here, not make it easier for them to export work opportunities to other countries. This lopsided free trade policy is one of the greatest “sell-outs” that this country has imposed on American workers. The time is long overdue to repeal PNTR and to take a critical and honest look at all free trade agreements that are being negotiated, as we speak."

That was 5 years after Bernie Sanders' attempt. And Rep. Lee was referencing jobs directly lost to China, but not the loss of additional jobs that were lost via "The Multiplier Effect" when jobs are offshored (especially in manufacturing).
As factories get "smarter" and more advanced, the multiplier increases significantly. In some advanced manufacturing sectors, such as electronic computer manufacturing, the multiplier effect can be as high as 16-to-1 (meaning that every manufacturing job could support 15 other jobs).

It's now estimated that the trade deficit with China has cost the U.S. at least 3.2 million jobs — and now, even parts of Obamacare are being outsourced....

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/tale-two-charts-5664
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
2. Can't be K & R enough - but some are so infatuated with their fave politicians that
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 08:48 AM
Jan 2015

they refuse to see this. Or admit this, which is worse.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
4. True. And we can't correct course if we have blinders on.
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 09:23 AM
Jan 2015

I hold hope this will change. And then our country will change for the better. Here's hoping anyways!!

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
5. Federal Reserve: The Surprisingly Swift Decline of U.S. Manufacturing Employment
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 10:32 AM
Jan 2015

The Surprisingly Swift Decline of U.S. Manufacturing Employment*
Justin R. Pierce†
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Peter K. Schott‡
Yale School of Management & NBER
First Draft: November 2012
This Draft: November 2013


Abstract:
This paper finds a link between the sharp drop in U.S. manufacturing employment beginning in 2001 and a change in U.S. trade policy that eliminated potential tariff increases on Chinese imports. Industries where the threat of tariff hikes declines the most experience more severe employment losses along with larger increases in the value of imports from China and the number of firms engaged in China-U.S. trade. These results are robust to other potential explanations of the employment loss, and we show that the U.S. employment trends differ from those in the EU, where there was no change in policy.
1 Introduction

U.S. manufacturing employment fluctuated around 18 million workers between 1965 and 2000 before plunging 18 percent from March 2001 to March 2007. In this paper, we find a link between this sharp decline and the U.S. granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to China.

Conferral of PNTR was unique in that it did not change the actual import tariff rates the United States applied to Chinese goods over this period. U.S. imports from China had been subject to the relatively low NTR tariff rates reserved for WTO members since the 1980s. But for China, these low rates required annual renewals that were uncertain and politically contentious. Without renewal, U.S. import tariffs on Chinese goods would have jumped to the higher non-NTR tariff rates assigned to non-market economies and originally established under the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. PNTR - and the subsequent December 2001 accession of China to the WTO - eliminated the uncertainty associated with these annual renewals by permanently setting U.S. duties on Chinese imports to NTR levels.

Ending the possibility of sudden spikes in Chinese import tariffs likely strengthened import competition and suppressed U.S. employment growth. ...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2014/201404/


TPP will do the same & it covers 40% of the global economy. And Vietnam can't WAIT.
Specifically they have said the TPP will help create favourable conditions for the nation’s exports to grow thanks to such factors as the huge market and zero import tariffs on substantially all exports – which will benefit Vietnam’s strengths in the garment and textile, footwear, seafood, wood products and agriculture sectors.

http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/business/121471/vietnam-awaits-trans-pacific-partnership-signing.html


They are expecting the TPP to be signed in MAY. I get the best info from Vietnam media, because unlike here, it will benefit their country. Our media doesn't give details because it will be bad for the US, but good for media owners.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
6. PNTR was necessary to allow China into the WTO. We did the same with Russia in 2012.
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 10:59 AM
Jan 2015

I don't see that keeping the biggest country in the world out of the WTO would be a good policy or that would have changed much in terms of China's development.

Trade with China is a bigger part of Germany's economy than it is of ours. Their unions and middle class do just fine. Of course, they support their unions, provide a safety net, tax their rich and regulate their corporations. FDR did the same here and we were much better off.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
7. Bernie very simply explains what's wrong with US "trade" policies
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 11:16 AM
Jan 2015

Sanders~

Our trade policies are a disaster.

We have given a green light to corporations to shut down here, move abroad, and ship our products back.

I don’t think it is too much to ask of corporate America, which demands our television every night – they want us to buy their products, through their ads – that they put people back to work in Iowa and Vermont!

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-12-19/what-kind-of-revolutionary-exactly-is-bernie-sanders


This isn't "trade".

I don't care how old Bernie is anymore, or if he calls himself a socialist, if he runs and there are no true democrats in the primary, I will not only vote for him in the primary, I'll go door-to-door & help organize in my little corner of the country.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
8. I will vote for Bernie in a heart beat because he will help fix the real problems I mentioned.
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:13 PM
Jan 2015

Once that is done we will probably look at trade the way other progressive countries look at it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»3.2 MILLION US Jobs lost ...