Jobs were leaving long before NAFTA.

...and all of its further developments. For a time 50% of the US workforce had reliable farm employment, then along came mechanization. Other sectors have similarly fallen - such as the vast numbers of switchboard operator jobs now gone, and the legions of bookkeepers and so forth mowed down by the rise of computers.

become obsolete. It's just going to get worse. Trading among ourselves isn't the solution, it's just not that simple. NAFTA, TPP, etc., are just something to focus our anger on.

a tribunal of opportunists who will make deals with other opportunists, and that Hillary mentality " It's just going to get worse " is getting a little beat .

your on medical care, etc.

NAFTA did not replace jobs, it sent jobs to countries where there was little regulation and the pay minuscule.

Did the PRICES of those components come down due to the savings of corporate America, NO!

So, basically the only beneficiary of the job flight was the bottom line of corporations, and lining the pockets of the CEO's et al.

Estimates are that for every job lost to conventional outsourcing, ten jobs have been lost to mechanization. And in many cases the jobs outsourced have subsequently been lost anyway to mechanization; first a move to cheap labor, then the cheap labor being replaced by machines.

Again, not in every individual case, but in the bigger picture.

Births have declined for three consecutive years, and are now 7% below the peak in 2007

Source: Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_world#Age_structure

The top of the 1% and the bottom of the 99%, that's not being a Nationalist, that's a Fact .

better figure out a pact that leverages government, corporations, and workers to compete worldwide, or it will get worse. We live in a big world and better come to grips with that rather than acting like Nationalist xenophobes who blame groups of people for not voting for your candidate.

or die muther!

remember ronny?

We were to be an example of what was right for other countries?

Now that has been turned on it's wee little head..we have to compete with the poorest and most disenfranchised people on the planet. As each country demands more, 'they' simply find another to exploit, and claim we need to emulate 'their' work force!

Of course with TPP it becomes the law of the land...a corporation can sue America's minimum wage, cause it diminishes the profits a corporation could make otherwise.

Until this changes - nothing else matters - Feel The Bern.

Fact of the matter.

Has our trade deficit with Mexico "exploded"? I've been unable to find any source for that. Typically we've run a surplus rather than a deficit, the current surplus being driven largely by a lack of Mexican oil exports to the US.

Mexico certainly has problems, but http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/11/13/mexico-middle-class-grows-over-past-decade suggests they have been improving. In an OP about NAFTA killing the US economy, I'm not sure why point #2 is about wages in Mexico, or whether rising wages indicate a problem more than stagnant wages. In any case, current problems in Mexico have more to due with collapsing petroleum prices than NAFTA.

Again, not sure what the number of large corporations in Mexico has to do with killing the US economy or NAFTA. Would 200 corporations be better, or 1000? In modern states economic activity tends to be represented by corporate activity. If economies transitioned to patchworks of small businesses and small producers (however that may be done), what would stop successful small businesses from getting bigger, buying up competitors, and becoming large corporations all over again?

On #4, is that a bad thing? What trade agreements do we have that need to be circumvented by relocation to Mexico? Not sure of the point being made.

On #5, the question would be how many manufacturing jobs would be lost if there were no NAFTA. There certainly have been many, but the far greater driver of manufacturing job losses has always been technology and automation. This was well under way, well known and predicted back in the 90's. It was one reason for the push toward service sector employment growth, which worked reasonably well. In any case, the balance of job loss and job creation related to NAFTA has been extensively studied and argued ( http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/ for some debate) and its complex, but hardly a disaster on the whole.

Mexican stuff. Assuming we cannot help Donald convince Mexico to pay for the wall that is.

Simply withdrawing from NAFTA and going back to WTO rules for US-Mexico trade (tariffs were just 4% before NAFTA) won't help. Frustration will build again to "do something about Mexico" and we will have to withdraw from the WTO and build a wall. Might as well go ahead while Trump's wall is a hot idea.