The most thorough independent review of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement to date from the Peterson Institute has found that
- the agreement would result in no net job creation
- the agreement would result in wage increases
- the agreement would result in substantial job losses every year
A Pacific Rim trade deal championed by the Obama administration represents a “landmark accord†that would yield considerable economic gains for the United States and 11 other nations, boosting exports by 9 percent a year and increasing wages, according to an analysis released Monday.
But the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would not increase job creation overall, and it could force 50,000 U.S. workers each year to find new jobs, a process that might require them to pursue new training, the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics said in its report.
Those workers, mostly in low-wage manufacturing, “may experience serious transition costs including lasting wage cuts and unemployment,†economists Peter A. Petri and Michael G. Plummer wrote.
If the list of their board of directors is any gauge, the Peterson Institute is not a partisan outlet. They sound like square shooters.
This is not convincing me to support the agreement. In the present environment of low job creation with the preponderance of jobs being created low wage jobs it just doesn’t sound like a particularly good deal. It’ll be good for somebody but not for most of us.
As I’ve been saying all along, managed trade bills are not about free trade. They’re always about picking winners and losers.
Do they mean that wages would go up on net? That could just mean the top 10% see their wage increases outstrip the bottom 90% by enough to make it look like a winner on average.
Personally I’m certain that given who waas involved in the negotiations it greatly favors the rich at the expense of everyone else. After all, those fucking bastards like Obama and Bush weren’t working on this to help anyone out but the big donors.
After reading the paper, I’d say they’re confused. They conflate increases in real income with increases in real wages. Where have they been for the last couple of decades? The breakdown in the connection between total real income and total real wages is what people have been complaining about for years.
There’s also some handwaving about “value-added” but that’s in even worse shape than the relationship between income and wages.
I already didn’t like this deal over issues of sovereignty and the courts. Now it sounds like your standard rich-get-richer, deal.
Hope and change.
I must say, though, the issue is more complex than generally perceived. In a board call today we approved a capital project to automate the stack and pack function at the end of all the production lines in one of our businesses. It’s actually a defensive move. Despite offering well above minimum wage to do this pitifully simple job we literally cannot get people. Easier to collect from various government programs.
Another possibility is that the avenues through which you’re trying to reach prospective employees aren’t effective for whatever reason.
Yes, it is, Dave. But highly unlikely in my opinion. We are talking a significant metropolitan area in PA; a longstanding employer and a relatively high unemployment area. And we do know how to go about the task of finding people. Our needs are well known.
More likely is a combination of outsized steelworker region wage expectations and availability of governmental benefits. We can’t afford to pay steelworker wages to put pies in a box because our customers and other constituencies won’t pay for it.
I didn’t want to mention it before because it’s just gas on the fire, but many of those we have hired get a few weeks in and then amazingly become disabled. No one likes to talk about it or admit it, but a two earner, ahem, family where one works and the other gets on disability or unemployment is just fine by a lot of folks.
Anybody who supports a Keynesian monetary system should not be surprised that money created through fiat is used for dubious endeavors. (Those who do not consider the endeavors dubious are obviously exempt.)
If one refuses to use a clean source of money, one should not be surprised at the parasites that emerge.