Congress is currently considering foreign trade rules. The President is asking for authority to
extend free trade relations with a broader array of nations, particularly with
those of the Far East. I will not
pretend to understand the ins and outs of such legislation; I dare say most
Americans don’t either. But what
Americans do understand are the results of past deals such as NAFTA. Thanks to a columnist in the Indianapolis
area, Esther Cepeda,[1] I can
report some of the most current consequences of that legislation in that area
of the country.
When I think of Indiana, I think of corn, not a bad
thing. I also think of friends and
in-laws. But what I should also think of
is a former industrial area, especially related to the car industry. As a matter of fact, my wife’s dad was a
retiree of General Motors. While alive,
he was proud of that fact. He oversaw
the development of technical manuals and presentations. But the Indiana and Mid-West he knew is very
different today and the process by which those changes took place is still
going on in large measure due to trade agreements such as those being
considered in Congress.
Cepeda reports the following:
·
Goodyear,
in Akron, Ohio, is building a $550 million manufacturing plant in Mexico. With that move, the result is fewer jobs in
Ohio and more of them south of the border.
There, workers will be paid “a pittance;” that is, on average, $200 a
month.
·
Mondelez
International, producers of snacks (chips, cookies, and the like) will lay off
half its workers from its Chicago production plant, taking advantage of the $46
million cost difference between Chicago and Mexico.
·
Ford
Motor Company is planning to move its small car production to Mexico in the near
future (2018), again resulting in significant job losses in the US.
She also points out that this type of moves is beyond blaming
unions, as differentials outstrip reasonable cost savings and cross over to
what observers might call oppressive.
Her point is that the benefits to Mexican workers, in our examples,
provide almost subsistence wages to Mexican workers. Let me quote her about how typical defenders
term such developments:
During a visit this past June to
Juarez, Mexico, I saw firsthand the marvel of these mega-manufacturing
facilities, known as maquiladoras as a lifeline to workers. They
said they offer not only steady work at competitive wages but also health
insurance (including onsite medical care), on-site K-12 education, professional
development, bonuses and transportation to and from work. …
[Despite this] [f]or many in Juarez,
the cost of living far exceeds their pay.[2]
She then quotes a policy researcher who points out that wage
gaps have not closed between Mexican workers and those of the US. He says that Mexicans are making starvation wages
and that such treatment of those workers reflects what he terms class attitudes
– that lower class people deserve no better.
This is far from the image the US wants to project in foreign lands.
Two postings ago, I wrote of “minimum dignity.” Such reported moves by American business
interests negate any image our nation might want to broadcast to our workers
and the workers of the world: that we,
as a people, holding cultural beliefs and a policy bias, have a concern for
minimum dignity. The political,
economic, and cultural elites of our federalist union have long demonstrated
they have little concern for such dignity.
But we the people, maybe because of our innate understanding that our
own long term interests are affected, or maybe because we feel a federalist
partnership with our fellow citizens, have pushed and passed legislation that
at least addresses the issue such as is the case with minimum wage laws. We seem to be in the afterglow of the Reagan,
neoliberal, libertarian era in which the strength of the natural rights bias
for individualism seems to have dominated our public policy choices, but is
beginning to be challenged – see the Bernie Sanders phenomenon. But, there is still quite a bit of strength
in that view which dictates such moves as reported above, yet another reason
for our schools to change their curricular choices, especially when it comes to
social studies and civics.
No comments:
Post a Comment