USMCA Schedule 23-A calls on Mexico to pass laws that improve the ability of unions to make collective agreements. [44] The specific standards that Mexico must meet are set out in Convention 98 of the International Labour Organization on freedom of association and collective bargaining. The government of Mexican President Andrés Manuel Lépez Obrador passed a law in late 2018 that respects these international standards. Much of the debate among political experts has focused on how to mitigate the negative effects of agreements such as NAFTA, including whether workers who lose their jobs are compensated or whether they are offering retraining programs to help them move into new sectors. Experts say programs such as U.S. Trade Adjustment Assistance (AAT), which helps workers pay for education or training to find new jobs, could help rebuke anger over trade liberalization. An April 2019 Analysis by the International Trade Commission on the likely effects of the USMCA estimated that the agreement would increase U.S. real GDP by 0.35 percent if the agreement were fully implemented (six years after ratification) and would increase total U.S. employment by 0.12% (176,000 jobs). [114] [115] The analysis cited by another Congressional Research Service study showed that the agreement would not have a measurable effect on employment, wages or overall economic growth. [114] In the summer of 2019, Larry Kudlow, Trump`s chief economic adviser (the director of the National Economic Council at Trump White House), made unfounded statements about the likely economic impact of the agreement and overstated forecasts related to jobs and GDP growth.
[114] NAFTA has profoundly reshaped North American economic relations and encouraged unprecedented integration between the developed economies of Canada and the United States and the developing countries of Mexico. In the United States, nafta originally enjoyed multi-party support; It was negotiated by Republican President George H.W. Bush, passed by a Democratic-controlled Congress and implemented under Democratic President Bill Clinton. Regional trade tripled under the agreement and cross-border investment between the three countries also increased significantly. Some small businesses have been directly affected by NAFTA. In the past, large firms have always had an advantage over small businesses, as large firms could afford to build and maintain offices and/or production sites in Mexico, which avoided many of the old trade restrictions on exports. In addition, pre-NAFTA legislation provided that U.S. service providers who wanted to do business in Mexico had to establish a physical presence there, which was simply too expensive for small businesses. Small businesses were stuck, they could not afford to build, and they could not afford export tariffs either. NAFTA eliminated the competitive conditions by giving small businesses the opportunity to export to Mexico at the same costs as larger firms and removing the requirement that a company establish a physical presence in Mexico to do business there. The lifting of these restrictions meant that large new markets were suddenly open to small businesses that had previously done business only in the United States. This was considered particularly important for small businesses that produced goods or services that had matured in the U.S.
markets. Supporters have capped NAFTA because it has opened up Mexican markets to U.S. companies like never before. The Mexican market is growing rapidly, which promises more export opportunities, which means more jobs. However, proponents have struggled to convince the American public that NAFTA would do more good than harm. Their main efforts have been to convince citizens that all consumers benefit from as wide a choice of products as low as possible, which means that consumers would be the main beneficiaries.
Komentáře