In the late 1900's, North America entered an agreement of free trade called NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, establishing the first trilateral trading alliance in the Western Hemisphere. The countries involved were as follows: the United States, Canada, and Mexico. This agreement removed most trade barriers and limited or abolished tariffs for the participating countries. This agreement was met with a lot of hope as well as opposition. What is your personal assessment of NAFTA? Was it successful or not? Has NAFTA equally benefited all members? Is there anything you would change about this agreement, if so, what? Any additional thoughts? Respond by clicking the "Comments" button below and adding your own opinions.
I believe that the initial benefits of the NAFTA were beneficial and the loss of more than 500,000 jobs could not be predicted. NAFTA has benefited over-seas countries because of their cheap labor costs, they have been turned to in order for the NAFTA countries to compete even more. I would not change anything about the NAFTA because of the economic benefits it has shown for businesses and increased competition which is better for all consumers.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea, and beginning of NAFTA proposed and created a lot of good in North American trade. However the problem areas presented in the slides made me think much more negatively about NAFTA. All of the positives brought about negatives to the American economy. The loss of jobs, and displacement of local stores doesn't seem worth it to save a few extra dollars on goods. Personally working at a local store, I know how this affects my job and store. I'm not sure how to improve NAFTA because the benifits it has probably outweighs the negatives to most people in North America. I do think its great that it provides an increase in health care service which is very important.
ReplyDeleteConcerning NAFTA, I believed it created a lot of opportunities but also disadvantages as well. NAFTA is successful in the sense that it created a numerous amount of jobs for people that usually provided somewhat better pay than what they are used to. However, most of these jobs were in a factory setting with dreadful conditions and cheap labor practices. Through NAFTA came jobs, but it also came with health concerns and environmental issues within the factories. Although the wages are usually higher in these jobs, it comes at the cost of one’s health and rights such as in Mexico. One industry that rose from NAFTA is the maquiladora system. I believe that this system’s negatives outweigh its positives. Workers are deprived of rights and their health is at stake and even though they are making more money, it should not be worth the risk. NAFTA has not benefited everyone equally, I don’t think any program could accomplish that. It creates more profits for countries like the United States at the cost of overworking and underpaying workers for cheap labor. This agreement should come with more strict guidelines pertaining to the rights and conditions of workers in countries that provide products for these trading practices. The workers should be more protected since they are the ones that provide a lot of the profit.
ReplyDeleteI think that NAFTA did a lot of good as well as a lot of bad, so I'm on the fence about them. NAFTA created a great amount of jobs for people in areas where there would a lot of poverty, if these companies weren't there. Although it creates many jobs for many, it hurts the American economy by outsourcing jobs and hurting the environment with factories and and the transportation used to ship the goods made in all these other countries. NAFTA has benefited all members by creating jobs for countries that wouldn't normally have jobs, even though the pay isn't as much as its suppose to. It also benefits America because goods made in countries for cheap labor cost less when bought. If iI were able to change anything about NAFTA i would have to change the ability to take care of the workers and have them in enviornments safe enough to work in.
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, NAFTA has done a lot of good in creating jobs by connecting 450 million people in free trade areas. But the more into NAFTA that you go, the negatives seem to outweigh the positives that it brings. The amount of outsourcing that it does crushes the American economy and people in America searching for jobs. While outsourcing the jobs to foreign countries saves money, it ultimately leads to more poverty in America with less jobs available locally. NAFTA does a good job of helping third world counties become more stable by offering them jobs to bring in some money into their economies. As seen in many outsourced jobs, the working conditions are very harsh and even dangerous in certain locations. The United States benefits economically because they get the same goods for a much lower cost because of the low wages that the employees are making overseas. I do not think there is any way to change NAFTA without dramatically hurting another area.
ReplyDeleteI agree that NAFTA did help some people get jobs and it increased production of goods through Canada, U.S. and Mexico. It gave the workers better pay but worse working conditions. Many of the workers also would lose their jobs from the jobs moving to other countries for cheaper labor. I do not think that NAFTA has helped Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. equally. It seems that the U.S. might have had an advantage over the other countries because they would end up making three times as much money while paying the workers in mexico $68 a week. The CEO of the company makes a million+ dollars a year. There could be a lot more improvement. They could try to have equality through the 3 countries by having the same wages for all 3 with decent and healthy working conditions. It would be a difficult task to try to change their ways but some people might have the fighting power to do so.
ReplyDeleteAfter learning the intentions of NAFTA the proposition seemed like a great benefit for ALL three countries, although through the years it has seemed to really affect Mexico and benefit the Canada and the United States. I personally think that this agreement was not as successful as some people thought. It definitely helped US and Canada bring factories to Mexico, but it did not help Mexico to bring factories or export their goods to those countries. I would change the regulations of those factories to help better the conditions of the workers. Subsidies should have been given to companies that needed aid in order to export their goods.
ReplyDeleteWhen the United States, Mexico and Canada entered in to the NAFTA agreement, of course they all thought it will be successful. They thought of all the benefits and opportunities for each country, but failed to consider the (undesirable) long term consequences, especially for the poorer country, Mexico. The Mexican government thought that entering the agreement will help their country's economy. They believe their farmers are now able to gather their crops and sell them for more profit in the U.S. and Canada. However, they failed to realize that the U.S. and Canada are technologically more advanced and can produce crops faster and more efficiently. Mexican farmers, most of the time, have to plow their crops the old fashioned way, which takes up their harvesting time. Harvesting crops also requires hand work. Those farmers cannot afford to buy expensive machines to help them with farm work. Therefore, with lower costs, the U.S. and Canada are able to sell their crops to Mexico and each other for lower prices. This way, Mexican farmers are actually losing money from farming.
ReplyDeleteNAFTA obviously does not benefit everyone equally. The Mexican farmers, for one, is fighting a losing battle everyday. Once they lose their land, they are forced to either migrate north to the U.S. or work in the countless maquiladoras with low wages and unreasonable working conditions. Either option has their disadvantages. Migrating north, the workers rarely obtain visas to legally stay and work in the U.S., therefore, they can only find low paying jobs with the possibility of deportation.
Changing such agreement is not an easy task. If one restriction changes, it will definitely affect one or more countries. If nothing is changed, Mexico's economy will continue to decline. I believe the trading agreement should be changed slightly to benefit Mexico. There should be stricter barriers and tariffs to trade with Mexico. Of course, this will raise the concern from greedy American and Canadian business owners, but if the restrictions continue to be loose, Mexico's economy will continue to diminish and the great country will soon be forgotten, perhaps non-existent.
NAFTA is agreement have brought more good benefits than bad. Even we see a lot of bad thing like damaged environments or low pay, but that what we compare with America. If we compare the life of Mexico before and after NAFTA agreement, we know that, a lot of chance in the material and condition of each Mexican family. Maybe the overcome of the benefits that Government in Mexican saw more than the damaged of environment so that why they allow for the company to operating; or maybe some people with more power in the Mexican Government has better off and they ignore the damaged that their resident have to pay. Not only benefits for Mexico, it also benefits for America and Canada too. The bad things that we lost a lot of jobs but the good things are everything is cheaper now. Step by step I believe we will still in win-win solution with global trading.
ReplyDeleteWe are human so I think we cannot predict anything perfect; however if we think it is good and the result bring have proved it so we will continue to do it and improve it.
My personal assessment of NAFTA is that it failed miserably. Any information that I have found on the subject demonstrates that it has made the Mexican government rich and the Mexican people poorer than they were before the agreement. More jobs were created at a higher wage, but the villages where the factories were built got polluted and destroyed in the process. Also, the living expenses on the border increased to a level competitive with the United States and so $1 an hour does not quite support families even though it is well above minimum wage. Factories cannot increase the wage and stay competitive with the global marker due to China and Indonesia paying its workers only one fourth of the $1 wage. Rural farmers cannot make enough money to support themselves and cannot compete with the market NAFTA has created and so they leave their rural communities to contribute to overpopulating the already overflowing border towns that house the factories. With no farming or agricultural system, Mexico's countryside is falling apart and people are starting to flee into the United States for survival. The border towns are overrun with gangs and crime so that people are not safe in their own homes, which is a term I use generously for the shacks in which people try to live. The Mexican government is in surplus with its money and does nothing to give back to its people. I believe all of this turmoil is a direct result of NAFTA and something should be done about it. If the Mexican government has benefitted from NAFTA so much, then maybe they can afford to do without it until they relieve some of their people's burdens.
ReplyDeleteInitially, NAFTA sounded like it great idea and it might be a good idea except it needs a lot of work. The idea of job creation for the people of other countries in need and the fact that it benefits the U.S. economically calls for a plan that shouldn't fail. I think it's the lack of attention to small details that make a difference. The biggest issue, and we've been discussing this, is the terrible working conditions and the abuse that laborers are subject to. Why not keep the idea of cheap labor and make sure the factories are a safe environment to work in? Our government spends ridiculous amounts of money on things that don't flourish any profit, yet we don't take the time to invest in the people that are contributing to our economy? We provide welfare to drug addicts who do absolutely nothing for our country yet we refuse to invest in this area. Of course NAFTA hasn't benefitted all members and it should. Although on the surface it seems like a win, ultimately it's a win, lose.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how an economic/trade agreement between three vast nations can be completely fair. It would apprear to me that whoever initiates such agreement would have a motive and from there sticks would be drawn on how everyone benefits and what results from the agreement. This particular agreement of free trade between Canada, Mexico, and the United States had the countries anticipating great results and vast benefits in work and economic growth. It doesn't seem that they expected such a massive loss of work opportunity in the U.S. due to outsourcing nor did they expect stagnant economic status in Mexico. Because outsourcing to cheaper labor is always a threat and the Maquiladoras provide better work opportunity for women and their families, the women continue to work and the large corporations thrive. The major problem with this agreement appears to be in the constant outsourcing of both American jobs to Mexicans and even from the Mexicans to Asian nations. Another problem with this agreement falls under the way corporations treat their "employees" (more like "cogs in a machine) and in how they maintain and run their factories. I would definitly say that NAFTA hurt everyone more than it helped; deeming it completely unsuccessful.
ReplyDeleteConcerning NAFTA, I do believe it help increase productions of good in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. NAFTA is one of the most powerful and wide reaching treaties in the world and NAFTA is mainly created to support the United States, Canada and Mexico. NAFTA definitely brought many jobs to people but I feel that most of the beneficial goes to the U.S. because many of the America goods are being made in Mexico with very cheap labors and than begin import to the U.S. and Canada where the goods are sold 10 times the price it is being made. Moreover, I feel that labor should increase and changes should be made in order to make it more far for Mexico.
ReplyDeleteNAFTA has been successful in the idea that it has provided a working trade agreement. NAFTA has also benefitted the US and Canadian economy, even the Mexican economy initially. Large corporations have definitely found positive experiences since the implementation of NAFTA, and consumers as a whole have more regularly available, affordable goods. The creation of the agreement, which brought the furthering of the maquiladora system, also provided workers with immediate gains such as basic shelter and income.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the benefits of this agreement and therefore trade and production system have largely served only those who were already benefitting from previous systems. NAFTA did not and does not help to “close the gap” between the rich and the poor. If anything, it has served only to better exploit the bottom working class and to actually create distinctions between whole nations as “workers” and “consumers.” From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense that the owners, managers, and “higher-ups” should reap more of the benefits of a system which they essentially created. Yet, does it also follow that these businessmen should be the only ones gathering profits?
NAFTA has not been executed well, especially when considering the maquiladora system in US-Mexican border towns such as Tijuana and Juarez. The environmental hazards and abuses are the primary objection points for me. Damaging the land, water, and therefore ecosystem affects each and every global citizen. The thought of irreversible medical conditions from birth defects to deformities is alarming and despicable. Companies that bring production to lower-income/ lower-cost areas have an ethical responsibility to both clean and maintain their waste and treat their workers to basic human rights.
What NAFTA is missing is proper rights enforcement. For these systems of production to work ethically, we must have neutral regulators—and ones that do not cost the host country. If the design of the program or industry is to be mutually beneficial, then how can we place the burden of regulation on a country that was economically weaker from the beginning?
I think that initially NAFTA was beneficial in that it did create a large free trade area as well as more jobs, but ultimately it left a lot of room for improvement. I also don't think that an agreement with three people could possibly benefit each one equally, and I think that Mexico benefitted the least of from the three countries involved. The loss of so many jobs could also not have been foreseen and the outsourcing of labor is definitely an area that can be improved. We have been talking about the horrible work conditions that the workers experience in those factories and I do believe that in that sense improvement can be made. But where other changes should be made I am not sure what else I would improve. (Viviana Trujillo)
ReplyDeleteI think that NAFTA had good intentions in the fact that they wanted to crate an organization that allowed some countries like Mexico a chance to use their resources and trade with other countries. It was a baby step for Mexico in the sense that they did not have to pay much for exporting because it was so close and it was easy for the country to agree upon the fact that this would be good for their country. I feel that NAFTA did not do mush for the US but take job away because they were out sourcing them to other places so that it became cheeper for the manufactures. This i feel answers the question in the senes that NAFTA did not help all these countries fairly and that for Mexico it was beneficial but for the US it was harmful. Canada was more in the middle of the situation because they have a good government system that allows their jobs to stay in Canada but things are more expensive there because of that. overall i am not a huge fan of NAFTA but in come cases it is beneficial.
ReplyDeleteNAFTA was of course seen to be a beneficial aspect at first but there is no way everybody would receive fair results. It is not a surprise that Mexico got the short end of the stick. However, due to NAFTA, more jobs were created during the outsourcing. The downside is the unfortunate and rough time the U.S.'s economy is undergoing and losing these job openings is a major downfall. The argument can be seen as NAFTA needing to change as it pushed for companies to outsource to countries like Mexico, however, the honest reason for such outsourcing is the cheap labor. These companies would have no way of making as much extreme amounts of money if they had to pay the minimum wage for the U.S. workers.
ReplyDeleteIt was successful in the sense that it opened the gateway to trade but again, like most American programs, only the present was considered, forgetting the questionable success of the future. The bigger picture is, huge corporations now have it easier to outsource their labor in a cheap and forgettable country like Mexico without having to worry about working conditions and minimum wage. NAFTA should implement its only regulations of conditions and pay so that corporations do not just follow the countries negligence and lack of fair pay.
I feel as though NAFTA was made with great intention by some very brilliant people. I think where it went wrong was that the idea was great, but the implementation was not thought out thoroughly enough. The emphasis was on the initial benefits of the program, however the future affects were not really thought out or considered. I understand that some of them are just not predictable, but I do feel like if a huge program like this is going to be put in place the "would ifs?" should have been considered. Of course big corporations will do whatever it takes to run an efficient business for the cheapest price in order to maximize profit, that is why people start businesses in the first place. There should definitely be more conditions regarding NAFTA in order to prevent outsourcing and unfair working conditions for minorities.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I feel that NAFTA has been successful at creating a strong and profitable trade agreement for North America. Group 2's presentation even mentioned how NAFTA established a link of $17 trillion worth of goods across the United States, Canada and Mexico. In my opinion, each country involved benefits from NAFTA, but they do not benefit equally. For example, in Elisabeth Milkan's article "NAFTA's Promise Unfulfilled", she explains how Mexico has declined since the creation of NAFTA. She points out that Mexico has lost a lot of jobs due to the creation of factories. With larger and more efficient factories, many local farmers are out of work. Further more, now that the United States has turned to China for even cheaper outsourced labor, a large sector of Mexican jobs is now gone as well. Although I feel that Milkan made some good points in the article, it made me realize that I feel that many people wrongfully blame NAFTA for things that may have occured with our without an established trade agreement. For example, regardless of treaties regulation barriers, the United States would still look to be profitable itself by finding the cheapest labor possible regardless of where it is from. I also think that it is unfair to say that NAFTA has been detrimental to Mexico. I believe most people agree that Mexico doesn't benefit nearly as much as the United States and Canada, but I think it still has benefited significantly for being a part of NAFTA. This trade agreement has brought Mexico into a large factor of the global economy- a valuable position for any country. To me, it is unfair to only look at Mexico's success in terms of the United States' success.
ReplyDeleteAs for rewriting the NAFTA agreement, I believe that nothing can be done to further equalize the three countries involved. I believe that creating stipulations that can help bring Mexico up to speed could only be detrimental in the long run by making the agreement unequal in a different balance. To me the problem lays more in the execution of the agreement. In Milkan's article, she also notes that many blame Mexican leaders as being to weak to fight for control within NAFTA. This is a prime example of how the execution is unequal, but the agreement itself is not. Perhaps changes to clearly specify how the agreement needs to be particularly carried out would help, but I think that would create a lot of chaos for all involved.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/business/worldbusiness/24peso.html?ref=northamericanfreetradeagreement
I think that NAFTA was both beneficial and harmful. It has opened the door for open trade, ended tariffs on various goods and services, and implemented equality between Canada, America, and Mexico. Even though it was beneficial for them, I don't think the three countries were equally benefited. Mexico has benefited the most from NAFTA. Their export numbers have increased dramatically. Canada and America were successful as well, but a lot of their jobs were being outsourced to other countries. Although Mexico's maquiladoras have became their landmark of trade, it brought up many concerns. The workers in these maquiladoras work in terrible conditions that are harmful to their health and the environment around them. Women are treated unequally and even abused. NAFTA should enforce more rights and equality for all workers. They cut a lot of corners by allowing so much exposure of chemicals and toxins into the environment. Safety and people's lives should be more important than profit.
ReplyDeleteEvery coin has two sides. Similarly, I feel like NAFTA has had both good and bad effects on the people and countries related to it. After learning about the initial ideas and thoughts behind NAFTA, I have felt that NAFTA was a wrong decision. I believe, every country's economy would prosper if they would provide for their own commodities. In the video clip it says that NAFTA was supposed to bring 200,000 export induced jobs for the U.S. and statistics showed that because of NAFTA, 500,000 factory jobs were lost by the people of U.S. I could not help but look at the negative difference in the number of jobs gained and lost. Not only did this result in the economical crises in the U.S. but it also resulted in horrible work conditions for the laborers in Mexico. Yes, they did have jobs and they could fulfill for their families, but at the cost of their health. The exploitation of these workers and the degradation of the environment has lead me to really think if NAFTA did any good at all? If these factories were still in the U.S, U.S. might have had a proper ratio of the service sector jobs and manufacturing jobs and because of this, our economy could have been better than what it is today.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if we were to set up a factory, we would need hundreds of people for the assembly, hundreds of other people to work in the lines, others to inspect the workers and hundreds of others to work in the office. In all, we would end up generating jobs for more than a thousand people. But if we were to set up a hospital, We would need a couple nurses and a receptionist. In all, we would be generating less than a hundred jobs.
In the end, I would like to say that even though NAFTA has its pros and cons, the cons have definitely out weighed the pros. But again, these are just my thoughts and view points on the topic.
Though NAFTA was formed with good intentions the fact that not all members involved benefit from this makes it a bad decision. As the poorest of the three, Mexico workers have the short end of the stick. Because of outsourcing to Mexico became the most profitable for big companies because of the lack of laws involving factories and the pay for labor being so cheap. It was something that was more successful for the United States and Canada, and though it helped create jobs in Mexico the conditions of the jobs make it something that the residents didn't profit from. I would change NAFTA to include more rules and regulations that would be able to help Mexican workers even the ground with workers from Canada and the United States.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not think that this NAFTA Treaty was complete mess. Yes it might benefitted Mexico by creating plenty of jobs and bringing income to the country but not for the actual workers that manufcature the items nor for the people who live next to these huge companies that little by little are destroying their environment and what is even worst causing them their health harm! As for the United States yes it relieved American companies from tax and from paying high pay to labors since in Mexico is lkabor is much way cheaper and unbelievable! But it also caused and still causes unemployement level to rise since evertime a company moves out of the contry its workers are left with out jobs. Not only that but looking at this topic through the eyes of a perso who is affected by this is terrible! Their lives might have gotten better by them having a job and earning a little more income but their are putting their lives at risk living and expsoing themselves to very harmful toxins just for a small a mount of money that is not even half of what job and expose is worth.
ReplyDeleteAlthough NAFTA's intentions were applaudable in the beginning, and the idea sounds great in theory, the fact of the matter is that it has done more harm than good. While outsourcing jobs to countries with poor labor conditions does help, the conditions at most of these places are not up to standard. NAFTA needs to regulate the conditions for their workers and make sure it is safe, and the workers are not being exploited (as they are now.) Also, it has hurt jobs in our own country, with job layoffs and conditions here also being less than favorable. Overall, NAFTA isn't all bad, but there are serious flaws in it that need to be remedied so that it can benefit all of the North American countries, not just a select few people in corporate America.
ReplyDeleteI venture to say NAFTA was succesful. It did what it wanted to do didn't it? The idea was to buff Mexico's economy by getting help form Canada and the US. The main issue I believe was the costs were not spelled out except by protestors. The cost to the U.S. in the number of jobs for example was higher than expected, making NAFTA much more of a pain to deal with than a benefit to enjoy on the US side of things. Canada probably suffered as well but it was likely not to the same extent the US did. I cannot come up with some alternative however because I shudder at what the world would be like today WITHOUT NAFTA and the spread of globalized jobs.
ReplyDeleteInitially NAFTA must have seemed like a beneficial agreement to all with the purpose of increasing business investment and competing globally; however, not all members benefited equally. Outsourcing in Mexico gained appeal through the tariff exemptions and cheap labor but at the cost of the citizens and the environment. The conditions for the workers in the maquiladoras are of concern, the treatment, wages and damage to their health from chemicals are neglected. Changes that could be implemented could be enforcing tighter regulations on companies and corporate owners on the way they treat their workers, ensuring a safer working environment and preventing damage to the environment.
ReplyDeleteNafta has clearly been successful to business. Industries have the free reigns of going into a country like mexico will no tariffs to pay to the government, meanwhile having the ability to undercut exisisting businesses like we witnessed in the module with the corn farmers. Nafta, however, as allowed for the maquiladora program to flourish and the failing of many businesses in mexico. With the failing of these businesses workers are forced to migrate north to America in the pursuit of more money and a better life. Clearly, with all being stated thus far, the trade agreement has not benefited the partners equally. Mexico's government in some instances benefits from the local tax dollars American companies pay in the country as well as it being part of Mexico's overall GDP. However, worker's rights and conditions are clearly being exploited for the benefit of profit. In the language of the trade agreement, I believe that any company that wishes to enter Mexico or another country should have free trade for a limited time..the first five or ten years? Following they should pay a limited tariff price creating a more balanced competition with local business.
ReplyDeleteI think NAFTA was a great start. It is just not working well enough to protect those workers who are working under severe conditions. The idea to make change in Mexico economy was applaudable; however, it ended up producing disadvantages than advantages. First and foremost disadvantage is that NAFTA made it possible for many U.S. manufacturers to move jobs to lower-cost Mexico. The manufacturers that remained lowered wages to compete in those industries.
ReplyDeleteThe second disadvantage was that many of Mexico's farmers were put out of business by U.S.-subsidized farm products. As a result, NAFTA became the provisions that was intended bring change to Mexican labor and environmental protection but failed because they were not strong enough to prevent those workers from being exploited.
NAFTA has had both advantages and disadvantages throughout history. The advantages of NAFTA were the creation of equal opportunity for jobs. NAFTA was made to break barriers and investment within Mexico, United States, and Canada that created opportunities for Americans to have decent jobs. The disadvantages about NAFTA jobs were the poor quality and conditions the workers faced. There were a lot of cheap labor practices and some unfair treatment. I believe NAFTA attempted to create jobs but has not benefited its members because of the poor conditions and the government promised to oversee this free trade. The thing I would change about NAFTA would be the conditions and pay amount for the jobs given and a stricter environment that will hold people accountable. I think the promises made were enforced but were also forgotten once the free trade started.
ReplyDeleteNAFTA was intended to be beneficial for everyone, but I doubt they have all equally benefitted. Just like when sports teams trade players. Usually there is a winner and a loser, occasionally it works out for both teams, but no matter what they are not equally benefitted. That same concept works in world politics. This was a plan put into action in order to help lower the costs of businesses while allowing us to import goods more cheaply then before, consequently lowering consumer prices. While it may not all have gone according to plan. I believe that it does sit on a solid foundation. The reality is that there will always be improvements that can be made on public policy. That does not mean they are bad pieces of policy. Even if it did not go according to plan.
ReplyDelete