What Impact Has NAFTA had on Jobs and Wages?

NAFTA's sponsors argued for it in large part on the grounds that it would contribute to job growth in the United States by opening the Mexican market to more American goods and services, while opponents claimed that many American workers would also lose jobs to cheaper Mexican labor. Thus, it is not surprising that the press and the public have tended to focus on NAFTA's impact on jobs, as well as compensation levels. Contributing to this emphasis is widespread concern that increasing economic globalization has coincided with a period when average U.S. wages have stagnated and compensation to less educated workers has declined substantially.

This is one of the most controversial issues surrounding NAFTA. Polls show that a majority of Americans believe NAFTA has had a negative impact on U.S. jobs. Right or wrong, public opinion on this subject is not necessarily based on the facts. Both NAFTA's supporters and opponents have been known to present only partial information about the agreement's impact in the interest of making their case. For example, the executive summary of the Clinton administration's three-year progress report on NAFTA, presented to Congress in July 1997, mentions only the number of new jobs supported by increased U.S. exports to Mexico and not the number of jobs lost as a result of the agreement. Similarly, the executive summary of the report of a coalition of labor and environmental groups opposed to NAFTA highlights job losses, neglecting to mention the new jobs created by rising U.S. exports to Mexico. Changes in U.S.-Mexican trade under NAFTA have created new jobs in some industries and cost old jobs in others; to present only one side of the equation is misleading at best. Here's what a closer look at NAFTA's impact on U.S. jobs and compensation levels reveals.

Jobs Gained and Lost Reports of NAFTA's impact on the number of jobs are usually based on a multiplier methodology that relates U.S. export levels to job creation. The Department of Commerce has for some time used a multiplier that estimates 20 000 jobs gained for every $1billion rise in U.S. exports. Similarly, an Institute for International Economics study estimated job gains from exports at 14 500 per $1 billion. NAFTA supporters use such multipliers to argue that U.S. export growth over the life of NAFTA has translated into net new jobs in the United States, while opponents of the agreement use other multipliers to claim that increases in the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico have translated into net job losses. These multiplier methodologies have been roundly criticized by some economists, who point out that there is no automatic relationship between either exports and job creation or imports and job losses; moreover, the estimates generated by such multipliers are not rooted in the specific structure of U.S.-Mexican trade; the effect of NAFTA on exports and imports is not symmetrical; and trade actually creates jobs indirectly in ways that are difficult to measure. Extremely sophisticated models are called for to take all these factors into account, but they do not yet exist. Nonetheless, the NAFTA debate continues to revolve around such estimates.

Given the intensity of this debate, it is perhaps surprising to discover that the best available data and models suggest that NAFTA's impact on the number of jobs appears, on balance, to have been negligible. The agreement's supporters, who argued that increased exports to Mexico would lead to a surge in higher-paying, export-based jobs, and its opponents, who forecast massive job losses as plants relocated to Mexico to take advantage of lower labor costs, have both been proven wrong. A sophisticated statistical model prepared by the North American Integration and Development Center at UCLA, the results of which were published in December 1996, concluded that most previous studies of NAFTA had overestimated significantly job displacement in the United States due to imports from Mexico and, to a lesser extent, the number of jobs supported by U.S. exports. The model also suggested that the overall impact of U.S.-Mexican trade on U.S. employment—positive or negative—has had very little to do with tariff liberalization under NAFTA. The most important negative impact on employment has been the decline in U.S. exports due to the Mexican peso crisis, not the liberalization of tariffs due to NAFTA. Domestic economic policies and trends have had a far greater impact than NAFTA on the U.S. economy, jobs, and wages.

Another way of getting at the question of jobs lost due to NAFTA is to rely on certifications and the awarding of benefits under the NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance Program (NAFTA-TAAP), which provides employment services, training, and income support to eligible workers. To receive these benefits, workers must be certified by the U.S. Department of Labor to have lost their jobs or be threatened with job loss by increased import competition from Mexico or Canada or production shifts to Mexico or Canada. (Certification does not necessarily mean that workers have lost their jobs and will receive benefits, but that they are at risk of job loss, so the actual number of workers receiving benefits is much lower than the number of those certified.)

From 1994 through mid-July 1997, approximately 136 000 workers were certified by the Labor Department according to these criteria. Most of these workers were in the apparel, textiles, and leather goods sectors. This number represents about one-tenth of 1 percent of total U.S. employment of about 130 million, or less than the average number of jobs created monthly in the United States. There is criticism that NAFTA -TAAP underestimates the number of workers affected by NAFTA, since only those who take the initiative of applying to the program are considered for benefits. But even if the true number were several times higher, it would still be far less than 1 percent of U.S. employment. Incidentally, fewer than one-quarter of the 136 000 certified workers received benefits under NAFTA -TAAP; the others either did not lose their jobs or found new work.

There are no comparable numbers available for U.S. workers whose jobs might have been created by increased demand for exports to Mexico or Canada. The multiplier methodology used by the Department of Commerce has by now been largely discredited (although the Clinton administration's most recent figure of 122 000 new jobs supported by exports to Mexico since 1993 relies on such a multiplier). While there is no way to assess accurately the number of jobs gained through increased exports, there clearly has been job growth. It has come not only from higher exports of goods, but also from the liberalization of the services sector, whereby Mexican industries such as banking, communications, transportation, insurance, real estate, retailing, and natural gas and electric power distribution have become fully open to investment by U.S. companies. This has led to booming job creation on both sides of the border in service industries such as telecommunications, construction, and transportation.

Wages Even if net job losses have not occurred, have U.S. wages been depressed by the new opportunities for corporations to move to Mexico? The impact of NAFTA on wages is of particular concern because real wages have remained stagnant or declined in the United States over the past two decades, especially for blue-collar workers. (For example, hourly compensation for non-supervisory production workers fell by about 95 percent between 1979 and 1995.) The situation is far worse in Mexico, where estimated real hourly wages in 1996 were 27 percent lower than in 1994 and 37 percent below 1980 levels. The decline in real wages in Mexico since 1994 is due mainly to the effects of the peso crisis, raising again the question of the connection between NAFTA and the economic events of 1994 and 1995. The longer- term wage decline since 1980 is the result of Mexico's 1982 debt crisis and subsequent austerity policies that contributed to what is now known as the country's “lost decade”.

While wages have declined, U.S. businesses have become more aggressive about fighting union organizing drives with the threat of plant relocation. One study cited by NAFTA opponents surveyed firms facing union organizing and contract campaigns. The study found that over half of these firms used the threat of shutting down operations to combat union organizing. NAFTA opponents argue that the trade pact makes these threats more credible. When forced to bargain with a union, 15 percent of firms actually closed part or all of a plant— triple the rate of the late 1980s, before NAFTA.

It is, of course, difficult to determine whether and to what extent NAFTA itself, as opposed to increased international competition and the globalization of production more generally, has contributed to declining or stagnant wages and a faster pace of plant closing-both trends were under way before the agreement was negotiated. Economists disagree about the extent to which globalization has slowed wage growth for U.S. workers relative to other factors such as technological change, declining union membership, the ongoing employment shift from manufacturing to services, and so on. (Some economists, like Paul Krugman, attribute about 10 percent of the decline in the relative wages of non-college-educated workers to trade, while others, such as Laura Tyson, blame 25 percent of the decline on trade.)

Many economists argue, however, that even if protectionism can provide unskilled workers with short-term relief from the effects of free trade, it generally lowers economic growth and living standards in the long term; a better strategy is to develop policies that upgrade the education and skills of workers. Unfortunately, federal training programs to date have not demonstrated a strong record of effectiveness.

Reading aids and expressions:

1、NAFTA's sponsors argued for it in large part on the grounds that it would contribute to job growth in the United States by opening the Mexican market to American goods and services, while opponents claimed that many Americans also lose jobs to cheaper Mexican labor.

　　在此句中：

　　1）并列连词“while”把前后两个分句联结起来；

　　2）在第一个分句中，“NAFTA's sponsors argued for it”是主句；“that it would contribute … American goods and services”是个同位语从句，说明“grounds”的内容，其中介词短语“by opening the Mexican market to American goods and services”作状语，说明谓语动词“would contribute”发生的方式；

　　3）在另一个分句中，“opponents claimed”是主句，“that many Americans also lose jobs to cheaper Mexican labor”是宾语从句，作谓语动词“claimed”的宾语。

　　4）另外，动词“lose”常和介词“to”搭配，如：

　　　　We were losing customers to cheaper rivals.

　　　　我们正在流失顾客，他们让出售低价商品的竞争对手给抢走了。

2、Contributing to this emphasis is widespread concern that increasing economic globalization has coincided with a period when average U.S. wages have stagnated and compensation to less educated workers has declined substantially.

　　这句的主语“widespread concern … declined substantially”比较长，谓语“Contributing to this emphasis is”比较短，因而采用倒装的结构；

　　在充当主语的结构中，“that increasing economic globalization … has declined substantially”是同位语从句，说明名词“concern”的内容，其中：

　　1）“increasing economic globalization has coincided with a period”是主要部分；

　　2）“when average U.S. wages have … declined substantially”是限制性的定语从句，修饰名词“period”。

3、make one's case

　　 prove that one is right　证明自己有理 　　e.g.

　　1）The lawyers made their case that the prisoner was not guilty.

　　　律师们提出辩护，证明该囚犯无罪。

　　2）He can't make his case unless he can give more evidence.

　　　他要是不能提供更多的证据，就不能证明自己有理。

4、For example, the executive summary of the Clinton administration's three-year progress report on NAFTA, presented to Congress in July 1997, mentions only the number of new jobs supported by increased U.S. exports to Mexico and not the number of jobs lost as a result of the agreement.

　　 此句虽然比较长，但是个简单句，其中：

　　 1）“the executive summary”是主语，由介词短语“of the Clinton administration's three-year progress report on NAFTA”和过去分词短语“presented to Congress in July 1997”修饰；

　　 2）“the number of new jobs”和“the number of jobs”是谓语动词“mentions”的宾语，分别由过去分词短语“supported by increased U.S. exports to Mexico”和“lost as a result of the agreement”修饰；

　　 3）executive summary——执行概要；

　　An executive summary is a report, proposal, or portfolio, etc in miniature (usually one page or shorter). That is, the executive summary contains enough information for the readers to become acquainted with the full document. An executive summary previews the main points of an in-depth report; it is written for non-technical people who don't have time to read the main report.

5、Similarly, the executive summary of the report of a coalition of labor and environmental groups opposed to NAFTA highlights job losses, neglecting to mention the new jobs created by rising U.S. exports to Mexico.

　　在这句中：

　　1）“the executive summary”是主语，它由介词短语“of the report of a coalition of labor and environmental groups”和过去分词短语“opposed to NAFTA”修饰；

　　2）“highlights job losses”是谓语；

　　3）现在分词短语“neglecting to mention the new jobs created by rising U.S. exports to Mexico”作伴随状语，表示和谓语动词同时发生的动作，其中，过去分词短语“created by rising U.S. exports to Mexico”作定语，修饰名词“jobs”，短语中的现在分词“rising” 修饰后面的名词“U.S. exports”。

6、NAFTA supporters use such multipliers to argue that U.S. export growth over the life of NAFTA has translated into new jobs in the United States, while opponents of the agreement use other multipliers to claim that increases in the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico have translated into net job losses.

　　此句是个由并列连词while连接的并列复合句：

　　 1）在前一个复合句中，“NAFTA supporters use such multipliers”是主句，动词不定式短语“to argue that … in the United States”作目的状语，其中，从句“that U.S. export growth … in the United States”作“to argue”的宾语；

　　2）在后一个复合句中，“opponents of the agreement use other multipliers”是主句，动词不定式短语“to claim … into net job losses”作目的状语，其中，从句“that increases in … into net job losses”作“to claim”的宾语；

　　3）multiplier: a situation where a change in one aspect causes a disproportionate change in another乘数。

7、These multiplier methodologies have been roundly criticized by some economists, who point out that there is no automatic relationship between either exports and job creation or imports and job losses; moreover, the estimates generated by such multipliers are not rooted in the specific structure of U.S.-Mexican trade; the effect of NAFTA on exports and imports is not symmetrical; and trade actually creates jobs indirectly in ways that are difficult to measure.

　　这是个并列复合句：

　　1）“These multiplier methodologies … job losses”和“trade actually creates jobs … to measure”是复合句，“the estimates generated … of U.S.-Mexican trade”和“the effect … is not symmetrical”是简单句；

　　2）在“These multiplier methodologies … job losses”这个复合句中，“who point out…or imports and job losses”是个非选择性的定语从句，修饰名词“economists”，其中还有一个从句“that there is no automatic relationship … job losses”作动词“point out”的宾语；

　　3）在“trade actually creates jobs … to measure”这个复合句中，“trade actually creates jobs indirectly in ways”是主句，“that are difficult to measure”是个限制性的定语从句，修饰名词“ways”。

8、Given the intensity of this debate, it is perhaps surprising to discover that the best available data and models suggest that NAFTA's impact on the number of jobs appears, on balance, to have been negligible.

　　在此句中：

　　1）“it is perhaps surprising to discover”是主句，“it”是形式主语，动词不定式短语“to discover … negligible”是实际主语；

　　2）介词短语“Given the intensity of this debate”作状语，说明主句中谓语“is surprising”的原因；

　　3）“that the best available data … been negligible”这个从句作“to discover”的宾语，其中还有一个宾语从句“that NAFTA's impact on the number of jobs appears, on balance, to have been negligible”，作动词“suggest”的宾语；

　　4）在“that NAFTA's impact on the number of jobs appears, on balance, to have been negligible”这个从句中，动词不定式“to be”采用的是完成式“to have been”，这表示这个不定式所表示的状态发生在动词“appears”之前。而且一直持续着；

　　5）另外，“on balance”的意思是taking everything into consideration 总的来说，如：

　　　　I think on balance I prefer the old system.

　　　　我认为，总的来说，我更喜欢旧的系统。

　　　　On balance, it's a useful program, despite the problems.

　　　　总的来说，这个课程安排很有用，虽然它仍有些问题。

9、The agreement's supporters, who argued that increased exports to Mexico would lead to a surge in higher-paying export-based jobs, and it s opponents, who forecast massive job losses as plants relocated to Mexico to take advantage of lower labor costs, have both been proven wrong.

　　在此句中：

　　1）“The agreement's supporters and it s opponents have both been proven wrong”是主句；

　　2）“who argued … export-based jobs”是非限制性的定语从句，修饰名词“supporters”，其中“that increased exports … export-based jobs”是宾语从句，作动词“argued”的宾语；

　　3）“who forecast … lower labor costs”也是个非限制性的定语从句，修饰名词“opponents”，其中“as plants relocated … labor costs”是个原因状语从句，修饰动词“forecast”。

10、A sophisticated statistical model prepared by the North American Integration and Development Center at UCLA, the results of which were published in December 1996, concluded that most previous studies of NAFTA had overestimated significantly job displacement in the United States due to imports from Mexico and, to a lesser extent, the number of jobs supported by U.S. exports.

　　在此句中：

　　1）“A sophisticated statistical model concluded”是主句；

　　2）过去分词短语“prepared by the North American Integration and Development Center at UCLA”作定语，修饰名词“statistical model”；

　　3）“the result of which were published in December 1996”是个非限制性的定语从句，也修饰名词“statistical model”；

　　4）“that most previous studies of NAFTA … supported by U.S. exports”这个从句作动词“concluded”的宾语。

11、Another way of getting at the question of jobs lost due to NAFTA is to rely on certifications and the awarding of benefits under the NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance Program (NAFTA-TAAP), which provides employment services, training, and income support to eligible workers.

　　在此句中：

　　“Another way … Assistance Program (NAFTA-TAAP)”是主句，其中“Another way”是主语，介词短语“of getting at the question of jobs lost due to NAFTA”修饰名词“way”，过去分词短语“lost due to NAFTA”修饰名词“jobs”；动词不定式短语“to rely on … Program (NAFTA-TAAP)”作表语；

　　“which provides … workers”是个非限制性的定语从句，修饰“the NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance Program”。

12、To receive these benefits, workers must be certified by the U.S. Department of Labor to have lost their jobs or be threatened with job loss by increased import competition from Mexico or Canada or production shifts to Mexico or Canada.

　　在此句中：

　　“to have lost their jobs”是动词不定式的完成式，表示这个动作发生在被动式的谓语动词“must be certified”所表示的动作之前；

　　在“job loss by increased … or Canada”这个结构中，介词短语“by increased import competition from Mexico or Canada or production shifts to Mexico or Canada”作定语，修饰名词“job loss”，它相当于两个介词短语，因为在“production”前的介词“by”被省略了，过去分词短语“increased”作定语，和名词“import”共同修饰后面的名词“competition”。

13、Certification does not necessarily mean that workers have lost their jobs and will receive benefits, but that they are at risk of job loss, so the actual number of workers receiving benefits is much lower than the number of those certified.

　　此句是个由并列连词“so”连接的并列复合句：

　　在前一个复合句中，并列连词“but”连接两个由“that”引导的从句“that workers have lost their jobs and will receive benefits”和“that they are at risk of job loss”作谓语动词“does not mean”的宾语；

　　在后一个复合句中，“the actual number of workers receiving benefits is much lower”是主句，“than the number of those certified”是个有省略的比较状语从句，和“lower”一起构成比较。

14、There is criticism that NAFTA-TAAP underestimates the number of workers affected by NAFTA, since only those who take the initiative of applying to the program are considered for benefits.

　　在此句中：

　　“There is criticism”是主句；

　　“that NAFTA-TAAP underestimates … for benefits”是同位语从句，说明“criticism”的内容，其中：

　　1）过去分词短语“affected by NAFTA”作定语，修饰名词“workers”；

　　2）“since only those … for benefits”是原因状语从句，修饰谓语动词“underestimates”，其中的“who take the initiative of applying to the program”是限制性定语从句，修饰代词“those”。

15、It is, of course, difficult to determine whether and to what extent NAFTA itself, as opposed to increased international competition and the globalization of production more generally, has contributed to declining or stagnant wages and a faster pace of plant closing -- both trends were under way before the agreement was negotiated.

　　此句是一个由破折号“--”连接的并列复合句：

　　在前一个复合句中，“It is difficult to determine”是主句，“it”是形式主语，动词不定式“to determine …”是实际主语；从句“whether and to what …plant closing”作动词不定式“to determine”的宾语，其中介词短语“as opposed … of production more generally”作状语，修饰动词“has contributed”；

　　在后一个复合句中，“both trends were under way”是主句，“before the agreement was negotiated”是状语从句，修饰谓语“were under way”，说明其时间。