北美自由贸易协定的缺点

北美自由贸易协定的缺点:北美自由贸易区有很多缺点。

首先和最重要的是，是，北美自由贸易协定使它可能为许多美国厂家将作业移到成本较低的墨西哥。

保持工资下降，在这些行业中竞争的制造商。

第二个缺点是很多墨西哥的农民提出了业务美国补贴农产品。

北美自由贸易协定墨西哥劳动和环境保护的规定没有强大到足以阻止那些工人被剥削。

美国的就业机会被丢失:在墨西哥，劳动是便宜的因为许多制造业从高成本的美国各州搬他们生产的一部分。

1994 年至 2010 年，墨西哥与美国的贸易赤字总额美元972 亿，取代682,900 美国的就业机会。

(然而，116,400 2007 年以后，发生的可能是金融危机的结果) 近80%的损失属于制造业。

加州，纽约，密歇根州和德克萨斯州受灾因为他们有高浓度的植物搬到墨西哥的产业。

这些行业包括汽车、纺织品、计算机和电器。

(来源: 经济政策研究所，"自由贸易的高成本，"2011 年 5 月 3 日) 美国工资被镇压:在这些行业中的并不是所有公司都搬到墨西哥。

那些使用移动期间联盟组织驱动器的威胁。

当它成为了选择之间加入联盟或失去工厂时，工人选择工厂。

工人没有工会的支持，小小的议价能力。

这压抑工资增长。

1993 年至 1995 年，搬到墨西哥的行业的所有公司的50%用于关闭工厂的威胁。

到 1999 年，那率已经上升到 65%。

墨西哥的农民被关:由于北美自由贸易协定，墨西哥失去了130 万的农场工作。

2002 年农业法案资助美国农业的净农业收入的 40%。

当北美自由贸易协定取消了关税时，玉米和其它谷物出口到墨西哥低于成本的价格。

墨西哥农民无法竞争。

同时，墨西哥减少其补贴到农民从农业收入总额的33.2%在1990 年至13.2 %2001 年。

大多数的这些补贴无论如何去墨西哥的大农场。

(来源: 全球化，暴露的自由贸易，2003 年 2 月 25 日; 神话国际论坛经济学人》，关税和玉米饼，2008 年 1 月 24 日) 女工被剥削:北美自由贸易协定扩大边境加工程序，美国拥有的公司从事边境附近要便宜装配产品出口到美国的墨西哥工人这增长到30%的墨西哥的劳动力。

这些工人有"没有劳动权利或健康保护，工作日伸出12 小时或更多，如果你是一个女人，你可能被迫采取验孕测试时申请一份工作，"根据大陆社会联盟。

(来源: 、北美自由贸易协定的经验教训，2001 年 4 月 20 日) 墨西哥的环境恶化:针对北美自由贸易区的竞争压力，墨西哥农业综合企业使用更多的化肥和其他化学品，成本$ 360 亿每年在污染。

农村农民扩大到更加贫瘠的土地，导致森林砍伐速度每630,000 年公顷。

(来源:卡内基，北美自由贸易协定的承诺和现实，2004年) 北美自由贸易协定，墨西哥卡车呼吁免费访问:未在北美自由贸易协定内的另一项协议。

北美自由贸易协定将允许卡车从墨西哥旅行在美国超出当前20 英里商业地带限制内。

成立了由运输部(DoT) 的示范项目审查这的实用性。

在2008 年，众议院终止这一项目，并禁止点允许的北美自由贸易协定过未经国会批准执行这一规定。

美国国会担心墨西哥卡车将提出道路危险。

他们都不受相同的安全标准作为美国卡车。

此外，北美自由贸易协定的这一部分被反对美国卡车司机的组织和公司，他可能已失去业务。

目前，墨西哥卡车必须停止在20 英里极限，有他们的货物转移到美国卡车。

也是一个互惠的问题。

北美自由贸易协定，也就可以无限次的访问整个墨西哥美国卡车。

一项类似协定工作井之间的其他北美自由贸易协定伙伴，加拿大。

然而，美文章更新国卡车更大，携带更重的负荷。

这违反了墨西哥政府的尺寸和重量限制。

年月日2014 4 19 NAFTA has many disadvantages. First and foremost, 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. The second disadvantage was that many of Mexico's farmers were put out of business by U.S.-subsidized farm products. NAFTA provisions for Mexican labor and environmentalprotection were not strong enough to prevent those workers from being exploited. U.S. Jobs Were Lost: Since labor is cheaper in Mexico, many manufacturing industries moved part of their production from high-cost U.S. states. Between 1994 and 2010, the U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaled $97.2 billion, displacing 682,900 U.S. jobs. (However, 116,400 occurred after 2007, and could have been a result of the financial crisis.) Nearly 80% of the losses were in manufacturing. California, New York, Michigan and Texas were hit the hardest because they had high concentrations of the industries that moved plants to Mexico. These industries included motor vehicles, textiles, computers, and electrical appliances. (Source: Economic Policy Institute, "The High Cost of Free Trade," May 3, 2011) U.S. Wages Were Suppressed: Not all companies in these industries moved to Mexico. The ones that used the threat of moving during union organizing drives. When it became a choice between joining the union or losing the factory, workers chose the factory. Without union support, the workers had little bargaining power. Mexico's Farmers Were Put Out of Business: Thanks to NAFTA, Mexico lost 1.3 million farm jobs. The 2002 Farm Bill subsidized U.S.agribusiness by as much as 40% of net farm income. When NAFTA removed tariffs, corn and other grains were exported to Mexico below cost. Rural Mexican farmers could not compete. At the same time, Mexico reduced its subsidies to farmers from 33.2% of total farm income in 1990 to 13.2% in 2001. Most of those subsidies went to Mexico's large farms, anyway.(Source: International Forum on Globalization, Exposing the Myth of Free Trade, February 25, 2003; The Economist, Tariffs and Tortillas, January 24, 2008) Maquiladora Workers Were Exploited:NAFTA expanded the maquiladora program, in which U.S.-owned companies employed Mexican workers near the border to cheaply assemble products for export to the U.S. This grew to 30% of Mexico's labor force. These workers have "no labor rights or health protections, workdays stretch out 12 hours or more, and if you are a woman, you could be forced to take a pregnancy test when applying for a job," according to Continental Social Alliance. (Source: , Lessons of NAFTA, April 20, 2001) Mexico's Environment Deteriorated:In response to NAFTA competitive pressure, Mexico agribusiness used more fertilizers and other chemicals, costing $36 billion per yearin pollution. Rural farmers expanded into more marginal land, resulting in deforestation at a rate of 630,000 hectares per year. (Source: Carnegie Endowment, NAFTA's Promise and Reality, 2004) NAFTA Called for Free Access for Mexican Trucks: Another agreement within NAFTA has not been implemented. NAFTA would have allowed trucks from Mexico to travel within the United States beyond the current 20-mile commercial zone limit. A demonstration project by the Department of Transportation (DoT) was set up to review the practicality of this. In 2008, theHouse of Representatives terminated this project, and prohibited the DoT from allowing this provision of NAFTA to ever be implemented without Congressional approval. Congress was concerned that Mexican trucks would have presented a road hazard. They are not subject to the same safety standards as U.S. trucks. In addition, this portion of NAFTA was opposed by the U.S. truckers' organizations and companies, who would have lost business. Currently, Mexican trucks must stop at the 20-mile limit and have their goods transferred to U.S. trucks. There was also a question of reciprocity. The NAFTA agreement would also have allowed unlimited access for U.S. trucks throughoutMexico. A similar agreement works well between the other NAFTA partner, Canada. However, U.S. trucks are larger and carry heavier loads. This violates size and weight restrictions imposed by the Mexican government. Article updated April 19, 2014NAFTA is highly controversial. Do the pros of NAFTA outweigh the cons? Pros NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, is the world's largest free trade area. The agreement between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico links 450 million people and the $19.24 trillion in goods and services produced by the three countries. Trade has increased from $297 billion in 1993, the year before NAFTA was enacted, to $1.2 trillion in 2012 (most recent estimates) . NAFTA US Free Trade AgreementsInvestment Agreement Global World Trade Agreement Estimates are that NAFTA increases economic output in the U.S. by as much as .5% a year. Some service industries, such as health care and financial services, see an increase in exports. Farm products also reap the benefits of NAFTA's lower tariffs. U.S. consumers also benefit from NAFTA. Mexican oil can be imported for less, lowering the cost of gas in the U.S. and decreasing reliance on oil from the Middle East. Lower gas prices means food can be transported more cheaply, as well. For more, see NAFTA Advantages. Cons NAFTA led to the loss of 500,000-750,000 jobs in the U.S., thanks tocompanies moving across the border to Mexico. As a result, workers in those industries affected by NAFTA could not bargain for higher wages. NAFTA created negative consequences for Mexico, too. NAFTA allowed government-subsidized U.S. farm products into Mexico, where local farmers could not compete with the artificially low prices. As Mexicans lost their farms, they went to work in sub-standard conditions in the maquiladora program. Does NAFTA's Pros Outweigh Its Cons? NAFTA's disadvantages are significant. Can anything really justify the loss of entire industries in New York or Michigan, worker mistreatment for remaining workers in the U.S., or in the maquiladora program, and environmental damage along the border? However, from an economic perspective, NAFTA is a success. Without it, the U.S. could not compete as effectively against the European Union (now the world's largest economy) or China and its trade agreements. That $1.2 trillion in increased trade is really needed after the 2008 financial crisis. Even more people would be unemployed without it. Perhaps NAFTA should have been designed with better protections. At the same time, free trade agreements are a necessity for the U.S. when competing in an ever-more-globalized world. Article updated August 23, 2014 北美自由贸易协定是高度争议。