Hoffa: TPP a punch to the gut of U.S. workers | Hacker News Reader

Hoffa: TPP a punch to the gut of U.S. workers

detroitnews.com

63 pointswalterbell35 comments

Melinda St. Louis of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, and Ari Rabin-Havt, speaking yesterday in a 1-hour panel discussion on the TPP, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFHG0fZW3_s&t=15m40s

"Of the 30 chapters of the TPP, there are only 6 that have to do with traditional trade issues … the rest have to do with … "behind the border" policies, which are basically our laws … In the text, we see an expansion of the failed model, under NAFTA, that pits US workers against workers in other countries, this time in Vietnam where workers earn 65 cents an hour, as well as other countries such as Malaysia which has a huge problem with human trafficking — modern-day slavery — we are very concerned that this continues that race to the bottom … it leads to an overall depression of wages and an increase of income inequality in the U.S.

… It's a trade of industries: we are going to favor our pharmaceutical manufacturers, certain content producers receive favorable status — while giving up other industries."

> It's a trade of industries: we are going to favor our pharmaceutical manufacturers, certain content producers receive favorable status — while giving up other industries."

Isn't this just describing the comparative advantage theory of international trade?

Did a double-take when I noticed the author's name. Jimmy Hoffa's disappearance[1] is a pretty well-known mystery, at least here in Detroit, and I guess I never knew that his son had taken over leadership of the Teamsters.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa#Disappearance

Me too. I thought they either dug up some old quotes and applied them to the TPP, or there was another Hoffa. Interesting that this apple falling near its tree.

Given the senior Hoffa's ties to the mob, I hope the apple fell at least a little bit away ;-)

Random idea: If protectionism works cannot a group of people decide to create an internal economy where they purposefully trade with each other before outsiders for all products that they manufacture? They will buy goods for above real market value but the money will remain within their internal economy. Biggest problem would be enforcing the contract.

I think this already sort of exists somewhat. If my close relatives, manufacture something, I gladly buy their goods over those of their competitors because yes, I am paying more but the money is supporting my uncles, nephews and nieces. I think that's a net positive for me. They reciprocate the favour. As a family we are wealthier than we would be otherwise because, no, they cannot abandon their business and start new businesses just so they could take advantage of competitive advantage. That is unrealistic. They know only one market well enough and do not have the resources or guidance to get into a completely different market.

I guess the Amish are another example of this and I believe Israel's Kibbutz aswell.

The trade agreements are all about protectionism for capital and market discipline for labor.

Except that people who are globally competitive have no incentive in participating - they can earn on a global market and enjoy the cheaper/better goods provided by others.

Well that's what trade deals are for.

You can convince a subset of those "globally competitive people" to participate by vowing to buy their services over those of their competitors. They lessen their risk of finding work and you get a larger economy.

You don't need everyone to participate, just a big enough economy.

Also one distinct advantage over a country doing the same thing, is that you can choose who can participate or not. So once you reach the level of adequate manufacturing for a certain good you can restrict participation of people offering the same service/skill.

>You don't need everyone to participate, just a big enough economy.

That might work for Amish but unless you plan on learning how to churn your own butter and know someone who can print a CPU on to silicon wafer in their garage I doubt it translates well to the real world.

As a software engineer this should be obvious to you - writing a software service/program can solve a problem globally - few people can solve a problem for hundreds of millions - specialization, automation, IT all changed how things scale - I don't need to grow my own food anymore, farmer gets to enjoy social networking, video streaming and games - win/win.

What you're suggesting is that we duplicate the work being done or do it sub optimally so that we can benefit people who aren't competitive.

It's called "The European Union".

International trade helps capital, not citizens. Ricardian Comparative Advantages of Nations has been keeping agrarian societies in place in 1817.

Free Trade doesn't work [1] it just sounds good because of the words "free" and "trade".

[1]http://www.freetradedoesntwork.com/

The new agreements seem to be wanting to keep "manufacturing" nations from engaging in design through strict IP laws. Used to be the empires wanted manufacturing all to themselves, now things have shifted.

Exactly. Virtual supply chains where we design and manage, you make it and ship it to each other.

"Protectionism" is the dog whistle rallying those who wish to circumvent labour and environmental protections by making products elsewhere, yet, selling them here in direct competition with those who follow the rules.

If only we could fashion trade agreements to lift all boats, removing tariffs only when the production of a product is ecological and societally sustainable.

When the US went through its own period of "getting ahead" - it did a lot of things that weren't very ecologically sustainable. There's an argument that it's not entirely fair to tell other countries what they can and cannot do as they go through a similar period in their history.

Of course not. But it's entirely fair to tell them they can't sell their goods in our country if they're unwilling to play by our rules. They had the same option when we were "cheating".

Not if they wanted any of the 'advanced' goods we were producing, like, say, cars or chemicals or whatever.

Also, some people might view a large, wealthy, populous country imposing its will on a smaller, poor country as not very nice.

And it's a very poor argument based on a logical fallacy.

It doesn't seem terrible to me. Someplace like Vietnam simply can't compete if it's held to the same wage, worker benefits and so on that say, Sweden has. Perhaps it's best to let them decide that stuff on their own as they grow wealthier.

I would agree to some extent. Human rights transcend borders, as should environmental controls.

The US has never really tried exporting the minimum wage in the name of globalization. I think that's a strong indicator of who benefits most from globalization.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html - I've always found this to be a convincing read, not least because it's written by a left-leaning person, and not someone simply fixated with free markets as an end in and of themselves.

That article is nearly 20 years old. Krugman's views have changed considerably since then, and he is against the TPP.

The TPP is a big, complex thing, and I could see being opposed to it despite being in favor, generally, of globalization.

Making products elsewhere and selling them in the U.S. is what happens right now.

We don't have a big trade deal with China. Do you see that slowing down imports from China? Or forcing them to have higher labor and environmental standards?

Tariffs do not provide any way for one country to request/impose higher standards for labor and environment on another country. Tariffs are domestic policy and don't cross borders.

Trade deals create leverage. A trade deal like the TPP provides the legal framework for one country to make demands on the other. The TPP, imperfect as it undoubtedly is, will make its signatories promise to one another to meet certain basic standards. Right now, there is no mechanism for them to do that.

This is really where tariffs should be applied. We don't need to apply tariffs on goods from Germany or France. But we do need tariffs on goods from China.

There should be a department which analyzes the laws and production and applies tariffs accordingly. The zero tariff on import stuff we have actively discourages lower cost manufactured goods in the US because of cheap imported crap.

The software industry in U.S. did have a similar experience 5-15 years ago when "outsourcing" is the fashion.

What came out of that, it appears to me, is a booming software industry with more local competent and confident software engineers.

I am for reaching a economic global optimum.

It's silly to suggest that the boom is due to cheap overseas programmers instead of the web and smartphone revolutions.

I think what he means is that there was a lot of 'doom & gloom' about how all our jobs were going to India and so on and so forth. And here we are... things are still going pretty well.

Because of explosive growth nobody saw coming at the time. I doubt the same is going to happen with say - automobiles, or designer clothing. We can make a pretty good estimate of what demand will be over the next decade.

Nobody ever sees explosive growth coming; that's what makes it explosive. That's why the U.S. generally manages its economy to permit and encourage innovation, rather than to meet centralized predictions.

There are some early hints. The confluence of software, solar, batteries, and cars is looking like something big could happen there.

Your second claim is completely anecdotal.

And When did companies stop outsourcing, and why are you using quotes over outsourcing?

I don't really like it when people try to evoke emotional responses to things they haven't read.

What makes you think he hasn't read it? The author is the president of the Teamsters. While he maybe hasn't read the whole thing himself, he almost certainly has a team of people helping him understand what it will mean for his union members, since that's his job.

And this isn't just emotional writing, he's pointing out specific problems he has with specific sections of the agreement.

And if Hoffa gets his way, US consumers will experience a punch to the gut.

Protectionism and "Buy American" is fundamentally incompatible with affordable consumer goods. Hoffa's way will lead to you only being able to afford a new smartphone once every 20 years. Televisions will become family heirlooms because you just can't afford to buy a new one. Hope you like the outfit you're planning on buying, because you're going to be wearing it for years.

I value the modern American lifestyle.

You're doing an immense amount of hand waving. I would much rather spend a bit more money on goods knowing that they were made in a more socially and ecologically stable manner and that their manufacture contributes to the lower limit on my salary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com