Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Sandbox - National
test
The Sandbox - National The Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 650
MoneyManMatt 490
Jon Bon 406
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
Starscream66 285
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
George Spelvin 273
sharkman29 256
Top Posters
DallasRain70869
biomed164180
Yssup Rider61765
gman4453562
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48943
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino43221
The_Waco_Kid37760
CryptKicker37280
Mokoa36497
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-30-2012, 12:03 AM   #1
SEE3772
Valued Poster
 
SEE3772's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 14, 2011
Location: Key Largo
Posts: 1,384
Encounters: 7
Default Why Don’t U.S. Exports Create More Jobs?

Why Don’t U.S. Exports Create More Jobs?

by Edward Alden

November 27, 2012


President Clinton signs the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) into law on December 8, 1993

When President Bill Clinton was trying to persuade Congress to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, administration officials frequently made the claim that each additional $1 billion in exports would produce 17,000 new jobs in the United States. Implicit in the claim was the idea that NAFTA and other free trade agreements would trigger a big growth in exports, and that exports would be an engine of job creation.

The claim turned out to be half true. U.S. exports to Mexico surged, growing nearly 400 percent since 1993, and Mexico is today the second largest recipient of U.S. exports after Canada. Overall, the value of U.S. exports to the world has increased nearly three-fold, from $627 billion in 1993 to $1.65 trillion last year. But the promised job growth never came; the number of U.S. jobs supported by exports is up only marginally from 1993, and is roughly the same number as existed in the mid-1990s.

What happened? A fascinating new paper published last month by the Commerce Department’s Office of Competition and Economic Analysis – entitled “Jobs Supported by Exports, 1993-2011” – has some compelling answers.

In 1993, which turns out to be the first year for which data are available, the report says that each $1 billion of exports supported just over 12,000 jobs. (I have not yet been able to determine the discrepancy from the 17,000-job figure used back in 1993.) By 2011, however, that same $1 billion in exports supported only 5,000 jobs. About one-quarter of the difference is due to rising prices over the past two decades, but most of the difference is the result of higher productivity in export-intensive sectors which has reduced the need for labor.

That makes perfect sense. Some three-quarters of U.S. exports are in the goods sector, one-third of those directly in manufacturing, and many of the rest in industries that support manufacturing exports. From 1993 to 2011, labor productivity in the manufacturing sector doubled, compared with just a 50 percent increase in overall productivity. In other words, today it takes many fewer workers than in 1993 to produce the same $1 billion in exported products.

The consequence is that even rapidly growing exports have created very few new jobs. Given the average annual productivity improvements over the past two decades, exports need to grow by roughly 5 percent each year just to support the same number of jobs. Even with the extremely strong U.S. export performance over the past two decades, the total number of U.S. jobs supported by exports in 2011 — 9.7 million jobs – is up just 27 percent from the number of jobs in 1993.





Source: “Jobs Supported by Exports, 1993-2011”

The implication of these figures is fairly stark. As the Obama administration has noted often, export jobs are good jobs – employees in export-intensive industries earn some 20 percent more on average than comparable workers in industries that produce goods and/or services only for the domestic market. But there are simply too few of them to make a significant dent in unemployment, or to lift household incomes which have been flat for the past two decades. The largest number of export jobs are in technology-intensive industries such as aerospace, semiconductors, and motor vehicles.

The Obama administration, under its National Export Initiative, set a goal of doubling the value of U.S. exports from 2010 to the end of 2014. Despite a slowdown in exports this year due to weakening economies in Europe and parts of Asia, the administration remains roughly on track to reach that goal. But even with that success, exports are doing little to address the administration’s core concerns – high unemployment and a dearth of well-paying jobs.

If export competitiveness can’t solve the jobs crisis, then the answer needs to lie closer to home. While it still makes sense to use every policy tool available to expand export-related jobs, the bigger challenge is to raise wages in the industries where most Americans work and where job numbers are still growing – service jobs that do not face international competition. Robert Kuttner has some interesting ideas on how this might be done in a new paper for the New America Foundation. The problem needs far more attention than it has received so far.

---

The Trans Pacific Partnership: If You Like NAFTA, You’ll Love TPP

U.S. Trade Deficit Widens In August Amid Drop In Exports
SEE3772 is offline   Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 07:31 AM   #2
Iaintliein
Valued Poster
 
Iaintliein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 6, 2010
Location: In the state of Flux
Posts: 3,311
Encounters: 2
Default

Remember "that sucking sound" Perot warned us about? The exports are almost all raw materials, things like petrochemicals, plastics, scrap metal, none of which are labor intensive. The manufactured goods coming back are very labor intensive. I've seen plants in MX that use to be in the US. . . the ones I've been in had between 1200 and 1600 employees. . . per location.
Iaintliein is offline   Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 08:25 AM   #3
i'va biggen
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2011
Location: kansas
Posts: 28,773
Encounters: 17
Default

Quit giving benefits to companys that outsource..
i'va biggen is offline   Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 08:28 AM   #4
Guest040616
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Dec 23, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 15,047
Encounters: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ekim008 View Post
Quit giving benefits to companys that outsource..
Ut oh, that will piss off Mitt Romney!
Guest040616 is offline   Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 01:35 PM   #5
Iaintliein
Valued Poster
 
Iaintliein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 6, 2010
Location: In the state of Flux
Posts: 3,311
Encounters: 2
Default

So, that was Romney signing NAFTA! Looked just like Bill Clinton in the picture.
Iaintliein is offline   Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 03:51 PM   #6
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

who gives a shit who signed what?

the republican had a majority congress for 6 years and did absolutely nothing to stop corps from leaving the US and building in MX et al .. on the contrary, the felt like rewarding outsourcing companies with tax breaks ... fuck em. You want jobs back? tax the shit out of outsourcing and give big tax breaks to production inside our borders ..
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 11-30-2012, 07:28 PM   #7
BigLouie
Valued Poster
 
BigLouie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 5, 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,860
Default

BigLouie is offline   Quote
Old 12-02-2012, 11:45 AM   #8
Iaintliein
Valued Poster
 
Iaintliein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 6, 2010
Location: In the state of Flux
Posts: 3,311
Encounters: 2
Default

You know, there is one interesting thing I've noticed driving around the industrial parks in MX and discussing other business in Asia. Well over 90% of the companies that send jobs out of the country are headquartered in deep blue cities, in deep blue counties, in deep blue states. Yep, it's the blues for sure.
Iaintliein is offline   Quote
Old 12-02-2012, 11:58 AM   #9
ncrtt1
Lifetime Premium Access
 
ncrtt1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 23, 2011
Location: san antonio
Posts: 129
Encounters: 11
Cool True Blue

Looking at the county map of blue and red, it is clear that the cities drive states like CA and NY because most of the map is red, it has become the classic country vs city clash. Welfare recipient counties make a good match for blue as well. Make no mistake about it, both parties have good points, but the situation we are in currently is about equally due to the efforts of both parties. As a Swedish politician noted "Politicians know what the right thing to do is, they just don't know how to get re-elected after they do it".
ncrtt1 is offline   Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved