nafta
...lem which NAFTA would create, as opposed to what the governments thought, is loss of jobs. "In Canada and the United States, much of the political opinions against NAFTA has centered around the low wage rates in Mexico and the possibility of jobs being moved south of the Rio Grande River." It had seemed obvious for some that many wealthy factory owners would move to or expand in Mexico, resulting in thousands of lost jobs. As well, this would clearly create more exports for Mexico, and less exports for Canada and the United States. However, in the eight months after the implementation of the agreement, Canada had exported 33.2% more to Mexico and imported 31% more from Mexico than usual. This may show that Canada still exported more to Mexico then it imported from them, but, one must think that when the agreement! was first implemented, exports to Mexico may have included factors of production, businesses, etc. If so, these exports will have soon leveled off and jobs would be lost in Canada as businesses moved to Mexico. This has been seen to be case with the United States. "Although U.S. exports to Mexico have grown since NAFTA went into effect, the Administration’s [Clinton’s] own numbers show that imports from Mexico have gone through the roof; a U.S. trade surplus of $1.7 billion in 1993 spiraled downward into a deficit of $15.4 billion by 1995." Not only has NAFTA caused a loss in jobs in all three countries, but it has also caused a decrease in job benefits for workers in Canada and the United States. Before NAFTA went into effect, the corporate group USA*NAFTA claimed that "NAFTA itself will improve working conditions by generating economic growth, which will enable all three countries to provide more jobs with higher pay in a better working environment." However, ...