PeopleProfitsPensions.com

In the current American presidential campaign, much has been made of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) and the loss of manufacturing jobs.

NAFTA makes a tempting target, but the wrong one. Autoworkers searching for the real reasons for job losses might starting looking closer to home —real close to home. They will find details in the new book by Alan Greenspan, the former Fed chairman.

In The Age of Turbulence, Greenspan devotes a paragraph to what might have been a book in itself. But that paragraph is telling.

Greenspan writes about the state of General Motors in November 2005, pointing out that GM was planning to lay off as many as 30-thousand employees and close 12 plants in the next three years.

Why? Because billions of dollars in profits that might have been reinvested in new plants or products were going in a different direction. And where was that? To the pension and health benefit funds for current and retired employees. In other words, GM couldn’t afford to create new jobs because it had to meet the pension and health obligations owed to its current and retired employees.

So, while it’s unfortunate that manufacturing jobs are disappearing, it’s certainly not because of a free trade, a conspiracy, or globalization. Jobs are disappearing because of a history manufacturing workers themselves created and insist on maintaining.

They hope to have it both ways, to have rich wages and benefits, and at the same time, keep all their jobs. That’s a miracle that won’t materialize any time soon.

You’re reading the commentary section of People, Profits, & Pensions. There’s also a book section, where you can read excerpts from my forthcoming book by the same name, visit http://www.people-profits-pensions.com . In addition to reading, you can also be a book critic and give me your thoughts on what you’ve read.

The recent dust-up between Democratic Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has, once again, brought out a one-sided view of free trade.

Their argument revolves around jobs, and the claim that free or freer trade hurts the country.

But, if we are to intelligently discuss free trade, we also need to consider its impact on consumers. That is, essentially everyone in the U.S.A., including manufacturing workers who lost or may lose their jobs.

You see, free trade makes many products less expensive, whether they’re domestically made or imported from another country.

Freer trade increases competition, competition increases productivity, and as USA Today noted (in a slightly different context), “…this increased productivity has led to rising living standards and made the American economy more competitive.“

These rising living standards have been good for every American, and especially the poor: single parents struggling to keep their families clothed and fed, welfare recipients, and everyone who exists from paycheck to paycheck.

No one gains more when the cost of essential products go down, or go up less than they would otherwise. When a poor person saves a dollar or two, it’s a big deal, a good deal.

Yes, it’s true that some people sometimes lose their jobs, regardless of which country is involved in free trade. But almost everyone else in the country gains something. And, because there are so many ‘everyone elses,’ freer trade is a positive policy.

Trying to turn back the clock, as Clinton and Obama suggest, would exact a serious price on the country. And, as the campaign continues, they should, in what might be the equivalent of a truth in advertising obligation, tell Americans in other states that they will pay a price for trying to protect jobs by rolling back freer trade.

Bottom line: The candidates may wish to curb free trade to protect highly paid manufacturing workers in Ohio, but doing so means they’ll also lower standards of living for residents of all 50 states. And, that would be very bad news for the poor.