• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) And The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA

Felex Sanders

Banned
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
37
Reaction score
19
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
These are the biggest changes I see:

Country of origin rules: Automobiles must have 75 percent of their components manufactured in Mexico, the US, or Canada to qualify for zero tariffs (up from 62.5 percent under NAFTA).

Labor provisions: 40 to 45 percent of automobile parts have to be made by workers who earn at least $16 an hour by 2023. Mexico has also agreed to pass laws giving workers the right to union representation, extending labor protections to migrant workers, and protecting women from discrimination. The countries can also sanction one another for labor violations.

US farmers get more access to the Canadian dairy market: The US got Canada to open up its dairy market to US farmers, which was a big issue for Trump.

Intellectual property and digital trade: The deal extends the terms of copyright to 70 years beyond the life of the author (up from 50). It also extends the period that a pharmaceutical drug can be protected from generic competition, and includes new provisions to deal with the digital economy, including prohibiting duties on things like music and e-books, and protections for internet companies so they’re not liable for content their users produce.

No section 232 tariff protections: Section 232 is a trade loophole that Trump used to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. Canada and Mexico wanted protections from these tariffs as part of the NAFTA negotiations, and the fact that tariffs are still in place remains a sore subject, particularly for Canada. Canada and Mexico did get the US to make a side agreement that shields them from possible auto tariffs under 232.

Sunset clause: The agreement adds a 16-year “sunset” clause — meaning the terms of the agreement expire, or “sunset,” after a set period of time. The deal is also subject to a review every six years, at which point the US, Mexico, and Canada can decide to extend the USMCA.

So, I have to say that as a Democrat and a liberal some of the things the new deal offers are ok. I think the tariffs referred to in 232 should be lightened (I like the side agreement regarding auto tariffs) and I like the intellectual property addition (with future reservations) and the dairy industry provision. The Labor provisions sections have a good start but need clarification regarding women’s rights and migrant workers rights and as to the country of origin section at the 75% rate and excluding of the Asian and European auto markets I truly believe this needs to be addressed before being voted on.

In conclusion, the new deal is ok like I said it just needs a little tweaking is all. I can see all parties getting behind this new deal if they will just sit down and work together on it instead of going at it likes rams on the open plain.

Just because this deal is brought forth during the Trump administration doesn’t necessarily mean it is an all bad deal. I don’t care for Trump but this deal was not created or written by Trump. This deal was created and drafted by professional politicians and lawyers, Trump is merely the signer. I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t know what is even in the document. That is irrelevant, if this deal puts us closer to a good and equal working professional relationship with our brothers and sisters to the north and south then I say BRAVO to the professionals that are behind its creation. Bottom-line this is a great start to upgrading the 80s and 90s versions of NAFTA and in my opinion, it was really about time. I just wish we could get upgrades to other areas of government as well, such as our voting and election process and our cybersecurity and the immigration situation. But alas all things with the government move at a snail's pace and we must be content with what we can get right now. That doesn’t mean we just stop pushing it merely means work on the things we know we can get done right now with our present political climate.

Just an opinion for another damned liberal speaking out.
 

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The hourly wage provision pretty much guarantees of US and Canadian part production. Chinese cars are likely squeezed out of the market. I really don't know about the milk deal because the gov't is always involved in that. Don't approve of support for Big Pharma. Just random input.
/
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,701
Reaction score
7,729
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
These are the biggest changes I see:

Country of origin rules: Automobiles must have 75 percent of their components manufactured in Mexico, the US, or Canada to qualify for zero tariffs (up from 62.5 percent under NAFTA).

Labor provisions: 40 to 45 percent of automobile parts have to be made by workers who earn at least $16 an hour by 2023. Mexico has also agreed to pass laws giving workers the right to union representation, extending labor protections to migrant workers, and protecting women from discrimination. The countries can also sanction one another for labor violations.

US farmers get more access to the Canadian dairy market: The US got Canada to open up its dairy market to US farmers, which was a big issue for Trump.

Intellectual property and digital trade: The deal extends the terms of copyright to 70 years beyond the life of the author (up from 50). It also extends the period that a pharmaceutical drug can be protected from generic competition, and includes new provisions to deal with the digital economy, including prohibiting duties on things like music and e-books, and protections for internet companies so they’re not liable for content their users produce.

No section 232 tariff protections: Section 232 is a trade loophole that Trump used to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. Canada and Mexico wanted protections from these tariffs as part of the NAFTA negotiations, and the fact that tariffs are still in place remains a sore subject, particularly for Canada. Canada and Mexico did get the US to make a side agreement that shields them from possible auto tariffs under 232.

Sunset clause: The agreement adds a 16-year “sunset” clause — meaning the terms of the agreement expire, or “sunset,” after a set period of time. The deal is also subject to a review every six years, at which point the US, Mexico, and Canada can decide to extend the USMCA.

Country of origin rules: Automobiles must have 75 percent of their components manufactured in Mexico, the US, or Canada to qualify for zero tariffs (up from 62.5 percent under NAFTA).


That one just acknowledges what is already happening. So its rearward looking, not forward looking. See GM assembly plant closure in Canada.

Labor provisions: 40 to 45 percent of automobile parts have to be made by workers who earn at least $16 an hour by 2023. Mexico has also agreed to pass laws giving workers the right to union representation, extending labor protections to migrant workers, and protecting women from discrimination. The countries can also sanction one another for labor violations.


That one won't do much for US auto workers. Who on the floor of a US auto plant either parts or assembly is making $16 an hour...the guy sweeping the floor maybe???? As for effects in Mexico itself, either Mexico deals with its own inability to take on union and business corruption or it does not. No overarching three country trade agreement is going to do it for them.

US farmers get more access to the Canadian dairy market: The US got Canada to open up its dairy market to US farmers, which was a big issue for Trump.

Canada traded increased access to keep the enforcement regimen built into NAFTA on board. Canadian Dairy Farmers don't like it. But it remains to be seen how much impact it has in fact. The US dairy market is so overcapacity that this increase is a drop in the bucket for us. Our problem is massive overcapacity.

The intellectual property stuff is OK. If Trump shows any balls in dealing with China and IP I will need smelling salts.

No section 232 tariff protections: Section 232 is a trade loophole that Trump used to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. Canada and Mexico wanted protections from these tariffs as part of the NAFTA negotiations, and the fact that tariffs are still in place remains a sore subject, particularly for Canada. Canada and Mexico did get the US to make a side agreement that shields them from possible auto tariffs under 232.

This one should never be a trade deal issue. Improper use of 232 is an issue of Congressional oversight...Period. The only reason it is even discussed is because THIS CONGRESS conducts no oversight. But this is not a trade deal issue of any sort.

Sunset clause: The agreement adds a 16-year “sunset” clause — meaning the terms of the agreement expire, or “sunset,” after a set period of time. The deal is also subject to a review every six years, at which point the US, Mexico, and Canada can decide to extend the USMCA.

This one is absurd on its face but is likely OK at 16 years. Trump administration wanted a shorter sunset horizon and that WOULD have been absurd.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,740
Reaction score
30,400
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
These are the biggest changes I see:

~snipped to save space~

Another significant item in USMCA is this:


In a nutshell, if any of the three countries wants to make a trade deal with another country that is not part of USMCA, they must tell the other two countries all about their deal and any of the three countries may decide to abandon the USMCA if they don't like the deal. The countries who leave the USMCA can then engage in bilateral deal-making with either or both of the other countries.

Just because this deal is brought forth during the Trump administration doesn’t necessarily mean it is an all bad deal. I don’t care for Trump but this deal was not created or written by Trump. This deal was created and drafted by professional politicians and lawyers, Trump is merely the signer. I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t know what is even in the document. That is irrelevant, if this deal puts us closer to a good and equal working professional relationship with our brothers and sisters to the north and south then I say BRAVO to the professionals that are behind its creation. Bottom-line this is a great start to upgrading the 80s and 90s versions of NAFTA and in my opinion, it was really about time. I just wish we could get upgrades to other areas of government as well, such as our voting and election process and our cybersecurity and the immigration situation. But alas all things with the government move at a snail's pace and we must be content with what we can get right now. That doesn’t mean we just stop pushing it merely means work on the things we know we can get done right now with our present political climate.

Just an opinion for another damned liberal speaking out.

Don't make the mistake of thinking Trump isn't taking a central part in the creation of this deal. Yes, he has a very capable and effective team, but he has the final word on anything they do. You can be sure he knows exactly what is in this deal.

As far as your wishes about other areas of the government, well...Trump can't do that for you. You need to get people like Trump into Congress.
 

Grand Mal

bas air son Eachin
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
39,877
Reaction score
21,523
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
These are the biggest changes I see:

Country of origin rules: Automobiles must have 75 percent of their components manufactured in Mexico, the US, or Canada to qualify for zero tariffs (up from 62.5 percent under NAFTA).

Labor provisions: 40 to 45 percent of automobile parts have to be made by workers who earn at least $16 an hour by 2023. Mexico has also agreed to pass laws giving workers the right to union representation, extending labor protections to migrant workers, and protecting women from discrimination. The countries can also sanction one another for labor violations.

US farmers get more access to the Canadian dairy market: The US got Canada to open up its dairy market to US farmers, which was a big issue for Trump.

Intellectual property and digital trade: The deal extends the terms of copyright to 70 years beyond the life of the author (up from 50). It also extends the period that a pharmaceutical drug can be protected from generic competition, and includes new provisions to deal with the digital economy, including prohibiting duties on things like music and e-books, and protections for internet companies so they’re not liable for content their users produce.

No section 232 tariff protections: Section 232 is a trade loophole that Trump used to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. Canada and Mexico wanted protections from these tariffs as part of the NAFTA negotiations, and the fact that tariffs are still in place remains a sore subject, particularly for Canada. Canada and Mexico did get the US to make a side agreement that shields them from possible auto tariffs under 232.

Sunset clause: The agreement adds a 16-year “sunset” clause — meaning the terms of the agreement expire, or “sunset,” after a set period of time. The deal is also subject to a review every six years, at which point the US, Mexico, and Canada can decide to extend the USMCA.

So, I have to say that as a Democrat and a liberal some of the things the new deal offers are ok. I think the tariffs referred to in 232 should be lightened (I like the side agreement regarding auto tariffs) and I like the intellectual property addition (with future reservations) and the dairy industry provision. The Labor provisions sections have a good start but need clarification regarding women’s rights and migrant workers rights and as to the country of origin section at the 75% rate and excluding of the Asian and European auto markets I truly believe this needs to be addressed before being voted on.

In conclusion, the new deal is ok like I said it just needs a little tweaking is all. I can see all parties getting behind this new deal if they will just sit down and work together on it instead of going at it likes rams on the open plain.

Just because this deal is brought forth during the Trump administration doesn’t necessarily mean it is an all bad deal. I don’t care for Trump but this deal was not created or written by Trump. This deal was created and drafted by professional politicians and lawyers, Trump is merely the signer. I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t know what is even in the document. That is irrelevant, if this deal puts us closer to a good and equal working professional relationship with our brothers and sisters to the north and south then I say BRAVO to the professionals that are behind its creation. Bottom-line this is a great start to upgrading the 80s and 90s versions of NAFTA and in my opinion, it was really about time. I just wish we could get upgrades to other areas of government as well, such as our voting and election process and our cybersecurity and the immigration situation. But alas all things with the government move at a snail's pace and we must be content with what we can get right now. That doesn’t mean we just stop pushing it merely means work on the things we know we can get done right now with our present political climate.

Just an opinion for another damned liberal speaking out.

Canada didn't open up its dairy market. The US access increased from 3.25% to 3.75% (if I remember right). Its about the same as what Obama got under the TPP that Trump pulled out of.
One sticking pont was the dispute resolution process that Trump said had to go. It stayed,
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,932
Reaction score
44,842
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm torn on these trade agreements, because while I believe in free trade, I'm not happy to see that America cannot compete in a free market and needs government assistance. But I suppose there's no other choice if we want those in manufacturing to be able to have livable lives, though once again I'm not crazy about government interference to bend the markets.

I've led my life by thinking intelligently and honestly about where the future lies, and I followed the money wherever it could be found. I indeed switched careers and even geographical setting over my years, in order to best enable myself and my family to succeed. So I'm a bit loathe to offer hand-outs or protections to employees that are in dying or losing industries, because their real solution is to get their arses into occupations & industries that are flourishing.

One item that really caught my intention when it was first floated though, and now again, is the 16 dollar an hour wage provision. It's insane that we're willing to mandate that Mexico has a 16 dollar minimum wage, but fight it in America. It's either a good idea, or it's not. If it's good enough to mandate for Mexican citizens, let American citizens enjoy the same protections as a whole.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,740
Reaction score
30,400
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm torn on these trade agreements, because while I believe in free trade, I'm not happy to see that America cannot compete in a free market and needs government assistance. But I suppose there's no other choice if we want those in manufacturing to be able to have livable lives, though once again I'm not crazy about government interference to bend the markets.

I've led my life by thinking intelligently and honestly about where the future lies, and I followed the money wherever it could be found. I indeed switched careers and even geographical setting over my years, in order to best enable myself and my family to succeed. So I'm a bit loathe to offer hand-outs or protections to employees that are in dying or losing industries, because their real solution is to get their arses into occupations & industries that are flourishing.

One item that really caught my intention when it was first floated though, and now again, is the 16 dollar an hour wage provision. It's insane that we're willing to mandate that Mexico has a 16 dollar minimum wage, but fight it in America. It's either a good idea, or it's not. If it's good enough to mandate for Mexican citizens, let American citizens enjoy the same protections as a whole.

A couple of considerations about that $16 thing.

1. The $16 wage applies only to a percentage of parts manufactured for autos. It's not a blanket minimum wage for any of the countries.

2. AMLO likes the idea. In fact, he is willing to work to give Mexican unions more power. That will be a good thing for Mexican workers in the long term.

3. In the short term, the $16 requirement is good for American and maybe Canadian workers (if their wages are that high) since the required parts will have to be built by them if Mexican parts manufacturers haven't raised their wages.

4. Everyone has until 2023 to get up to speed on the wages.
 

Felex Sanders

Banned
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
37
Reaction score
19
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm torn on these trade agreements, because while I believe in free trade, I'm not happy to see that America cannot compete in a free market and needs government assistance. But I suppose there's no other choice if we want those in manufacturing to be able to have livable lives, though once again I'm not crazy about government interference to bend the markets.

I've led my life by thinking intelligently and honestly about where the future lies, and I followed the money wherever it could be found. I indeed switched careers and even geographical setting over my years, in order to best enable myself and my family to succeed. So I'm a bit loathe to offer hand-outs or protections to employees that are in dying or losing industries, because their real solution is to get their arses into occupations & industries that are flourishing.

One item that really caught my intention when it was first floated though, and now again, is the 16 dollar an hour wage provision. It's insane that we're willing to mandate that Mexico has a 16 dollar minimum wage, but fight it in America. It's either a good idea, or it's not. If it's good enough to mandate for Mexican citizens, let American citizens enjoy the same protections as a whole.

Very valid points and thanks for the like.
 

Felex Sanders

Banned
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
37
Reaction score
19
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Country of origin rules: Automobiles must have 75 percent of their components manufactured in Mexico, the US, or Canada to qualify for zero tariffs (up from 62.5 percent under NAFTA).


That one just acknowledges what is already happening. So it's rearward-looking, not forward-looking. See GM assembly plant closure in Canada.

Labor provisions: 40 to 45 percent of automobile parts have to be made by workers who earn at least $16 an hour by 2023. Mexico has also agreed to pass laws giving workers the right to union representation, extending labor protections to migrant workers, and protecting women from discrimination. The countries can also sanction one another for labor violations.


That one won't do much for US auto workers. Who on the floor of a US auto plant either parts or assembly is making $16 an hour...the guy sweeping the floor maybe???? As for effects in Mexico itself, either Mexico deals with its own inability to take on union and business corruption or it does not. No overarching three country trade agreement is going to do it for them.

US farmers get more access to the Canadian dairy market: The US got Canada to open up its dairy market to US farmers, which was a big issue for Trump.

Canada traded increased access to keep the enforcement regimen built into NAFTA on board. Canadian Dairy Farmers don't like it. But it remains to be seen how much impact it has in fact. The US dairy market is so overcapacity that this increase is a drop in the bucket for us. Our problem is massive overcapacity.

The intellectual property stuff is OK. If Trump shows any balls in dealing with China and IP I will need smelling salts.

No section 232 tariff protections: Section 232 is a trade loophole that Trump used to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. Canada and Mexico wanted protections from these tariffs as part of the NAFTA negotiations, and the fact that tariffs are still in place remains a sore subject, particularly for Canada. Canada and Mexico did get the US to make a side agreement that shields them from possible auto tariffs under 232.

This one should never be a trade deal issue. Improper use of 232 is an issue of Congressional oversight...Period. The only reason it is even discussed is because THIS CONGRESS conducts no oversight. But this is not a trade deal issue of any sort.

Sunset clause: The agreement adds a 16-year “sunset” clause — meaning the terms of the agreement expire, or “sunset,” after a set period of time. The deal is also subject to a review every six years, at which point the US, Mexico, and Canada can decide to extend the USMCA.

This one is absurd on its face but is likely OK at 16 years. Trump administration wanted a shorter sunset horizon and that WOULD have been absurd.

I appreciate your input and you have some very valuable points. The information a person has the better he or she can understand their own stance.
 

Felex Sanders

Banned
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
37
Reaction score
19
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A couple of considerations about that $16 thing.

1. The $16 wage applies only to a percentage of parts manufactured for autos. It's not a blanket minimum wage for any of the countries.

2. AMLO likes the idea. In fact, he is willing to work to give Mexican unions more power. That will be a good thing for Mexican workers in the long term.

3. In the short term, the $16 requirement is good for American and maybe Canadian workers (if their wages are that high) since the required parts will have to be built by them if Mexican parts manufacturers haven't raised their wages.

4. Everyone has until 2023 to get up to speed on the wages.

Thanks for the additional info. We learn as we go don't we?
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,932
Reaction score
44,842
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A couple of considerations about that $16 thing.

1. The $16 wage applies only to a percentage of parts manufactured for autos. It's not a blanket minimum wage for any of the countries.

2. AMLO likes the idea. In fact, he is willing to work to give Mexican unions more power. That will be a good thing for Mexican workers in the long term.

3. In the short term, the $16 requirement is good for American and maybe Canadian workers (if their wages are that high) since the required parts will have to be built by them if Mexican parts manufacturers haven't raised their wages.

4. Everyone has until 2023 to get up to speed on the wages.
That's all fair and correct, and I'm not really complaining.

It just seems if this (min wage) is deemed a fair and proper thing, it kinda' defeats arguments for extending the same protections for all Americans. I really dislike selective and means (or other) tested benafits. If it's good for one American, it should be good for all. I feel the same way about things like healthcare and financial assistance.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
75,450
Reaction score
59,331
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm torn on these trade agreements, because while I believe in free trade, I'm not happy to see that America cannot compete in a free market and needs government assistance. But I suppose there's no other choice if we want those in manufacturing to be able to have livable lives, though once again I'm not crazy about government interference to bend the markets.

I've led my life by thinking intelligently and honestly about where the future lies, and I followed the money wherever it could be found. I indeed switched careers and even geographical setting over my years, in order to best enable myself and my family to succeed. So I'm a bit loathe to offer hand-outs or protections to employees that are in dying or losing industries, because their real solution is to get their arses into occupations & industries that are flourishing.

One item that really caught my intention when it was first floated though, and now again, is the 16 dollar an hour wage provision. It's insane that we're willing to mandate that Mexico has a 16 dollar minimum wage, but fight it in America. It's either a good idea, or it's not. If it's good enough to mandate for Mexican citizens, let American citizens enjoy the same protections as a whole.

i tend to doubt that a minimum wage that high would amount to anything vastly different than the current minimum wage after a year or two. what would happen, though, is that those people currently making sixteen bucks an hour wouldn't get a raise, so they would be making minimum wage, as well. i'd prefer to guarantee access to post secondary education / job training with no student debt. our higher education model is incredibly stupid and is more of a financial obstacle than an intellectual asset. we can change that, though.

as for the minimum wage, i would tie it to inflation, and have it go up automatically with no congressional action required. there are a couple other major issues that i would like to see handled that way, as well.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,932
Reaction score
44,842
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Very valid points and thanks for the like.
The pleasure's mine. You took the time & effort to start a thread and produce a well done reasonable OP. You deserve the like. Welcome aboard!

:thumbs:
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,932
Reaction score
44,842
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
i tend to doubt that a minimum wage that high would amount to anything vastly different than the current minimum wage after a year or two. what would happen, though, is that those people currently making sixteen bucks an hour wouldn't get a raise, so they would be making minimum wage, as well. i'd prefer to guarantee access to post secondary education / job training with no student debt. our higher education model is incredibly stupid and is more of a financial obstacle than an intellectual asset. we can change that, though.

as for the minimum wage, i would tie it to inflation, and have it go up automatically with no congressional action required. there are a couple other major issues that i would like to see handled that way, as well.
That's perfectly fair. I was just pointing-out the irony, and arguing for universality. It's either a good idea, or it's not.

BTW, I'm for government funded Community College (2 years).
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
75,450
Reaction score
59,331
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That's perfectly fair. I was just pointing-out the irony, and arguing for universality. It's either a good idea, or it's not.

BTW, I'm for government funded Community College (2 years).

i'd compromise to that position with the hopes that college will be as accessible as high school eventually.
 

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm torn on these trade agreements, because while I believe in free trade, I'm not happy to see that America cannot compete in a free market and needs government assistance. But I suppose there's no other choice if we want those in manufacturing to be able to have livable lives, though once again I'm not crazy about government interference to bend the markets.

I've led my life by thinking intelligently and honestly about where the future lies, and I followed the money wherever it could be found. I indeed switched careers and even geographical setting over my years, in order to best enable myself and my family to succeed. So I'm a bit loathe to offer hand-outs or protections to employees that are in dying or losing industries, because their real solution is to get their arses into occupations & industries that are flourishing.

One item that really caught my intention when it was first floated though, and now again, is the 16 dollar an hour wage provision. It's insane that we're willing to mandate that Mexico has a 16 dollar minimum wage, but fight it in America. It's either a good idea, or it's not. If it's good enough to mandate for Mexican citizens, let American citizens enjoy the same protections as a whole.[/QUOTE]

Think about it. Without this clause Mexico would have 100% parts control. This translates to giving the US and Canada 40-45% of that market, even though their labor costs are much higher.
/
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,932
Reaction score
44,842
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
i'd compromise to that position with the hopes that college will be as accessible as high school eventually.
I'd love to see two years of subsidized Com College. Let the vocational and trade kids embark on an skills based apprenticeship, let the university bound get a two year start that saves them cash, and let middle-aged & low-skilled or displaced workers get the retraining or educational start they need. I see only wins with this, and can only see how it would be good for America.

I hope the Dems run on this. I really do. Because it a winner, for sure!
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
75,450
Reaction score
59,331
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'd love to see two years of subsidized Com College. Let the vocational and trade kids embark on an skills based apprenticeship, let the university bound get a two year start that saves them cash, and let middle-aged & low-skilled or displaced workers get the retraining or educational start they need. I see only wins with this, and can only see how it would be good for America.

I hope the Dems run on this. I really do. Because it a winner, for sure!

My hometown high school has the best vocational school in the area. I would like to see a lot more of those, and opening them up to all ages seems a great idea. I hadn't thought of that.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,932
Reaction score
44,842
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
My hometown high school has the best vocational school in the area. I would like to see a lot more of those, and opening them up to all ages seems a great idea. I hadn't thought of that.
To the bolded: Of course!

Education levels & trade skills attained are for the most part not necessarily age dependent. I've known a (select) few that graduated from a university at 20, and some others that did it in their 30's & 40's. I know a 40 something factory laborer that became an electrician. I know a printing press operator that eventually became a lawyer in his late 30's. And I can't even count nor remember how many I know that switched careers as adults, including myself!

More power to them all. Let's help them along their chosen educational and skills acquisition paths, because they will make us all better. Gainfully & well-employed working, middle, and professional class employees tend to pay taxes, invest in the economy, not use as many social services, and be more likely stay out of prison thereby not becoming expensive public charges.

When individuals believe the system is working for them, the tend to stay within the system, be productive, and abide by the rules. But, to effectively be part of the system takes education and skills. It's in our own self-interest to see our fellow Americans succeed. So put my signature on the petition!
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,468
Reaction score
40,667
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm torn on these trade agreements, because while I believe in free trade, I'm not happy to see that America cannot compete in a free market and needs government assistance. But I suppose there's no other choice if we want those in manufacturing to be able to have livable lives, though once again I'm not crazy about government interference to bend the markets.

I've led my life by thinking intelligently and honestly about where the future lies, and I followed the money wherever it could be found. I indeed switched careers and even geographical setting over my years, in order to best enable myself and my family to succeed. So I'm a bit loathe to offer hand-outs or protections to employees that are in dying or losing industries, because their real solution is to get their arses into occupations & industries that are flourishing.

One item that really caught my intention when it was first floated though, and now again, is the 16 dollar an hour wage provision. It's insane that we're willing to mandate that Mexico has a 16 dollar minimum wage, but fight it in America. It's either a good idea, or it's not. If it's good enough to mandate for Mexican citizens, let American citizens enjoy the same protections as a whole.

$16/hour is not a MW - it is to be the amount paid to a minority (up to 45%?) of auto parts makers. Its intent is to force Mexico to pay at least a few of their workers more.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,932
Reaction score
44,842
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
$16/hour is not a MW - it is to be the amount paid to a minority (up to 45%?) of auto parts makers. Its intent is to force Mexico to pay at least a few of their workers more.
Alright, thanks for the clarification. But it still sounds to me like a minimum wage, accept it affects half the workforce. Like I said my point is if it's good enough for one set of individuals, I believe it should be consistent across the board. That goes for other government mandated benefits like healthcare and financial assistance, too. No picking winners or losers.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,468
Reaction score
40,667
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Alright, thanks for the clarification. But it still sounds to me like a minimum wage, accept it affects half the workforce. Like I said my point is if it's good enough for one set of individuals, I believe it should be consistent across the board. That goes for other government mandated benefits like healthcare and financial assistance, too. No picking winners or losers.

What does that (bolded above) mean? Are you advocating for all workers (and retirees) to get the same government mandated percentage of pay increase? Obviously, you are picking some winners (and creating more losers) if you mandate a new minimum wage (MW) that is double the current MW - because only the lowest paid workers would get that mandated 100% wage (salary) increase yet all folks including retirees must pay the resultant higher prices for most (if not all) goods/services affected by that mandated increase in labor cost.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,932
Reaction score
44,842
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What does that (bolded above) mean? Are you advocating for all workers (and retirees) to get the same government mandated percentage of pay increase? Obviously, you are picking some winners (and creating more losers) if you mandate a new minimum wage (MW) that is double the current MW - because only the lowest paid workers would get that mandated 100% wage (salary) increase yet all folks including retirees must pay the resultant higher prices for most (if not all) goods/services affected by that mandated increase in labor cost.
Well yeah, I am saying across the board; or not at all.

If it's government mandating a benifit, whether minimum wage, healthcare, financial assistance, etc., I believe it should apply to all citizens.

So if the government mandates 16 an hour minimum for autoworkers, it should be 16 an hour minimum for all workers. Or, it should be not at all.

Same with heathcare. Around 35-40 percent of the country gets government paid for healthcare, in the form of disability, Medicaid, Medicare, VA, etc. I would not do that. I'd have Medicaid for all. As for welfare and social security payments, I'd nix that, too. I'd role-out a modest guaranteed income.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,932
Reaction score
44,842
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm torn on these trade agreements, because while I believe in free trade, I'm not happy to see that America cannot compete in a free market and needs government assistance. But I suppose there's no other choice if we want those in manufacturing to be able to have livable lives, though once again I'm not crazy about government interference to bend the markets.

I've led my life by thinking intelligently and honestly about where the future lies, and I followed the money wherever it could be found. I indeed switched careers and even geographical setting over my years, in order to best enable myself and my family to succeed. So I'm a bit loathe to offer hand-outs or protections to employees that are in dying or losing industries, because their real solution is to get their arses into occupations & industries that are flourishing.

One item that really caught my intention when it was first floated though, and now again, is the 16 dollar an hour wage provision. It's insane that we're willing to mandate that Mexico has a 16 dollar minimum wage, but fight it in America. It's either a good idea, or it's not. If it's good enough to mandate for Mexican citizens, let American citizens enjoy the same protections as a whole.


Think about it. Without this clause Mexico would have 100% parts control. This translates to giving the US and Canada 40-45% of that market, even though their labor costs are much higher.
/
Understood. But my argument is that if it's a good enough benefit for autoworkers, it should be a benefit for all Americans. Why should the auto workers receive preferred treatment?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom