Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
You're back peddling. You stated that for every job lost through offshoring 4 new jobs are created. [That's a paraphrase] Now you're pointing to history to say that these better jobs will come.
Give me a reason why you believe it will be different this time?
That's not much comfort for those losing jobs today.
Nor is there comfort for the people who constitute the other 97% of job losses here. Is it really about comforting people? What's the difference between losing your job to offshoring (less likely) and losing your job for any other reason?
It's like someone coming to you saying, "If you give me money today, I promise that I'll give you more dollars sometime in the future." Would the proposition be more attractive if I showed you that historically, people that give their dollars to other people have gotten more Euros?
It probably would be more attractive if the alternative was a sure loss, as is the case with protectionism.
But would the proposition be less credible if I told you up front that for every dollar you give me, I have 4 Euros already in the bank for you; but when you press me to show you the money, I point to history?
If there's no precedent for ending up with a net loss, then why would it not credible?
Understand, I am not anti-free trade. I am however, anti-unilateral free trade. I am also anti-US government sponsored offshoring under the guise of free trade.
We're in agreement on government-sponsored offshoring. It basically has the same market-distorting effect as protectionism.
On the other hand, unilateral free-trade, while harming certain protected industries by allowing more competition, would be the best policy for all US consumers -- a group which does include employers, by the way. To make this policy more beneficial, structural costs wouls need to be brought down, attracting more foreign and domestic investment.
Free trade helps overall employment in ways that aren't as visible as the certain businesses that may not be able to keep up with more competition.
The argument against free trade is more political than anything else.