[Happydayz]

likely have constituents who work in an industry that would be threatened with greater trade integration.

Nationally a detrimental move with greater costs, but locally they might very well be better off without it.

The standard story trotted out about trade are the steel tariffs implemented by Bush 43. Highly beneficial for the small number of steel workers in the US, but an effective tax on every other consumer. Forgot the figures from way back when, but IIRC we could have paid every steel worker $2-300,000/yr for the rest of their lives and still come out far ahead as a country.

[x0x0]

Except we don't.

The story of trade they tell in undergrad econ is that the country as a whole will benefit while individuals / individual sectors will be hurt. The country as a whole will benefit so much that we can help those that are hurt and still come out ahead. Unfortunately, this is america, so we virtually never get around to helping those that are hurt, or when we do, it's not at all effective [1]. So trade, in practice, is a transfer from those less well-off to those more well-off.

Not to mention that Obama is a liar and the purpose of this treaty is to remove worker protections. See, eg, the position of labor in vietnam: they widely oppose the TPP. We're a rich country and we can afford to not use virtual slave labor to make our clothes.

[1] http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/in-essence/no-help-displa...

[lukeschlather]

I think you overstate the negatives. Assuming the $300k/year/displaced worker figure is accurate, I'd guess the other important figures are more like:

* Workers currently paid on average $40k/year will lose their jobs. * They will get new jobs paying on average $60k/year * The businesses that pay them will get an extra $200k/year in profit.

I pulled those figures out of thin air, but you can play around with them and see that it's very easy for a trade agreement to be good for everyone while still being disproportionately better for the people who control the business.

[bsder]

Except that the TPP isn't mostly about trade.

What is most objectionable are the 2/3+ of the agreement that is about things like corporations suing states, extensions of excessive copyright and patent laws, etc.

The other problem is that the American worker took it in the shorts after NAFTA. A bunch of jobs suddenly moved to Mexico, and then to Asia.

The United States would have benefited more from automating those jobs rather than just having them leave. Had NAFTA not gone into effect, companies would have had to do more automation.

[x0x0]

You just imagineered up some data that supports your pro-trade position, then used that as proof that trade is good for everyone.

Tada!

[lukeschlather]

By all means, I'd love to see some real figures.

While people can be in general better off, I still think the situation is unfair and it's reasonable to oppose the treaty just on the question of fairness, but that's a much more complicated conversation.

[sitkack]

I want to be your friend. Are you going to strange loop?

[socalnate1]

"So trade, in practice, is a transfer from those less well-off to those more well-off."

You can't possibly actually believe this.

[x0x0]

it does have the benefit of being true

Consider nafta: we traded relatively well-paying blue collar jobs for cheap manufactured goods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA's_effect_on_United_State...

http://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/