because U.S. workers remain much more productive than Mexican workers. Job losses will only occur in low-skill/low-wage industries, such as certain textile manufacturing (Gerstenzang, 1993, November 14, p. A1).
Opponents of NAFTA cite studies which say that it could cost some 500,000 more U.S. jobs than it creates; former presidential candidate H. Ross Perot believes that 5.9 million U.S. jobs will go south to Mexico (Gerstenzang, 1993, November 14, p. A24). Some also say that the availability of low-wage workers in Mexico will drive U.S. wages down by nearly $1,000 per year; the diversion of investment to Mexico will also result in the creation of 550,000 fewer high-paying jobs in the United States. Even the Secretary of Labor during the Bush administration, Lynn Martin, admitted that job losses as a result of NAFTA could reach 150,000, although these losses would be considerably less than the number of jobs created in the U.S. as a result of the treaty (CQ Researcher, 1993, January 29, p. 87).
In one article, analysts examined the effect of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement and attempted to project the effects of NAFTA. These analysts said that the Canadian economy was negatively affected by the CFTA in three areas. First, Canadian jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector. Second, there was unexpected damage to leading innovative services and other industries. Third, there was a negative cumulative impact upon Canadian labor negotiations and the general Canadian "social compact." Thus, between January of 1989 and January of 1992, 23.1% of all Canadian manufacturing employment disappeared, with 1/3 of this loss occurring prior to the recession in Canada and the U.S. Canada experienced a net loss of more than 100,000 jobs during this period; Canadian critics of the CFTA argue that this job loss and economic downturn were the direct result of the relocation of production to lower-cost sites in the United States (Conro...