Good points Karl,
But RR is still singing the globalization slave-labor song. He's oblivious to the damage this transporting of everything from the other side of the world does to the environment.
He's a Globalist, who still defends NAFTA.
WASHINGTON — Labor Secretary Robert Reich said Tuesday that labor unions are ""just plain wrong"" in opposing the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canadaand predicted it would result in adding jobs to the U.S. automobile and steel industries.
Here's Robert Reich in the past and recently telling us that corporations shouldn't be taxed, nor should they provide health care for their employees:
""If I were a betting man, I would say that given the pace of growth of the Mexican automobile market over the next 15 years, I would say that more automobile jobs would be created in the United States than would be lost to Mexico,"" Reich told a group of reporters.
Much of the steel for cars sold in Mexico would be produced in the U.S., he said, adding that those in that industry should be happy with the agreement, too.
While there will be some job dislocation from the agreement, he said the number will be ""very, very small"" when compared to other causes of job losses, such as military and corporate cutbacks and technological change. The number of workers displaced from their jobs nationwide this year will rise by 300,000, to 2.2 million, he said.
Reich said he had no estimate of how many displaced jobs would be linked to the trade agreement.
The secretary said he expects some low-skilled automobile jobs to move to Mexico, but added that because of demand for cars in the U.S. ""the American automobile industry will grow substantially, and the net effect will be an increase in automobile jobs.""
Reich said he has debated the issue with union leaders and told them frankly he disagrees with them in their belief that the agreement will cause a massive job loss:
""The easiest conclusion is that there is a giant sucking sound from the south with regard to our jobs. That's just plain wrong.""
Trade liberalization in the post-World War II era led to the ""biggest increase in jobs and standard of living among the industrialized nations (in) history,"" he said. ""Trade is not bad. It is not a zero-sum game.""
Then I found this:
ROBERT REICH ON NAFTA
Robert Reich's Blog: Hillary and Barack, Afta Nafta: It’s a shame the Democratic candidates for president feel they have to make trade – specifically NAFTA – the enemy of blue-collar workers.... NAFTA is not to blame.... When NAFTA took effect, Ohio had 990,000 manufacturing jobs. Two years later, in 1996, it had 1,300,000 manufacturing jobs. The number stayed above a million for the rest of the 1990s. Today, though, there are about 775,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio.
What happened? The economy... crashed in late 2000, and the manufacturing jobs lost in that last recession never came back... employers automated the jobs out of existence, using robots and computers... [and] shipped the jobs abroad, mostly to China – not to Mexico.
NAFTA has become a symbol for the mounting insecurities felt by blue-collar Americans. While the overall benefits from free trade far exceed the costs, and the winners from trade (including all of us consumers who get cheaper goods and services because of it) far exceed the losers, there’s a big problem: The costs fall disproportionately on the losers -- mostly blue-collar workers who get dumped because their jobs can be done more cheaply by someone abroad who’ll do it for a fraction of the American wage.... Even though the winners from free trade could theoretically compensate the losers and still come out ahead, they don’t. America doesn’t have a system for helping job losers find new jobs that pay about the same as the ones they’ve lost – regardless of whether the loss was because of trade or automation. There’s no national retraining system. Unemployment insurance reaches fewer than 40 percent of people who lose their jobs.... There's no wage insurance. Nothing....
Get me? The Dems shouldn't be redebating NAFTA. They should be debating how to help Americans adapt to a new economy in which no job is safe. Okay, so back to my initial question. The answer is HRC didn't want the Administration to move forward with NAFTA... because of its timing. She wanted her health-care plan to be voted on first...
There are other, secondary causes of declining numbers of manufacturing jobs in Ohio. The Bush budget deficits certainly don't help.
Here's a post on facebook, purportedly from him that says:
February 15 ·
I used to believe in ""free trade"" agreements, until I took a hard look at the numbers. NAFTA cost U.S. workers almost 700,000 jobs. Since the Korea–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, America's trade deficit with Korea has grown more than 80 percent, the equivalent of a loss of more than 70,000 additional U.S. jobs. Since China’s admission to the World Trade Organization, the U.S. goods trade deficit with China increased $23.9 billion (7.5 percent) to $342.6 billion.
Trade deals the fail to address currency manipulation or to effectively address labor standards -- while protecting the intellectual property of global corporate investors and the financial asset of Wall Street -- aren't even about trade, since tariffs are already very low. They're really about enhancing corporate and financial profits at the expense of American workers. That's why I urge you to tell your representatives in Washington not to give the President fast-track authority to negotiate the Trans Pacific Partnership.
What's your view?
When confronted about this disparity, he apparently gets amnesia according to the Washington Post:
Reich supported NAFTA back in Clinton days and also a “fast-track” process. Asked about this, he e-mailed: “I pushed hard inside the Clinton administration for stronger labor and environmental side agreements to NAFTA. . . . Wish I had done more.” And “As to fast-tracking trade agreements, though, had no role.”
Ah, but some beg to differ, pointing out, among other things, a 2007 speech he gave when the Bush administration was pushing for fast-track authority, calling it “vitally important.” He said it was “the only reason that any other country would sign a trade treaty with the United States,” lest they sign on and Congress then changes it.
In response, he quipped in an e-mail: “Al, I don’t recall what I said in Tampa in 2007. I’m lucky if I remember what I said yesterday.”",1,1,http://commons.commondreams.org/t/the-revolt-against-the-ruling-class/11621/40,2015-08-04 07:10:36 UTC
The Revolt Against the Ruling Class,News & Views,-,No,"SR,
I agree with you, there's an effort by the tag team here like JJ to hack down all ""elitist Liberals"" (as they put it). But in checking into it, Robert Reich betrayed Unions terribly by pushing for NAFTA. See my post outlining it.
Of course, that set the stage for even worse so-called ""Free Trade Agreements"" destroying the environment with millions of trucks, airplanes and ships all criss-crossing the globe in search of slave labor.
An unforgivable offense, unless he is repentant about it. Reich was the Secretary of Labor assuring Unions that there would be more jobs in the US, not less (by exporting jobs to low-wage Mexico?) Crazy claim! He wrote the book ""SuperCaptialism"", praising the system and arguing for the elimination of all corporate tax! Again, please see my post in this comment section.
An interesting union perspective is here, including Chris Hedges summation of NAFTA:
Additionally, Wikipedia says about the Book Supercapitalism:
Reich rejects the notion that corporations are people and are being invested with anthropomorphic qualities. ""Corporations are legal fictions, nothing more than bundles of contractual agreements"" (p216). He maintains that corporations cannot be blamed for ""corporate greed"", nor can they be expected to promote the common good. They are legal entities with the purpose to make profits for investors and shareholders. A corporation will do its best to thrive within the frame work that it is given, - if it does not do so it is at risk to be surpassed by the competition. Reich debunks the concept of ""corporate social responsibility"" as bogus. He maintains that it should not be the role of corporations to provide health coverage. Corporations are not people and should not be taxed, instead their investors and shareholder need to be taxed on the profits.
Those weren't isolated sentiments by Robert Reich:
There is, undeniably, much to celebrate about the new economy. American capitalism is triumphant all over the world, and with good reason. Neo-Luddites who claim that advancing technologies will eliminate jobs & relegate most of us to poverty are wrong, even silly. Isolationists and xenophobes who want to put up the gates and reduce trade & immigration are misguided, often dangerously so. Paranoid populists who say global corporations and international capitalists are conspiring against us are deluded, possibly hallucinating. We--you and I and most Americans--are benefitting mightily from the new economy. We are reaping the gains of its new inventions, its lower prices, its fierce competition. We are profiting from the terrific deals its offering us as consumers, and to a large and growing proportion of us an investors.