The document discusses differing perspectives on the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Supporters argue that NAFTA increased U.S. exports, jobs supported by exports, and environmental protections in member countries. Critics contend that NAFTA cost American jobs by encouraging companies to relocate production to Mexico to access cheaper labor. The document also examines arguments that NAFTA negatively impacted Mexican farmers and small businesses by increasing competition, and Mexican workers by contributing to an influx of undocumented immigrants to the U.S. labor market. While supporters cite data finding positive economic effects, critics dispute these findings and believe NAFTA's true goal was to empower corporations at the expense of workers' rights.

1. Morgan Outland
NAFTA research paper
1/26/16
NAFTA’s Impact
The NAFTA agreement was implemented in 1994 by the United States with Canada and
Mexico. There are supporters and critics who suggest there have been a negative and positive
impact because of NAFTA. According to the U.S. government they are able to show how
Americans have benefited. “It has increased exports, expanded U.S. agriculture, improved
environmental standards at home and abroad, and given Americans higher-paying jobs.’’
(Fitzgerald). However, critics of free Trade have a different opinion. ‘’NAFTA has resulted in
fewer U.S. exports, cost American jobs, and jeopardized the environment.” (Fitzgerald) The data
from this article does not support the critics’ argument.
According to Fitzgerald, there was an increase in U.S. exports between 1993 and 2000 by
104 percent. In comparison to the rest of the world, U.S. Trade grew only half as fast. In a ten
year time frame from 1990-2000, the sales of United States corn to Canada increased by 127
percent. There was also a significant increase of corn to Mexico, ‘’U.S. exports to motor vehicles
in 1998 were 14 times greater than in 1993, rising 2.4 billion. (Fitzgerald)
According to the Bureau of labor Statistics, there are more jobs lost because of labor
strikes than there are because of trade competition. Critics argue because of NAFTA many
people have lost their jobs, but Fitzgerald suggests this is not true based on the facts. The
Department of Commerce completed a five year study to refute the critics’ argument. They study
showed U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico support over 600,000 more jobs than in 1993. The
study also stated U.S. exports to Canada supported about 1.7 million jobs which was 300,000
more jobs than in 1993. ‘’Total employment in the U.S. motor vehicle industry has grown five
times faster following NAFTA than in the years prior to the agreement. ‘’Supporters of NAFTA,
and many economists, see a positive impact on U.S. employment and note that new export-
related jobs in the United States pay 15 to 20 percent more on average than those focused on
domestic production (Sergie.)’’ These facts are far different non-supporters of NAFTA.
There have been advantages environmentally as well because of the agreement. Mexico
has passed environmental laws that are similar to the U.S. and Canada since the implementation
of NAFTA. NAFTA has a section in the agreement which ‘’promotes development through
mutually supportive environmental and economic policies. It also created the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEO) to protect, conserve, and improve the environment.’’
(Fitzgerald) Supporters of NAFTA believe without the agreement Mexico and the U.S. would
have lower environmental standards.
An article written by Faux suggests there are negative impacts because of NAFTA as
well. He outlines four principal ways U.S. workers were affected by NAFTA. According to
Faux, there was a loss of approximately 700,000 jobs because production was moved to Mexico.
The states which have a larger manufacturing sector experienced more loses. These states

2. include California, Texas, and Michigan. Faux acknowledges there were job gains along the
border because of increased trucking activity. He believes the gains do not compare to lose of
jobs and the gains are in jobs with lower pay. The second concern by Faux, workers were forced
to accept lower pay and benefits. He explained managers were telling their workers their
positions would move to Mexico if they didn’t accept the low pay and benefits. ‘’In the midst of
collective bargaining negotiations with unions, some companies would even start loading
machinery into trucks that they said were bound for Mexico.’’(Faux) The threats were very real
to the workers. The message to the workers was if they voted in a union, they would move south
of the border. These messages were threatening to many workers.
The next concern was the effect NAFTA on the Mexican agricultural and small
businesses. Faux states there were several million Mexican workers and their families dislocated
and in turn entered the U.S. labor market. He feels this has also contributed to an increase of
undocumented workers entering into the U.S. This also has had a negative impact on U.S.
workers because the Mexican workers accepted and received lower wages. These facts are
contrary to proponents of NAFTA.
Lastly, the article addresses the effects of global economy. ‘’The U.S. governing class, in
alliance with the financial elites of its trading partners, applied NAFTA’s principles to the World
Trade Organization, to the policies of the World Bank and IMF, and to the deal under which
employers of China’s huge supply of low wage workers were allowed access to the U.S. markets
in exchange for allowing American multinational corporations the right to invest there.’’ (Faux)
Opponents did not believe the main goal of NAFTA was to expand trade. They feel the U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico, have been trading for over 300 years and there was no need to create a
trade agreement. “It appears the goal of NAFTA was to free American corporations from U.S.
laws which protected workers and the environment. According to Faux, it aided in the
‘’privatization of public services, the regulation of finance, and the destruction of the
independent trade union movement.”(Faux)
It appears there are facts to support NAFTA and there are facts to support those do not
support NAFTA. In the article by Fitzgerald, she is able to refute all the myths of critics of the
NAFTA agreement. One of most critical areas was job loss, but Americans have not been
negatively impacted according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. Also, another argument by
opponents is Americans lost many good paying jobs because of the cheap labor in Mexico.
Fitzgerald also dismisses this myth by her research. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics
more people lost their jobs because of labor strikes than from import competition. There have
been an increase over 600,000 jobs from the U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico. The supporters
of NAFTA feel there are definitely more positive contributions than negative contributions
because of trade agreement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.
2

3. Bibliography
Barufaldi, Dan” NAFTA’s Winners and Losers.’’
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp.
Web. 25 January. 2016.
Faux, Jeff “NAFTA’s Impact on U.S. Workers.” http://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-
workers/. 2009. Web. 26 January 2016.
Fitzgerald, Sarah J. ‘’ The Effects of NAFTA on Exports, Jobs, and the Environment: Myth vs.
Reality’’. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/08/the-effects-of-nafta-on-exports-jobs.
2001. Web. 27 January 2016.
Sergie, Mohammmed Aly ‘’NAFTA’s Economic Impact.’’ http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-
economic-impact/p15790/2014. Web. 27 January 2016.