The fact that wages were much higher in the import and export industries than in the non-commercial industry is of greater importance to displaced workers. In 2011, the average worker displaced by Chinese commerce suffered a loss of $13,505 per year, even though they were reintegrated into an untraded industry. And as I`ve shown before, job and wage losses in manufacturing have had a huge depressing effect on the wages of most workers, which have been cut by $1,800 a week a year for workers without a university degree (and I repeat, these workers make up two-thirds of the workforce). As Congress considers a major new trade pact with Asia, there is a broad public consensus that international free trade agreements are good for the United States. The EU offers an interesting case study in this context, as it is the world`s largest trading bloc and has been a productive negotiator for trade agreements over the past two decades. Overall, 58 percent of Americans say free trade agreements between the U.S. and other countries were generally a good thing for the U.S., while 33 percent say they were a bad thing. These views have hardly changed in the past year, but are more positive than in 2011 (when 48% said they were a good thing). The vast majority of goods traded are industrial goods.

And manufacturing jobs pay much better than other jobs, especially those created since the last recession. As a result, more than 60 percent, or more than 400,000 of the nearly 700,000 jobs lost due to the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico, were lost in the manufacturing sector. Similarly, of the 3.2 million jobs lost due to the growth of our trade deficit with China, more than 75%, or 2.4 million manufacturing jobs, have been lost. As a result, the impact of free trade and investment agreements has by no means been positive for manufacturing or the vast majority of other American workers. Although economists have attempted to quantify the overall gains from openness (e.g., Costinot and Rodriguez-Clare in 2014), there is not much evidence of actual trade agreements, and little is known about the relative importance of the channels through which trade agreements affect well-being. Given recent public and political opposition to new agreements (such as the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the proposed EU-US agreement), it is important to understand how previous trade agreements have affected consumers. Trade agreements strengthen U.S. political and strategic interests that go beyond gains in trade relations. Recall that the first U.S.

free trade pact with Israel took place in 1985 and is a cornerstone of U.S.-Israel relations. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will also strengthen U.S. relations with the Asia-Pacific region. • Manufacturing (a subcategory of trade in goods) accounted for overall U.S. trade (in both directions) in 2017, up 5.3% from 2016 and up 24% from 2007. Opinions about the personal impact of trade deals have become more positive across all demographic groups, although the change is most pronounced among Americans with higher levels of education and income: Today, about half (52 percent) of Americans with a family income of $100,000 or more say these deals have helped their financial situation, while only 29% say they have been harmed by free trade agreements. In 2010, opinions were more divided among high-income Americans (33% helped, 30% injured, 26% volunteered, had no influence). The majority of our trade deficits and manufacturing job losses are due to currency manipulation by China and about 20 other countries, including Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam under the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership. This policy acts as a 30 to 40 percent subsidy on all their exports to the United States and a tax on all our exports to those countries and to all other countries where we compete with their exports (essentially the rest of the world). A better solution than protectionism is to include in trade agreements provisions that protect against inconvenience. My studies on the impact of NAFTA, trade with China, and other trade agreements use the same methodology that Jeff and Hufbauer used in their original 1993 projection before NAFTA, but I looked at the actual changes in trade deficits after those agreements, rather than the projections. An almost identical methodology was used in trade and employment studies conducted by federal reserve bank of New York staff and in a study on trade and offshoring by two researchers from the Brookings Institution, among others.

Growing trade deficits with Mexico have eliminated nearly 700,000 Americans. Jobs between 1993, the year before NAFTA came into force, and 2010. And the major trade agreements since NAFTA have been followed by growing trade deficits that are costing even more jobs, as I said earlier. Comparing the CPI in both scenarios allows us to answer the question of how poorer EU12 consumers would have been in real terms without agreement-based trade liberalisation over the past two decades. Overall, slightly more say their family`s finances have helped through free trade agreements (43%) than they have (36%). Among those with a family income of $100,000 or more, many more feel they have been helped financially (52%) than injured (29%). But among those in the low-income group (less than $30,000), 38 percent say their finances have benefited from free trade agreements, while 44 percent say they have been violated. The pros and cons of free trade agreements affect jobs, business growth and living standards: why do other countries accept such “unbalanced” agreements? Because the trade pacts oblige them to carry out domestic reforms, which they must absolutely carry out in order to boost the productivity and growth of their economies. .