🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:00:28 -0500, David Yehudah <short1@connect.net>
wrote:

>MrKablooey � wrote:
>> 
>> Jeffrey Salzberg <salzberg@menudo.uh.edu> wrote
>> > David............ <david084@flash.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > >  THANK YOU BILL CLINTON
>> >
>> > Actually, NAFTA was negotiated by a Republican administration.
>> 
>> Good thinkin'.  People tend to like to blame stuff on current leaders,
>> especially Clinton, given all the other problems he seems to be facing.
>> 
>> BTW, wasn't it George Bush who got us NAFTA'd?  =)
>
>	Most of the criticism I've heard about NAFTA has to do with Mexico and
>Canada gaining, not with us losing. Some people just can't stand it when
>others they consider inferior get ahead, even if they aren't even
>concerned.
>	So what if some jobs are going South? Even more new ones are being
>created here as a result of NAFTA; it's not as if assembly-line work was
>a career in itself. Besides, the migration is only a continuation of
>what's been going on for years. I was living in Ciudad Juarez,
>Chihuahua, back in 1968, and there were American plants moving down
>there then as a result of trade treaties negotiated at that time. I
>never once heard an American criticize those moves, probably because
>most people, then as now, were ignorant of the real issues.
>	All the average American knows about trade issues is what the crooked
>politicians allow him to know.
>	What really toasts my buns is when an American company moves its
>assembly plant to another country, thus cutting it's labor costs to
>one-fourth or less of what it was before, but doesn't lower the price to
>the consumer. That's cheating. Any business is entitled to a fair
>profit, but not the obscene loot they're stealing from the American
>public.
>Cordially,
>--Dave

Do you suppose they raise the workers salaries, as a consequence?

...or maybe?