No. That is not necessarily true. If any entire manufacturing industry goes down and it's a very industry specific skillset that goes overseas than there is no guarantee of a net gain in employment absent individuals being retrained and put into industries where they are more needed. Part of our problem has been that Republicans have always been against job training programs that people in Europe have seem to caught onto.
What you can say for sure with free trade is that almost always, the price of that certain good is bound to go down and thus the average consumer will have more money in their pocket and that society will benefit overall. The displacement of those workers or that industry may very well be the cost of that convenience.
perhaps but in the era of bailouts, a complete manufacturing industry going under is even less likely than before.
i agree that there is no net gain guarantee under the circumstance you provided, yet, one could argue, that the improved social conditions resulting from free trade should end up creating jobs...money makes money...
workers may well have to re-train or get very different jobs, but they will still have jobs under those circumstances. most of the unemployment caused by free trade is temporary...while the employment created is generally structural, though, that is not always the case of course.
agreed on the job training point completely.
in any event, our debate shows that that statement in the study may very well be misleading and/or misrepresented, but i do not think that the results of the study should then be completely discarded because of it, since the variance was so high.
MISS ME
