Talk:NAFTA's effect on United States employment

Delete this or merge with NAFTA's impact on US employment
This is an inferior version of NAFTA's impact on US employment and should be merged or deleted. Mulp (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Macro evaluation does not reflect multitude of micro effects
"Jobs" quantity comparisons in macro does not reflect fiscal loss in "jobs" in micro. Ambiguity of "jobs" has been the significant flaw in a multitude of discussions on economic impact of trade agreements. Net gain of "jobs" is irrelevant if a) it is not employing citizens, b) causes citizens to lose what equity they had (house in rural Virginia does not equal transferable to replacement in Boston), c) generic "job" is more than just wage - does not include stability (contingent employment spiking), does not reflect loss of benefits (loss of medical coverage benefit is damage to "wage" of "job"), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.168.225 (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Out of date - More recent studies should be included
Latest studies are almost 10 years old. Article should be updated or merged in favor of the other article cited by another commenter.2605:6000:1104:8016:BC53:D7DC:1685:C7F1 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NAFTA's effect on United States employment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704220113/http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/resources/upload/naftabenefitsnotdelivered.pdf to http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/resources/upload/naftabenefitsnotdelivered.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge NAFTA's effect on United States employment into North American Free Trade Agreement. I think that the content in former article can easily be covered in the 'impact' section of the latter article (it kind of already is). The latter article is of a reasonable size that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed -but the reliability of the EPI is in dispute, and the section that cites this 'think tank' as an authority on NAFTA may need to be rewritten. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

EPI
Note that few, if any, think tanks are listed as RS (distinguished ones like Brookings may be an exception). The reasons for this are quite simple: think tanks advocate for policies (that is, they're involved in activism) and the 'research' they put out is generally considered self-published on Wiki. So, I would ask that the sections relying on EPI for opinion on NAFTA be rewritten with more reliable sources. I'm not going to get into the myriad of ways EPI manipulates and decontextualizes trade data on a talk page, but they simply aren't trustworthy (same goes for right-leaning or 'libertarian' think tanks). Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)