Sí se Puede : FAIR Trade Agreement!

It has been discussed openly that NAFTA has affected thousands of women in México. It has affected those who work in the maquiladoras as well as those who work in nearly any industry.

The problem with the North American Free Trade Agreement is that is illusionary. The rhetoric that is out there for developed nations and capitalists and investors is that free trade means equal and fair trade. Because if we say, 'free' than that implies that there are choices, there is freedom, liberty and the opportunity for an individual or group of people to behave, act and choose in the ways that best fit them.


And isn't that a wonderful capitalist illusion? But how likely is it that a fully-developed, fully-industrialized wealthy nation of the first world will trade fairly with a weaker nation? Would the United States be willing NOT to subsidize it's corn farmers so that they can compete more fairly with Mexican farmers? The problem is not wholly to put the blame on the United States nor the international organizations. Mexico is not exactly an innocent victim in this case--not by a LONG shot!

When México began tariff-free imports of American corn, it was originally planned that during a fifteen-year phase, tariffs would eventually be dropped. However, México has always imported more corn than the quota limited, and instead of taxing the excess corn that came in, in order to create revenue, they excused it...for fourteen years.

This is an issue that is brought up in order accurately include agriculture into a discussion of NAFTA. But as for the women that are affected? The secondary blog 'narrativenafta'takes into account the lives of three women with certain similarities, but different lived experiences both as Mexicans working in México for American-owned foreign companies, and then as migrant women working for American companies in the United States.

NAFTA has created a halfway point (so to speak) between the typical American household and a Mexican household. No country has managed to gain such economic prosperity that the people of Mexico and the people of the United States are satisfied with the treaty. Wages in the United States have been relatively stagnant, wages in México have actually dropped in manufacturing, so while both the US and Mexico constantly talk about job growth and unemployment numbers, this "benefit" of NAFTA doesn't seem worthwhile. In fact, the only winners seem to be transnational corporations who get to sell products cheaper, and make products cheaper, and not be forced to abide by strict regulations.

I'm searching for an answer.

The answer is not that governments or economists or Wal-Mart and it's hedonist friends change their ways, because they won't. The ones who have the most to gain, will likely do what is in their ability to keep winning. That's been the history of colonialism, neocolonialism, and most sports teams like soccer (Real Madrid).

The answer comes from the relationships that women can form with each other to begin working together to have, at least short gains. Unionization seems to stand out as the preferred answer, and unfortunately it seems as though something else has to come first, before any of that can happen.

Rhoda Howard, who discusses the situation of African women who are undermined by African men and marginalized from jobs and kept from decent wages, can begin by using what is constitutionally and democratically available to them. Undocumented migrants living in the United States felt enough unity to protest on May 1st, two years ago in favor of positive, immigrant-friendly reform.

American journalists, economists, politicians and activists have all said that these undocumented migrants are not accomplishing anything by protesting because the majority of the United States is against them. Whether or not that point is true, the phenomenon of so many people coming together for a cause that is their own, and under a situation where they have very limited constitutional and democratic mobility to protest is a modern-day demonstration of the potential for relationship building between the United States and México!

Sí se puede! Sí se puede! Sí se puede!

The myth that NAFTA is the vehicle of change for the future, the rhetoric of a North American union being formed, much like the European Union cannot be positive for México if even within these 'free trade' treaties, the bigger nation still gets it's 'first pickings'.

The women in the narrative blog have begun to collaborate with each other because they both visited a small conference that a local church and community Latino organization made about Tamaulipas. Two of the women are natives from Tamaulipas and live fifty miles apart, and both traveled to the conference where they met. The other woman has not been to México in years, and looks forward to this as an opportunity to meet and greet mexicanas who she has longed to have some contact with.

Even a small level of collaboration and women sharing their experiences helps gain an understanding of the physical realities that led them towards different paths.

Agriculture and Rural Mexicans: Victims of NAFTA

As for the agricultural sector of NAFTA, this becomes a complicated issue. Agriculture wasn’t specifically negotiated as a direct provision of NAFTA, but there were subsequent agreements between the United States and Mexico and then by the Mexico and Canada that would open up different agricultural agreements with each binary. Agriculture is still considered as a part of NAFTA because the trade agreements were passed around the same time and as a direct consequence of NAFTA. Former President of Mexico Vicente Fox has called for enhancements of NAFTA to what he often refers to as NAFTA plus.

Nevertheless, the US and Mexican government opened the door for trade in agriculture between the two countries but it has had only negative consequences for rural Mexican farmers. An important thing to keep in mind in a discussion of “free trade” is how each nation deals with it’s agriculture prior to entering into the “free trade” market. Ever heard of subsidies? It is virtually impossible for Mexican corn to compete against American when the US federal government provides subsidies to American farmers that make it impossible for Mexican farmers to compete against. There has been 18-fold increase in the imports of corn from the United States into México from 1993 to 2000 (Cavanaugh and Anderson).

Doesn’t this seem to allude back to Nawal Saadawi? This is an Egyptian woman who recalled how after much pressure from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, Egypt was forced to export raw materials that the Global North demanded and ended up having to import more cotton than it exported as a result. The practices of the Global North forced Egypt into dependency.

And it just so happens that the World Bank and IMF see NAFTA as a positive step towards integration of the North American ‘trading bloc’. While the Mexican industrial sector seems to be pleased at receiving peanuts by being allowed to manufacture products that are foreign-owned, US farmers are forcing down American corn down Mexican farmers throats, who can no longer compete against the magic of subsidies.

A few months ago, Mexican farmers got into an uproar because the cost of the tortilla was rising as a result of the rising cost of corn. Why would corn prices go up? As it turns out the ‘global’ demand for ethanol is driving up the price. However it must be noted that ethanol is primarily consumed by the United States and that the United States chooses to use corn, which is an ample staple food that it produces in abundance, to create into ethanol. Brasil, for example, is another heavy producer of ethanol, however it makes its ethanol out of sugar cane.

The international price hike of corn in México has forced the country to—can you guess it?—import more corn from the United States. The administration of Felipe Calderón, México’s president has formed an agreement with Big Tortilla business to keep their price at a set amount.

In families where food is scarce enough, it seems that the New World Order has succeeded once more in 'opening up' the market of foreign trade and forcing México into becoming an exporter of goods it doesn't own and an importer of necessities it once made.

NAFTA: Does Economic Aid Help or Hurt the Environment and People?

In 1992, Dan Fagin, a staff correspondent for Newsday, wrote about several reports of children being born on both the Mexican and American sides of the border with birth defects. From Brownsville to McAllen and Laredo to Mexico’s Matamoros, Nuevo Laredo and Rio Bravo all had high rates of stillborns with nerve bundles for brains or other defects. On the American side the rate was eight times the national average, the condition: anencephaly.

México has only recently in the past two years began a review process for the waste and byproducts of many manufacturing plants along the border. Since before and during NAFTA, the government has allowed industry to regulate itself, and even it’s new regulatory scheme only scratches the surface of the level of regulation in the United States.

The border between the United States and Mexico is the one in the world where such a powerfully industrialized country shares such a long border with what is still considered to be a ‘third world’country. Keep in mind that in 2000, México's economy was ranked 11th in the world, however they are still considered 'third world' because of their high population rate as well as unstable government.

the countries covered in red are part of the Global South and the blue are the Global North.




Oliver Bernstein, the Sierra Club’s border Environmental Justice organizer, has recognized how the environment is perceived by Americans and by Mexicans in both nations, although living only twenty miles apart.

In Reynosa, Tamaulipas there is a water source for the town called La Laguna Escondida “The Hidden Lagoon” and because most water sources in México are from lakes (including underground) and because this particular lake has experienced s significant amount of dumping and been the final destination for some of the city’s runoff, the townspeople are beginning to do take environmental action to help clean up the land.


This specific lake is also a stopping point for migratory birds making the trek every year from the US to México and then from México to the US. A lot of Texans that are concerned with the birds’ habitat have decided to help the Mexicans restore the lake in order to ensure environmental stability for the birds that go to the lake.

Although this is a good example of people from both countries working together, it is clear that the motivation of the Americans to restore the lake for the sake of the birds avoids having to discuss a big ín-your-face issue; that of poverty.

What is also evident throughout the northern regions of México, specifically the cities with maquiladoras who are experiencing bottlenecking, are being surrounded by shanty-towns, people who come to the North with practically nothing on them except for their clothes, and begin scavenging the landfills and using old wood and discarded plywood to make small huts in which to live.

The term ‘paracaidistas’ is applicable here, and it has first been used to discuss the growth of Mexico City and its surrounding poverty. ‘paracaidistas’ means “parachutists” and those living in absolute poverty are called this because, to those who live in houses, they could go to bed one night and wake up the next morning to see twenty or so shanty-town huts outside of their window as if ‘they had just fallen from the sky’. This is not a phenomenon exclusive to Reynosa, Matamoros, Ciudad Juarez, Tecate or Tijuana. This is representative of every single border-town city in México and is also representative of Mexico City. Anywhere one travels in México it is unavoidable to miss houses like this, but the cities with rapid growth in industry have seen the greatest creation of these ‘shanty towns’.

But what are many of the towns to do about landfill scavenging? Is it safe for people to sift through the city’s garbage in search of useful equipment for their own home? Bernstein has visited Matamoros and has discovered that since many of the roads are not paved, people throw their garbage onto empty lots or have it burned, because the city’s garbage collectors can’t venture too far into parts of the city with unpaved roads. This problem has been present since even before the rapid economic growth in NAFTA.

It is these concerns about what Americans might consider basic environmental services that are lacking in México. There has been concern and some active efforts into correcting the damaging environmental hazards on the border-towns. Part of what interests many Americans on this issue is that by sharing a river, the pollutants that go into it by either side—although namely by Mexican industry that is by and large unregulated—and have been willing to participate with to some degree in cleanup efforts. Historic droughts and little water available for the population of México has, since 1992 at least, let the Rio Grande become open for sewage as well as for drinking water. Recent environmental-activist trends may help offset this, but perhaps if they and others shifted their focus to a humanitarian side of environmentalism the situation can return sustainability to the region.

Las Matanzas de Ciudad Juarez, Teoría y Aplicación

What has been a popular area of study in NAFTA and women, have been the very visible abuses of women in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Ciudad Juarez borders El Paso, Texas and the explosion of the maquiladora market in border regions have created urban sprawl, bottlenecking and an infrastructure on the Mexican side that has failed to catch up with the speed in which industrial parks are built and maquiladoras have grown.

Aside from the problems of cities in dealing with the rapid growth, is the failure of enforcement of laws that protect women in México. The lack of protection of women’s rights is something that is experienced in both the United States and Mexico. The Violence Against Women Act is a recent legislative venture to try to correct the visible, blatant wrongs that are committed against women in the United States on a daily basis, and this type of legislation (as well as its findings) are proof that the lack of protection from women’s own political and legal resources that are afforded to everyone in their respective countries are not enough in curtailing violence against women.

In Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, where police have been complacent in investigating cases of missing persons, and city managers have publicly claimed that the missing women were likely prostitutes or runaways, the environment of non-enforcement almost seems to encourage predators to abuse women where an opportunity lies.

Melissa Wright finds a correlation between maquiladora owners and managers treating women as capital who lose their value after a work-term and also being perceived by the men of Juarez as having lost their value as women. In her article, “The Dialects of Still Life” the value of women in border factories is said to have little economic value in the "maquiladoras" by those who employ them. There the bosses complain that girls only work for a little while and there is such high turnover, however, as the article progresses, it is discovered that maquiladoras encourage high turnover, since the managers "know" that women "don’t want to stay very long" at their posts, managers use this as a tool when there is high productivity and little productivity. It is easy to hire a lot of women during periods of high production, then lay them all off a few months later when demand fluctuates.

And if women lose economic value because they either become pregnant and need days off form work (and therefore lose their value to the maquila) or because it is perceived that they’ve stayed at the maquila for too long, such as a two-year period (in which they are still perceived to have lost their value because it is ‘only a matter of time’ before they leave) then they are no longer required and their turnover becomes a benefit.

And in a hyper-industrialized, commerce-heavy region such as northern México, where one’s own survival is dependent on the maquilas, Wright argues that men of the area begin to think of women as value-less in other aspects of life. For example, working women have obviously been influenced by American culture to work and buy things, so men feel don’t feel obligated to feel anything towards them because they’ve ‘lost their culture’.

The issue of violence against women and their de-valuation in Juarez is perhaps unique to this area only because it has been an environment where opportunity lies and there is no enforcement against it, thus it is repeated. However, the violence against women by Mexican men is not a new concept.

There is a rather touchy and controversial subject that has been discussed among Mexican psychologists as well as philosophers about the mind of the typical Mexican. I say that this subject is controversial because it brings up very nationalistic excuses for behavior as well as an argument about a psychological complex that seems to want to excuse men for their actions. This is not a defense of any of these ideas, however, I will briefly explain the subject because it seems to still have a lot of popularity among Mexicans at least as an explanation to how corrupt the country is rather than as a defense for the behavior of men against women.

In the Sixties and Seventies, several Mexican authors wrote books about the Mexican complex or about the question, “What does it mean to be a Mexican?” Among one of these authors was Samuel Ramos who wrote, “Hijos de la Malinche”. He focused a considerable part of his argument to the words Mexicans used to describe emotions. The most used word in his thesis was “chingada” or “chingar” which is, roughly, “to fuck”. He noticed this word was almost exclusively a Mexican word because no other Latin American nation used it as much and for as many things as Mexicans did.

The idea goes back to the conquest of Mexico, when Hernán Cortez came onto the shores of México and was given, as a gift, a young Indian girl who was called, “la Malinche” or ‘Malintzin’. La Malinche helped Cortez conquer the Aztecs, and many would argue that the firstborn of Hernán Cortez and la Malinche would be the first ‘Mexican’ because Mexicans are the infusion of the Spanish and the indigenous American. The complication, though, is that in popular Mexican history la Malinche is seen as a traitor the Mexican people because she let herself be taken by Hernán Cortez rather than defend the Aztecs. The phrase “malinchista” is usually used to negatively label someone who says something unpatriotic.

Ramos argues that Mexicans are all descendants of la Malinche and so Mexicans are all ‘hijos de la chingada’. To clarify further: in Spain, a common insult is, “hijo de puta” which translates into ‘son of a bitch’ or literally, ‘son of a whore’ which infers that the woman willfully gives herself to men in exchange for money. ‘hijo de la chingada’ literally means, ‘son of a raped woman’ the difference is that sex is forced, not chosen, which makes the psychological complex worse for Mexicans because it has forced a generational trend where they see everything in their lives as a sequence of situations where one must either take from others or be taken by others. The choice is to “chingar” or to be “chingado”.

Although the first part of the argument is certainly the most radical because it essentializes all Mexicans, the following part is the most widely accepted by Mexicans who understand the level of corruption and fear within the population. The crime rate and corruption in México ranks among the worst in the world. Police are well-known for their corruption and the criminal and innocent alike fear the police as though they were a gang of organized criminals because….that’s what they are. And in a country where even the enforcers of the laws manipulate them as they choose, and politicians use of public funds for their own use is so well-known that no new charge in an investigation would so much as raise eyebrows among the public, people have to fend for themselves.

I have mentioned this to very many Mexicans including family, friends, co-workers and there is a general agreement that in México, everyone is pretty much out to protect themselves and to take as they will. And so violence escalates in México for a variety of reasons ranging from narco-trafficking to the killings of women in Ciudad Juarez.

Questioning the behavior of women in these border towns, the constant, "what was she doing out at night?" attempts to devalue women by suggesting they are prostitutes or immoral or lost to American culturism to imply that they have lost value and are worth only the opportunity to die. This goes back to what Melissa Wright argues about the factories and society devaluing women so that they can get rid of them. Perhaps the violence in Juarez has been accelerated by the inclusion of hypercapitalism where the worth of human life is beginning to be shaped by their worth in a factory funded by foreign capital and aided by NAFTA.

This is an excellent argument against the system of so-called “open trade” that has been established by the United States and defended by international organization such as the World Bank, the IMF and the NAFTA treaty. As has been said before, these international trade organizations and treaties have predominately been more favorable to the developed, wealthier nations and end up setting the guidelines that the weaker nations are forced to follow.

The visibility of the maquiladora issue (although critically important) has many times been the breadth of scope of any discussion of NAFTA, without lending to a discussion of national economic effects on women or an effect of a different economic sector such as agriculture, which arguably has the biggest impact on Mexican families.

I encourage the reader, as the following piece is read, to consider what isn’t discussed when NAFTA is brought up into a US-Mexico discourse; and to consider that perhaps the maquiladora issue receives more visibility than any other NAFTA effect—this is not to say that it is ‘hyper-visible’ which would imply some level of deception about the issue, which is certainly not the case—and to consider the very word ‘maquila’ or ‘maquiladora’ which are known as the foreign-owned factories that employ Mexican labor in the border regions.



Five years ago, my mother reported the meat processing plant she worked in (Lufkin TX) to the EEOC and Department of Labor. Two months later, ConAgra sold its plant to a different company (Armour Eckrich Foods) after firing its top management and after conclusions of many many violations of equality and work standards.

Although she still feels that there are bad practices at the meat plant, she still works there where the working conditions have improved a greath deal but still with a wary eye of how management treats the workers.

About two weeks ago while visiting home, I made the comment, "at least it's not like a maquiladora." She looked at me and asked, "how is it not?" And I said, "no, the maquiladoras are practically sweat shops, they exploit women and pay low wages", I then referenced the killings of women in Ciudad Juarez, and she responded by saying, " factories all over Mexico pay little and treat people badly, and what happens in Juarez is especially horrible and dangerous, but the plant I work at is still a maquiladora".

Then I stopped. Thought about it, and asked, "is the word maquiladora synonymous with factory?" She said, "yes."

looking up the word maquiladora in critiques of NAFTA, they are explained as factories (usually textile) that are foreign-owned (usually American) and are predominately on the Mexican side of the border with the US, but are also all over Mexico.

And I wonder, do we all use the word "maquila" to be culturally sensitive? I DON'T THINK SO. And I say this sincerely.

It seems to me that maquiladora has a negative connotation here in the United States. When I think of "maquilas" I think of sweatshops and human rights abuse. But when I ask my mother, who lived on ther border (Matamoros, Mexico) and worked for Fisher-Price Mexico in a maquiladora during the Eighties....to her "maquiladora" is interchangeable with "factory" or "plant".

I had no idea that people in Mexico did not distinguish the two, because everything I've ever read about maquiladoras is always about abuses that take place in the factories. I am not at all suggesting that abuses do not occur, or that they should be excused in any way. I am only saying that to many Mexicans, factories all over Mexico are full of these abuses (especially in the so-called "maquiladoras" of the border towns which are predominately textile plants).

But the use of the word "maquiladora" by well-to-do Americans (including feminists) as an attempt to be culturally sensitive is actually (I believe) a situation where Global North Americans are speaking on behalf of Global South Mexicans and trying to tell someone else's story through a veil of cultural sensitivity by knowingly using all of the negative energy, history and connotation behind the word "maquila".

I personally think they are ALL bad. But even foreign companies that are in the interior of the Mexican republic such as Germany's Volkswagen abuse Mexico and Mexicans both economically as well as physically. But they are usually not called "maquilas" they are auto part manufacturers. And if we were to call all of them "maquiladoras" that is--every single factory in Mexico-- then we essentialize! And if it is indeed true that every factory in Mexico deserves the negative tone of the word "maquila" (which I think would be appropriate) I think it is fair to consider the abuses to women all over the republic, and not just Ciudad Juarez.

To sum it up, I really would rather that transnational feminists call them "factories" not "maquiladoras" because women who work in either, do not distinguish the names, but those of us who read about the abuses are liable to hear "maquiladora" and "factoria"/"planta"/"empresa" and gather different conclusions as to what each does based solely on the name--when in fact they are all potentially very guilty of abuse.
I will extend on this further in me blog, but I want to add that based on this weeks readings, it is clear that the situation in the border-town factories are especially horrendous because the relationship between Mexican workers and American administrators is highly visible--however, when we reference them as "maquiladoras" it is easier for us to distinguish exactly what kind of factory we are talking about...and the thoughts that always enter our minds are those of abuse--not of a foreign relationship between Mexican women workers and American business owners and administrators.

NAFTA affects women in México as well as in the United States, it is something that is truly transnational. We do nothing more than avoid a discussion of class and poverty if we focus on terms like ‘maquiladora’ because then it seem like a Mexican phenomenon, and keeps us from having a discussion about the industrial system in the United States as well as México.
____________________________________________

In the borderlands

The sign to the left can be found on California highways that lead to the border, such as southern San Diego, California.

These two simple images say quite a bit about the perception of undocumented families that are crossing the border. On informational websites, such as 'howstuffworks' the caption found beneath a photograph of a US highway with the sign to the left reads,

"Signs like this one can be found near the U.S.-Mexico border, warning drivers to watch for illegal immigrants running across the highway."

As if undocumented foot migrants were deer running in the way of traffic.

Perhaps it's just me, but there's something bothersome about both the sign and the caption. The sign tries to force a picture of undocumented foot migrants as dirty vagabonds that are forcing their daughter into danger.

And as for the caption--I get the feeling that it's made with underlying racially-based humorist intentions.--which is offensive...any takers on this feeling?




In spite of trade that has increased three times the number prior to the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, job growth in Mexico has remained relatively stagnant. There has been a significant relocation of where the jobs are located--a substantial number in northern Mexico. The issue of foreign capital investment into the 'maquiladora' factory industry has created "bottlenecking" in many border towns inluding Naco, Matamoros, Ciudad Juarez, Tecate.

Bottlenecking refers to the illusion of job growth which gives people the incentive to move those regions where there are perceived jobs (in this case, northern Mexico), only to discover that those jobs are taken. There is such an enormous job pool, that urban sprawl begins to increase. With no jobs, these people are essentially homeless. This environment invites many Mexicans (and Central Americans) who have moved to northern Mexico in pursuit of jobs, to job the border.

After all, they've already made the trek to the bordertowns--without jobs, suffering hunger, no home and perhaps a family to care for--what option is available to Mexicans?



Death toll of migrants that have died while crossing (2006)

THE VIEW OF EL PASO, TEXAS AND CIUDAD JUAREZ, CHIHUAHUA

can you tell where the US ends and Mexico begins?

--unfortunately, the hill is in the way, but when only gazing upon the night lights of both sister cities, it is virtually undecipherable.

As dark as the hill is, in the middle of the desert...so are many maquiladoras surrounding Juarez Mexico. Outside of the maquiladoras, there are no street lights or road signs that would allow anyone to walk safely into the towns. The 'maquila' workers--predominately women--are forced to wait outside after their workday for a 'pesera' (small metro bus) to come by.

--As a brief correction, there are some maquiladoras closer to the city that have street lights available, and some others have a few lights on the outside of their buildings, however, the VAST majority of maquiladoras do not, and the majority also force the workers to vacate the premises after their workday.

From Babel: Crossing into Mexico

There are two things that stand out in this clip. First, the ease of entry into México, which is not shared by those who enter into the United States, and second--and only for a moment--is a look into what a town that borders the United States looks like.

Nawal Saadawi argues that wealthy, 'first world nations' aren't burdened by the same regulations that they impose on other nations. Because of their wealth, potential for capital investment and powerful militaries, countries like the US--and especially the US because of its unipolar position in the world--can ask for special exceptions for its own people who go to other countries and require more from people and capital that try to enter their own countries.

In the case of US-Mexico, Mexicans are eager for tourist dollars and will not hamper anyone's ability to enter, short of random vehicle searches, whereas the US is implementing a passport requirement beginning next year.

US-Mexico Economic Realities of Both Sides

as can be seen in the above graph, the greatest sector of industry is machinery, and most electronic-related economic sectors have become the heaviest interest in Mexican maquiladora industry. It is important to note that this is not exclusively around the border regions, although it is the primary area of study. Notice however, that textile industry has decreased substantially.


These cities show which have the greatest growth in industry. Ciudad Juarez has decreased in recent years while Reynosa has substantially outpaced other neighboring cities.


Approximately one-quarter of the population in the US counties bordering Mexico live at or below the poverty line. This is over double the rate of the national average (12 percent) of the US population living in poverty. Furthermore, the unemployment rate in US counties on the southern border is 5.6 percent compared to 4.7 percent in the rest of the country. Mexican border states have an average poverty rate of 28 percent, significantly below the Mexican national average of 37 percent.


Communities on the Mexican side of the border generally have less access to basic water and sanitation services than border communities in the United States.

Two of the 10 fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the United States, Laredo and McAllen, are located on the Texas-Mexico border. Estimates indicate the population of many border cities will double in 30 years. The population along the Texas border region is increasing at twice the rate of Texas as a whole.


The maquiladora economic sector accounts for 45% of all exports from Mexico and were begun in 1965 as part of the Programa de Industrialización Fronteriza.

As for the United States...does it feel like anything is 'Made in America' anymore? If it's been a while since you've seen that logo or know of anyone who still holds onto a manufacturing job that pays well--you may have found both are getting harder to stumble upon.

Aside from the statistical reality that manufacturing jobs are being outsourced to foreign companies--one of the main ones being México, how is it that the Bush Administration still boasts about it's present trend of uninterrupted job growth? The jobs that Americans are filling are no longer manufacturing, now they've become service jobs. But to add insult to injury...serious insult in February 2004, CBS reported that the President's Annual Economic Report suggested that the loss of manufacturing jobs to other countries was good for the American economy...and then went on to suggest that the definition of 'manufacturing' can be vague enough that this: can apparantely be considered manufacturing because of the assembly work involved, but it would be a service if it were made at a snack bar.

The report confused a considerable amount of politicians when this story came out, and during the 2004 presidential race, it left the door open for the Bush Administration to 'fudge up' how much of a loss we were really experiencing by including new categories into the 'manufacturing' definition.

The President's report was nothing short of vague, and for further reference, I encourage all readers to check out the article for yourselves: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/20/politics/main601336.shtml
the Congressional Budgeting Office reports it's findings that the US had about 14 million manufacturing jobs in 2004, down by 3 million in 2000.

Cavanaugh and Anderson, authors of "Happily Ever NAFTA?" referenced a Cornell University who documented that "US employers increasingly threaten to move their factories to México and other low wage countries in order to fight unions and restrain wages." This was one of the reasons for why the US real wage growth was so slow in the Nineties.

Imagine that? Mexican workers are threatened with being fired, horrible working conditions including unsafe work environments and dilapidated machinery as well as environmental damage and urban sprawl. And American workers are threatened with losing their jobs altogether if they unionize or demand higher wages.

Who is ever happy with this kind of scenario? Despite a previous post which demonstrated veiled racist comments by Lou Dobbs, and aside from a threat to nationalism, doesn't everyone lose when systems of economy seem to favor the transnational corporation that takes from everyone, not just from the empoverished nation?