[PEN-L:32432] Re: Re: Easterbrook's claims

[ian hudson <hudsoni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In fact, the Mexican government is attempting to hold on to much of the capital
that is fleeing northern Mexico's "high" wages by setting up a sort of "poor man's
maquiladora" in the south of the country in regions like Chiapas.  Their
development plan for the region, Plan Pueblo Panama, seeks to use the fact that
wages in this region are only half of the level in the north to keep companies
that are currently moving to places like Guatemala in the country.

Michael Perelman wrote:

> It is amazing what sort of nonsense passes for wisdom in this world.  In
> so far as Mexico is concerned, I understand that many of the jobs are in
> danger because even the miserable Mexican wage is too high in the world
> economy today.
>
> As for inequality being a statistical artifact due to immigration, that
> sounds nuts -- but I bet that someone at Heritage or some such place has
> "proven" it.
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 03:30:47PM -0500, F G wrote:
> > I followed the link posted by Lou where Easterbrook review's Singer's new
> > book:
> > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0211.easterbrook.html
> >
> > Much of the article is not worth responding to, since it argues that
> > "globalization" is good without bothering to define it.  However, I was
> > interested in the following claims:
> >
> > "And he notes that the main effect of NAFTA, denounced by the
> > anti-globalization left as a tool of corporate oligarchs, has been the
> > creation of relatively high-paying jobs in Mexico"
> >
> > I've read in several places that this not true or at least misleading (in
> > particular in a book on NAFTA written by Mexican economist Alberto Arroyo
> > and others), that many new jobs do not provide benefits and are of a
> > precarious nature, and there continues to be high unemployment.  Also the
> > real minimum wage is down from 1993.  Anyone know more about this?  I
> > suppose it depends partly on the meaning of "relatively high-paying", and
> > how many jobs have actually been created.  As usual, it also needs to be
> > argued that things could not have been better without NAFTA.
> >
> > Also:
> > "Average incomes there [in the developing world] almost doubled from 1975 to
> > 1999; even if you subtract for oil-enriched developing nations with
> > unusually high GDPs per capita, global average income rose"
> >
> > (Don't know about the data, but if you exclude India and East Asia, I
> > suspect the story is much worse)
> >
> > and:
> >
> > "(And the endless "widening gap between rich and poor" in the United States?
> > This is an artifact of the huge rise in legal immigration in the last two
> > decades. Factor out the low incomes of the newly arrived foreign-born, and
> > the gap between rich and poor Americans is shrinking. But that's a story for
> > another day.)"
> >
> > Any comments on this?  Note that the massive rise in immigration is at least
> > in part due to global inequality and third world regression.
> >
> > -Frank G.
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> >
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx