Conference 7.286::digital

    
    The Albuquerque plant just lost 130 jobs to Mexico.  The work 
    transfers, the people do not.  I think it's a trend for the
    future.
    
    The labor is much less expensive, it's difficult to match 
    Mexican rates.
    
    Nafta will benefit American business because it opens up new
    markets to sell to and it will be easier for American companies
    to set up there.  

    Yea, I'm one of those "people"  who after 17 years is going to lose his
    job to cheap labor.  And Nafta isn't even  started yet!  
    
    

    I find it hard to believe that the corporation would ask employees to
    lobby their congressmen and congresswomen to support NAFTA.
    
    After all the cut this and cut that routine going on here it must take
    a lot of nerve to ask us to do them this favor.
    
    U.S. companies are and will continue to move manufacturing operations
    to overseas locations with cheaper labor and less strict environmental
    regulations and lower taxes.  NAFTA will not stop or speed up this
    process.  If anything, all NAFTA will do is shift this exportation of
    jobs from the Far East to Mexico.
    
    In any case, its going to happen one way or another.
    
    Marv
    

>    Yea, I'm one of those "people"  who after 17 years is going to lose his
>    job to cheap labor.  And Nafta isn't even  started yet!  

I don't mean to take advantage of your situation but your statement
makes it kinda hard to blame NAFTA, doesn't it?

    I'm curious, what's the name of the free trade agreement that caused
    all of these jobs to move overseas in the first place?

Let's keep the replies discussing the impact NAFTA will have on Digital.

Thanks,

Bob - co-moderator DIGITAL

    yeah, I kinda agree with Bob.  I've also received a couple mails from
    people that focus on jobs.  I understand that, and I'm kinda selfish
    about the whole thing, too.  It's my belief, though, that if Digital
    can increase revenues thru the passage of NAFTA, then my job (and
    yours) is positively impacted!
    
    Mark

    NAFTA may be good in the short term for Digital, but there are some
    clauses in it that are cause for alarm, and I believe that if Digital
    (or any U.S. corporation that has contracts with the U.S. government)
    really understood these clauses, that the treaty would be defeated.
    
    In quite explicit language, NAFTA says that any law in the three
    countries that is perceived to be an obstacle to free trade can be
    challenged by entities (companies) or representatives of any of the
    nations. A NAFTA panel, meeting behind closed doors, decides on
    whether the law is indeed an obstacle, and has the power to
    undo standing legislation in order for the country to stay in the
    trade zone. That means that any U.S. law, for instance, that would give
    U.S. companies better access to the U.S. government for contracts,
    for example, could be challenged by Mexican companies.
    
    Mexican wages for unskilled labor stands today at about $4 - $5 per day,
    compared with the minimum wage here of about $5 per hour, a factor
    of ten or so. So it is with skilled labor. There are thousands of
    young skilled Mexicans, trained at the University in various
    professions, that would gladly do professional work for a fraction
    of what Digital (or any other U.S. corporation) pays its professional
    staff. Digital (and other U.S. corporations) suddenly look
    not-so-very-competitive in wage rates.
    
    NAFTA is a race to the bottom. I suggest that we send the President
    a strong message that he needs to renegotiate the legal review
    clauses, which are really violations of sovereignty.
                                                                      

    re. .5
    
    North
    American
    Free
    Trade
    Agreement
    
    

    C-SPAN covers a lot of debate over NAFTA.  Last week they showed a
    Politician from Cal. who was in favor of NAFTA, and he was showing flip
    charts comparing the tariffs imposed on goods moving across the
    boarder.  It appeared that all goods going to Mexico had a 20% tariff
    and all goods coming from Mexico had a 2.5% tariff.  His argument was
    that NAFTA would take down all tariffs between the two countries.  What
    concerns me is why the tariffs arn't equal.  Which is probably the
    reason for companies moving to Mexico today along with the lower wages
    and enviromental considerations.  I also don't understand why we have a
    minimum wage law, OSHA, EPA, and other laws that enhance our quality 
    of life, but unable to compete in a global market.  I also don't
    understand why US companies' CEOs earn so much compared to CEOs of
    foreign owned companies.  So is NAFTA a way for US CEOs to keep their
    incomes instead of bringing them in line with foreign companies?  Maybe
    we need Global wage scales, Global benefit packages, and Global
    evenviromental laws so everybody is playing by the same set of rules.
    
    Dave

    
    Although Albuquerque would/will lose their jobs regardless of
    the outcome of NAFTA,  I was just using us as an example of what will
    happen.
    
    Part of the advertisement is that if we can sell to countries like
    Mexico easier then it will generate more demands for manufactured
    goods.  But if we're moving our manufacturing to Mexico then the
    ones who benefit are the business owners (often American) and
    Mexican workers by staying employed.  Don't get me wrong I think
    that if we can do something to improve the standard of living in
    Mexico we should do so,  but instead I think this is just another
    way to tap a cheap labor work force.  We walked this same path
    a few years ago with Puerto Rico.  But once their demands for
    higher wages and a better standard of living didn't benefit us
    any more then we closed the plant.
    
    If the intention is sincere then great but don't take advantage
    of people either by giving one worker (with equal skill) less
    wage and/or take work away from another worker to go with the
    cheaper wage.  I understand the economy is in tough shape and
    probably will be for a while but we can't lose our ethics either
    because those will get you in the long run.
    
    
    
    

NAFTA is clearly beneficial to big business.  

The Clinton Health Plan is not.  NAFTA is the bone to get big business to buy
off on the health plan.  

    I guess we're not going to establish much of a serious discussion here. 
    I can't believe that this is the Digital notesfile.
    
    Mark

    NAFTA was being negotiated for several years and was in the pipeline
    long before Clinton ever was a national figure.  All of our former
    Presidents support it as well as leaders from both political parties. 
    
    The health care plans being considered are the result of an
    overwhelming demand from american citizens and cannot be linked with
    NAFTA.
    
    I do realize that since both initiatives will involve major changes in 
    our society the negotiations in Congress will get into some quid pro 
    quo.
    
    Marv
    

    re .14
    
    Look, you start a note asking for discussion of the NAFTA treaty and
    then complain about the quality of the debate.  What are you crying
    about anyway?  What have you contributed?  In .8 the best you could do
    was toss out a line about how increased revenues to Digital will
    positively impact your job.  Boy, that's a real thoughtful and detailed
    commentary!
    
    Get off the horse.  This issue is very complex and there is no quick or
    single way to hash it all out.  Hell, the agreement is over 2,000 pages
    long (or there abouts).
    
    I'm not interested in slamming you but take it easy.  With NAFTA, I
    believe that most businesses will benefit.  By opening the Mexican
    market we can offset some of the disadvantages american companies face
    trading with the EEC.  However, NAFTA will most likely have a
    short-term detrimental effect on U.S. employment due to a slowing in
    domestic industrial growth.  
    
    U.S. goods moving south of the border, free of tariffs is a good thing. 
    Many companies will cut transportation and distribution costs by
    establishing operations closer to these new (open) markets.  The net 
    result will be fewer new plants in the U.S. rather than a wholesale
    movement out of the U.S.  Growth will suffer, shor-term, but I think in
    the long run everyone in our hemisphere will benefit.
    
    Is that a satisfactory entry?
    
    Marv
    
    

    i work on Federal Government proposals regularly and there is usually a
    requirement called the "Buy America Act" that limits the Government's
    purchases to those products that have a certain percentage of made in
    America components and/or actually made (assembled) in America.
    
    What this could do is open up the Buy America Act to enable us to
    propose other products, but it would also open the door to other
    manufacturers bidding competing products that are now not allowed.
    
    This could have an interesting impact on our business as a corporation. 
    Has the corporation looked at how this will affect Federal Government
    business?  Although this is a somewhat rhetorical question, and having
    been a member of the now defunct Government Policy Committee, I wonder
    what information was examined for the corporation to take such a
    position.
    
    sue

    In Federal procurements to which the Buy American Act applies --
    thereby adding 6, 12, or 50% price evaluation penalties to end products 
    not "manufactured" in the U.S. and containing >50% U.S. content by
    component cost -- NAFTA will have no impact.  Mexican products will
    receive no different treatment after NAFTA passes, if it does.
    
    In Federal procurements excepted from the Buy American Act and
    instead open to products originating in countries that are
    signatories to the GATT Government Procurement Code (plus certain
    developing countries), NAFTA will have an impact.  Currently in these 
    procurements, Federal agencies are prohibited from procuring any 
    Mexican end products because Mexico is not a signatory to the Code.  
    Because NAFTA includes a government procurement chapter under which 
    Mexico assumes Code-equivalent obligations, Mexico would be treated, 
    after NAFTA's implementation, as though it were a Code signatory.  
    Consequently, the ban on purchases of Mexican end products would be 
    eliminated.
    
    There's little significance for Digital in this, because: a) we have
    manufactured intermediary (not "end products") in Mexico; and b)
    there's not a lot of competition from Mexican end product in the
    Federal market.  In Mexico, however, the obligations Mexico will assume
    under NAFTA will expand opportunities to sell into the Mexican
    government market, which, as in virtually every country where we do
    business, is a large consumer of IT products.
     
    Regards,
    Tom

O.K. folks, I've write-locked the topic for a while.  While it's write-locked,
I want y'all to remember that NAFTA support/bashing is inappropriate for this
notesfile.

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

    This note is now writeable.  Please avoid comments on whether NAFTA is
    good or bad.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Bob - co-moderator DIGITAL

re: .24

>    This note is now writeable.  Please avoid comments on whether NAFTA is
>    good or bad.

Well, I think that it IS!  :-)

    
    Well there was a good debate last night. ;')

    
    
 Awwwwww,c'mon Bob, the obvious is that it will be both good and bad.
    
    				Pablo
    

 Source: Business Travel News
	 November 8, 1993

	"President Clinton sent legislation to Congress late last week
	 that calls for a $1.50 increase in the current $5.00 customs
	 tax on internatinal air and cruise tickets.

	"The increased fee would be in effect for four years in order 
	 to raise about $800,000,000 to make up for revenue that would
	 be lost as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

	"The administration initially floated the idea of boosting the
	 fee by $5.00 per ticket, a proposal that brough the travel
	 industry out in force to protest."	 
 

    As stated this tax is to offset the revenue lost from the passage of
    NAFTA.
    
    The revenue lost is from the elimination of import tariffs on Mexican
    goods.  So to say -<Bill to raise taxes $800,000,000>- is not entirely
    accurate.  More accurately, the President is shifting the source of
    revenue from one place to another.
    
    An additional buck-fifty isn't going to break anyone plus the dropping
    of the current 2% import duty on Mexican goods is more than offset by
    the dropping of the current %20 import duty on *American* good heading
    into Mexico.
    
    This is one of the ways that we can expand our market share in Mexico
    and lessen the likelihood of American companies moving to Mexico to
    avoid the tariff.
    
    Bad for the short-sighted but good for the long-term.
    
    Marv
     

RE: .28 & .29
 
Chicken Slick: 
 - Cut's the 20% tariff's paid by American Company's selling goods to Mexico
 - Tries to increase International air/cruise travel tickets to get back
   the $800,000,000 lost by adding a $5.00/ticket TAX.
 - Travel industry cries foul and agrees to $1.50 hike.
 - Where's Chicken Slick going to grab the lost $3.50/ticket he wanted?

	One guess per customer

   Now when we fly to Mexico to get jobs we pay an additional $1.50 for it :-(
   Chicken Slick is already sticking it to us before NAFTA get's passed......?

   dick
     

re .-1

I propose that extra revenue be obtained by placing
a tax on misused apostrophes.

re. .-1

	agree's with you's ;^)

    According to Mister Language Person�, apostrophes exist to
    let the reader know that an 's' is coming up.

    �A persona of Dave Barry

    .33
    
    i agree.
    
    good point.
    
    \nasser
    

RE: .31:

I couldn't agree with you more, but where are you going to find enough people
sufficiently cognizant of the rules for the IRS to determine how much each
person will pay?

	8^)