“…workers gather outside the gates of a sprawling Chrysler plant for a late shift assembling Dodge Journey S.U.V.s. It’s a sought-after job, with autoworkers in Mexico earning an average of about $5 an hour, compared with the nation’s minimum wage of less than $4 for the whole day. Yet it is a fifth of what autoworkers make in Detroit, and that has helped Mexico become a global powerhouse in car production…Holding a magnifying glass to NAFTA reveals other nuances. Mr. Trump likes to point out that Mexico sells more than it buys from the United States, by $58 billion last year. But many of the companies exporting from Mexico are American-owned, so much of the profit goes back north…And while American corn does flow south, Mexico exported more farm goods to the United States than it imported last year. Small farmers here may be losing out as much to large Mexican ranches as they are to American agribusiness, especially those small farmers harvesting the millions of avocados that Americans scarf up in their game-day guacamole.”
An op-ed by Ioan Grillo titled Forget Trump’s Wall: For Mexico, the Election Is About Nafta appeared in the New York Times on September 23, 2016. The piece, while not extensive in its evaluation of NAFTA’s importance and impact on Mexico, did a much better job at addressing the nuanced effects of free trade than other pieces that simply tout the supply-side economic benefits. The article broaches the benefits free trade has had on Mexico’s manufacturing jobs and wages while simultaneously noting the detrimental effects it has had on agricultural jobs. It shows how free trade can concurrently create and destroy sectors of an economy. It does, however, fall short when making the case for American benefits. It does so when it states that that “…companies exporting from Mexico are American-owned, so much of the profit goes back north.” This statement goes to reinforce the American narrative that the blue-collar workers get left out while the corporations and the elites are the only ones who truly profit. The piece also tries to note that the NAFTA agreement is not perfect and could modestly be changed to improve it without having to take an anti trade attitude.