Many proponents of recent trade agreements have been trying hard to find something to give losers that appears to make a difference. Of course anything that really made a difference would be very costly so the focus is on appearances. At the top of this list is trade adjustment assistance. The Post has an article on plans to expand trade adjustment assistance to provide benefits to workers that lose their jobs in the service sector. Of course workers who lose their job directly due to trade are a small minority of the workers who are harmed by trade. The vast majority of workers who are harmed by trade are workers who earn lower wages as a result of the patterns of trade promoted by recent trade agreements. These are disproportionately workers who do not have college degrees. The proposals for trade adjustment assistance do nothing to help these workers. Since the current appropriation is just $1 billion a year (0.03 percent of federal spending), it iis far too small to offset more than a tiny portion of the impact of trade on the wages of non-college educated workers. The article should have included the views of an economist who could have made this point for readers. The article also refers to recent trade agreements as "free-trade" pacts. While proponents of the pacts use this term, it is not accurate. The pacts preserve protections that keep highly paid professionals such as doctors and lawyers from being subjected to international competition. They also increase protection for items like drug patents and copyrights on recorded music and video material. It would be more accurate to simpy refer to these pacts as "trade" agreements.
--Dean Baker
