Bernie's In

Quote ossobuco:

Yes, people seem to forget that. And the City University of New York used to be free as well. Also, all the campuses of the State University of New York had tuition of $400 yearly. Since the minimum grant for high school students who qualified on the need-based Regents Scholarship Test, (sort of a special New York State test similar to the SAT) was $350 yearly, for those students the many campuses of the New York State system were virtually free as well. To qualify for the scholarship you had to be among the top 10% of the students taking it-it also qualified as the SAT for the state college system.

So for the top 10% of the students in each New York State county, the many campuses of the State University system were virtually free. And in 1970, even the "full price" tuition of $400 was worth the equivalent of only $2,400 today.

What happened? The other advanced nations are shocked at the low percentage of college grads in the US.

To me, Reagan happened, but I don't remember the details of any transaction between him as governor with or without the university regents. Maybe it was just him, just as Cuomo is acting. Anyway, re the year, I think that was in 1980. Luckily, I had graduated long before that, 1964. I went back to school later, actually in 1980, night school for 4 years. That was doable, a class at a time, from my then earnings.

In a general sense, I think you're right. As they say, Reagan changed the political conversation in the country, from "what can we do to improve things" to "we can't AFFORD it". Granted, inflation was bad when he took over, (although things were not as bad as generally thought), but the whole cut-back, cut-back more philosophy that went on for years after the inflation problem was righted eventually hurt the country. And now the Republicans are going after Social Security and Medicare.

I meant that he specifically made the UC system add tuition, but that I don't remember the details. (I can look them up, but not right now.)
I agree with you re the general change as well.

I hope the republicans work towards eliminating social security and medicare. That'll be their death knell. How many republicans do you think depend on social security and medicare to survive? Over 90%?

No, I just have a lot of first hand experience. My company has a plant just south of the US border that hires 5000 to 7000 workers depending on demand. Those jobs left the US and because of NAFTA, they ended up in Mexico. They were always going to leave the US. Without NAFTA, they would have gone to China (where we also have plants) or Malaysia or South Africa, but they were definitely going to leave the US. That is something the NAFTA haters don't ever recognize. Those jobs were gone before NAFTA was ever signed, but because of NAFTA, what didn't disappear were all the support jobs. Parts makers could stay in the US, technology groups could stay in the US, heck even a lot of the plant staff in Mexico live across the border in the US. Also, a lot of those Mexican workers cross the border to shop in the US. I had to travel there close to Christmas one year and the big logistic effort was how to avoid the three hour wait to get into the US around all the Mexican shoppers.

Globalization moved those jobs, NAFTA made it possible to keep some here.

I wish more people understood this. Trade deals are not the cause of those lost jobs, they are the symptom. Globalism is the cause and is itself a mere symptom of technological progress.

There is plenty to not like about globalism, but it is inevitable and we should do trade deals in general because we can't reject globalism. We have to live in this world whether we like it or not.

Around the world this is a reality that is lost on the general public. Among economists there is very broad consensus on trade agreements. But everywhere in the world I see dumb, populist campaigns against trade agreements.

The concept of world trade has to do with comparative advantage. It's the idea that more developed countries produce high tech products, while third world countries produce labor intensive products. It's a good trade off, because it assures jobs in both economies.
Many decades ago, the US used to produce clothing and other labor intensive products. The US still produces clothing, but most are label products with higher prices. When we moved here to Sunnyvale, California, we never imagined it would become the heart of Silicon Valley. We have many high tech companies around our area including Google, Apple, Oracle, and many from Asia and Europe. Our area attracts scientists from all around the world.
It's an exciting period to be living in.
Apple's Campus 2 is progressing very well. We drive by there almost every day, and see the progress. When they complete it, it's going to house some 13,000 workers. I'll take pictures of it when they're close to completion, and post it here.

I won't try to negate or refute your personal experience, but we all have anecdotes that aren't universal. The information in these links is at least as valid as one man's personal experience.

http://www.epi.org/publication/heading_south_u-s-mexico_trade_and_job_displacement_after_nafta1/

and

http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/

You say NAFTA reduced the outward flow of jobs lost due to globalization.

I'm of the opinion that if NAFTA still screwed us over as grossly as evidenced by hard figures, why would anyone support it?

Correlation is not causation.

Jobs disappeared, NAFTA was passed, more jobs disappeared. The hard figures show this. What they don't show is what would have happened if NAFTA did not pass. Those jobs still disappear. That is globalization. I support NAFTA because I know that a lot more jobs would have disappeared without it.

I support free trade because we are world citizens.

As much as the far left and the occupy movement rails against the 1%, they fail to realize or understand that they, themselves, are the top 1% of the world population.

If we expect the 1% in the U.S. to care about the 99% then we, as a global leader, need to care more for the 99% in the world.

Free trade is critical to that.

Thanks, that helps me figure out what I think. Thanks to Robert too, for the followup post to this.

Are you talking about El Paso/Ciudad Juarez?

My brother has a managerial position in one of those auto industry support jobs. His job takes him all over the country to coordinate the production in Mexico with the parts production here in the US.

The border economy is a very different animal compared to the rest of the country, but, of course, they're intertwined.

No, Reynosa/McAllen, but I'm sure the same dynamic exists. It's almost like it is one weird city.

I would say you and Rob are spot on.

Incredibly proud of the young kids and others who stood in the face of Trumpism and fought it down in Chicago.

http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/heres-what-one-protestor-said-he-saw-chicago-trump-rally

I have never heard or read a positive opinion about NAFTA from anyone but a politician pushing it until Engineer's and Robert's last night.

So I've been reading. I have found a mix of opinions. I would like to thank Engineer for sharing his personal experience. It has led to a broadened understanding of the issue for me.

That being said - the professional opinions that I've found don't come down as squarely in the support column as Engineer's opinion does.

I'm going to read a lot more, however, before any more big one-dimensional criticisms.

I know this article is really old, but the writer says enough time had passed since the institution of NAFTA to gauge it as a success or failure.

Here is what I keep finding:

NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric “race to the bottom” in wages and environmental quality.

___________________________________

From The Economic Policy Institute
http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/

___________________________________

Shouldn't we have used our consumer strength to push labor and environmental standards on our trading partners to avoid the pseudo-slavery that feeds us goods?

Anyway, I'm still reading to form a more accurate opinion.

UMass has worked out free college and people support Bernie's plan.
https://youtu.be/R7auls7MvN0

I am not so sure it was a proud moment so much as just a statement of how low and violent his campaign has gotten with Trump egging it on all the while. Hope Bernie comes out to decry the fist fights between protestors and supporters. I look for him to.

Trump supporters, protesters clash after Chicago rally postponed



I don't like Cruz and imagine politics is part what he said, but I agree with him here...

I remember talk about environmental and worker concerns re the TPP structure, but not what happened or is happening about that.

I've half read an article this morning, not finished yet, re the rich leaving China for the west, for many reasons, one of them being pollution; there are many more reasons though.

Others here will know more than I do about that, re NAFTA and TPP.