What is the impact of free trade on labour wages.?
100888
It depends on the nation. If labor is relatively abundant in that country, then free trade would tend to increase the wages. If it is relatively scarce (as in the U.S. it is scarce relative to capital) then it will tend to decrease wages.\n\nBecause which ever factor is relatively abundant in that nation (labor or capital) then that is the factor in which the country will specialize in a free trade situation. So Since the U.S. has more capital relative to labor, we will tend to specialize in capital intensive goods, and therefore wage rates will go down.\n\nBut in a country where labor is relatively abundant, like China or India maybe, free trade will increase wages because they will tend to focus on the goods which are relatively labor intensive.\n\n\nPeople seem to get all upset about wage rates going down, when in fact we consumers are losing way more money due to tariffs and other trade barriers than labor is losing in wages. The reason we keep the barriers is because labor is much more organized than the group 'consumers' are. The costs of barriers on cosumers is higher than the benefits to workers. But the costs are spread out over a wide group of people, so we don't notice it as much.
531002
A sum of average wages in every country multiplied by number of employed in every of them... If to count only legally working persons.\n\nADDITION taking into account other answers: currency matter little - almost all products move all over the world now. Another thing that some people evaluate the same services more or less. Mostly because of lower investment into their self-esteem and education... That makes one countries even more poor than they could be.
613738
The jobs you describe are mostly min wage jobs so nothing will change. Far as letting go of workers to hire other for less. I would think a company could not afford the law suits that would result from that
728812
I found this -- perhaps it'll help.\n\nThe information looks a bit dated, but should provide enough detailed data to answer your question.\n\nhttp://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/2006pr/04/ft920/
684321
Free market economies tend to full employment.  There are always interruptions, but the economy is also self correcting.  Minimum wage laws that cause the wage floor to be above equilibrium will create a surplus of labor and permanent unemployment.  Official unemployment figures are generated by the number of job seekers measured at unemployment offices.  And write your own darn essay.
339607
I'd say you should find a new line of work. Not to be a downer, but jobs like that are being outsourced overseas at alarming rates. =[\n\nIt probably has a direct and nasty effect on wages here.
634116
okay, the tariff, as you know, is a tax on imported goods from other countries.  Governments implement tariffs in order to discourage other countries from selling their goods here.  \nHow does this affect our economy? The US's Net exports (a factor which contributes to the nation's wealth, therefore the higher the net exports, the better for our economy) equals the US exports minus imports.  The tariffs reduce imports, and therefore increaces the NET EXPORTS, which adds to the US wealth.  \nThis is also good for another reason.  Becuase the US exports increase and the imports decrease as a result of the tariff, other countries need the US dollar in order to buy the US goods.  As a result of the increase in demand, the dollar will become more valuable, or appreciate, making the dollar stronger abroad.  \n\nThe negative aspect actually comes as a result of the prior two advantages.  As the dollar becomes stronger, it becomes more expensive for other countries to buy the US goods, therefore discouraging the exports that initially rose as a result of the tariff.  So, in the end, there is no change in the NET EXPORTS, this disadvantage and the first advantage balance each other out. \n\nSO, after looking at three main outcomes of implementing a tariff, the advantage to the economy is this:  The dollar becomes stronger abroad, therefore making it cheaper for the US to buy other countries goods, even if fewer imports are being brought in to the US.  It also decreases foreign competition for US based companies\n\nHope this helps, good luck with the paper!
124796
No - job creation since 1992 (the year NAFTA was signed) has hit all time highs. The US economy has grown considerably since NAFTA, as have most measures of "quality of life" in the US (life expectancy, incomes, poverty rates, etc.)\n\nThere was no sucking sound - jobs didn't move to another country - they moved to different industries - more productive industries.\n\nManufacturing jobs are down but consider these indisputable facts, since 1993:\n\nNumber of households has increased 16.5% (1993-2004)\nNumber of persons employed has increased 18.9% (1993-2004)\nPersonal income is up 51.8% (1993-2004)\nPoverty rate has gone from 15.1% to 12.7%\n\nWe're richer, more of us are working and the economy has exploded since NAFTA. The most basic reason being is that all those non-productive, union-heavy manufacturing jobs went to Mexico and those once unproductive workers have moved into jobs that are more productive - for themselves and for the US economy.\n\nSo while jobs moved, Ross Perot failed to give credit to the American spirit and foresee that most of the displaced workers were able to become more productive.\n\nThose still screaming about the loss of jobs were probably those too unskilled to find alternative means of productive employment.\n\nThe key lesson is the importance of a quality education throughout your life to keep your skills sharp so when you find yourself with outdated, non-competitive skills you can adapt to the new environment and do something more fulfilling and productive with your life.\n\nDepending on your outlook on life - that's the cold hard truth or the beauty of a global economy.
976393
here is a report on SEZ special economic zones \nthis ll give u a brief idea\nThe centre’s move has hit the Indore SEZ, the first operational SEZ in the country. The fear is that, in the absence of pragmatism on labour issues, companies in the SEZs will never be able to compete in the international markets. “The new SEZ law is unlikely to address this critical issue of labour flexibility,” says a Morgan Stanley report. “A restrictive labour law environment has been one of the major hurdles to the development of the Indian manufacturing sector.”\n\nIt is worth noting in this context that the Left parties are taking their cues not from their counterparts in China but from the trade unions in the West. The latter have their own agenda, principally the protection of the jobs of their constituents.\n\nIs there anything to be said for the other side ? the argument that India does not have a social security system and, thus, jobs have to be protected? There is some logic on the face of it. But the protection is being granted to a minor fraction of the population ? the organised sector workforce. In welfare societies, it applies to the entire population.\n\nSo is the SEZ bill going to lead to a huge jump in foreign direct investment, exports and growth? Not in the short term. Though trade unions have been somewhat defanged these days, they can still act as roadblocks. “We are getting to where we want to go,” says an economist. “But at the Hindu rate of growth. That, thankfully, is no longer 4 per cent, but half of what we can easily achieve.”
303679
main imports were, cotton and tobacco may be this will help.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_England\nGood luck
633967
the best way to address fair trade i believe is for the industrialized nations that pay a fair wage to form a trading group and any country that  doesn't pay its' workers a fair wage would be faced with heavy tariffs that would offset the unfair competition to our workers.  otherwise it's a race to the bottom.
1135051
As a far left liberal, I have always said free trade will only work when you impose labor laws on the companies going to other countries and you still provide incentives for countries to stay here. \n\nIf you don't do either, what results is huge amounts of companies going to a different country, exploiting the cheap labor with no labor laws to hender you from doing so, then paying no penalty for leaving this country. \n\nThe end result is both the USA and the country they went to losing... with the company only getting richer. \n\nIt is LONG OVERDUE to reverse things like NAFTA and CAFTA!
708723
That often depends.  This type of trade in a trade union pays about $23 - $30 in the Golden horseshoe.  A little less outside.  (Windsor or Ottawa might pay similar)  \n\nBut if you are a freelance contractor you could charge up to $80/hr, (this would be what companies pay your boss if you were making $30/hr)
531827
I am not too sure abt the levels//\n\nit depends on various parameters like FDI, balance of payments and trade deficit/surplus, the external borrowings..
125338
cheap import due to their cheap labour
622261
To add to #1, imposing tariffs also often results in higher prices for consumers. Witness Bush's tariffs on imported steel. It resulted in higher prices for steel, which while good for steel companies (temporary), caused real harm to industries that use steel.\n\nFor example, the automotive suppliers who use steel were hit hard, with many going bankrupt being squeezed between steel's rising costs and OEM's refusal to renegotiate contracts, forcing some of them to sell products at a loss. So more jobs were lost than saved by this protectionism.\n\nTariffs can also trigger trade wars, damaging the economies of all countries involved.
389124
I'm generally for free trade.  It makes the world more "efficient" because each country is specializing and exporting its excess.  Using protective tariffs to get foreign products more expensive just makes the consumers of the country pay higher prices overall.  The country will eventually fall behind the other countries of the world.\n\nProtectionism might save some jobs in the country overall, but the extra wages are going to be offset by a higher cost of living.  It might be slightly different if you have an obnoxious country completely undercutting and taking a loss to drive out competition, but I'm more talking about the normal case.