Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • 2019 Federal Budget Analysis February 27, 2019
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis  Aim high, spend low: Federal budget 2019 by David MacDonald (CCPA) Budget 2019 fiddles while climate crisis looms by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood (CCPA) Organizational Responses Canadian Centre for Policy […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Boots Riley in Winnipeg May 11 February 22, 2019
    Founder of the political Hip-Hop group The Coup, Boots Riley is a musician, rapper, writer and activist, whose feature film directorial and screenwriting debut — 2018’s celebrated Sorry to Bother You — received the award for Best First Feature at the 2019 Independent Spirit Awards (amongst several other accolades and recognitions). "[A] reflection of the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA-BC welcomes Emira Mears as new Associate Director February 11, 2019
    This week the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – BC Office is pleased to welcome Emira Mears to our staff team as our newly appointed Associate Director. Emira is an accomplished communications professional, digital strategist and entrepreneur. Through her former company Raised Eyebrow, she has had the opportunity to work with many organizations in the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Study explores media coverage of pipeline controversies December 14, 2018
    Supporters of fossil fuel infrastructure projects position themselves as friends of working people, framing climate action as antithetical to the more immediately pressing need to protect oil and gas workers’ livelihoods. And as the latest report from the CCPA-BC and Corporate Mapping Project confirms, this framing has become dominant across the media landscape. Focusing on pipeline […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Study highlights ‘uncomfortable truth’ about racism in the job market December 12, 2018
    "Racialized workers in Ontario are significantly more likely to be concentrated in low-wage jobs and face persistent unemployment and earnings gaps compared to white employees — pointing to the “uncomfortable truth” about racism in the job market, according to a new study." Read the Toronto Star's coverage of our updated colour-coded labour market report, released […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Trade Balances and Jobs: Canada, the US and China

The following note, including tables, is available on the Canadian Labour Congress website:

Free trade was promoted to Canadians on the famous promise of “jobs, jobs, and more jobs” and is widely defended on the basis that Canada’s large trade surplus with the US contributes to Canadian employment. Meanwhile, American commentators are concerned that the US trade deficit displaces American jobs. While these commentators are mainly focused on China, some of them have identified Canada as a drain on US employment. This note examines the effect of trade balances on North American jobs.

Conservative economists argue that, assuming full employment, free trade simply ensures an efficient allocation of production among countries. For each country, job losses in some industries will be offset by gains in others, leading to higher overall productivity. In the real world, where unemployment is possible, free trade can yield net losses of production and employment in particular countries. Even Canadian supporters of free trade acknowledge that it failed to significantly increase Canada’s productivity. Their claims that Canada’s trade surplus with the US creates Canadian jobs implicitly accept the claims of American critics that this surplus eliminates American jobs.

The conventional wisdom that free trade and Canada’s trade surplus have transferred jobs from Americans to Canadians is misleading. In fact, this surplus consists almost entirely of natural resources that the US cannot produce enough of to meet its needs. However, the concern about the US trade deficit relates to imports of goods and services that might otherwise have been produced by American workers. Whereas Canada’s trade surplus simply reflects differing resource endowments, China’s trade surplus is based on low-cost manufacturing that undermines North American employment. Rather than viewing Canada as part of the problem, Americans should work with Canadians to address the challenge of Chinese competition.

Fossil fuels and electricity account for nearly two-thirds of the Canada-US trade surplus. Raw and semi-processed products from forestry, mining and agriculture comprise the remaining third. In general, these Canadian exports do not displace American jobs. To the extent that Canadian and American producers compete in forestry and agriculture, the recent Softwood Lumber Agreement and generous farm subsidies protect American jobs in these sectors. If the US did not import natural resources from Canada, it would have to import them from other foreign countries. Such imports do not harm American workers, but provide inputs vital to the US economy.

Of course, much resource processing is conventionally classified as “manufacturing.” However, to argue that oil refineries, sawmills, and steel plants in Canada eliminate American jobs is to suggest that all Canadian natural resources should be processed in the US. Currently, Canada exports four times the value of crude oil and natural gas as of refined petroleum products and electricity to the US. To the extent that some resources are processed in Canada, the associated “manufacturing” jobs clearly arise from Canada’s resource endowment.

Canada-US trade in non-resource industries is remarkably balanced. While Canada runs a significant surplus in automotive products and a small one in chemicals, the US enjoys appreciable surpluses in machinery and equipment and in services. Canada’s overall trade surplus reflects its resource endowment. Outside of the resource sector, American exports to Canada nearly equal Canadian exports to the US. There is no evidence of internationally mobile production being disproportionately located in Canada rather than in the US. In other words, Canadians have not gained jobs at the expense of American workers.

In fact, significant evidence indicates that internationally mobile activity is still concentrated in the US. Free trade was supposed to end Canada’s status as a “branch plant” economy by allowing Canadian-based companies to access the same continental market and economies of scale as American-based companies. However, the persistence of a US current-account surplus with Canada in investment income reflects the disproportionate location of corporate headquarters, and the associated jobs, in the US as opposed to Canada. The US investment-income surplus of $18.4 billion dwarfs Canada’s small surplus of $2.7 billion in non-resource output.

While the North American Free Trade Agreement has had many negative consequences for Canadian and American workers, it has not transferred jobs from the US to Canada. However, the recent flood of imports from China clearly implies a loss of North American employment. Even in resource industries, Canada has only a modest trade surplus with China. Canada’s natural endowment is mostly offset by China’s competitive advantage in resource processing, such as primary-steel production and petroleum refining. Canada exports raw commodities to China and imports processed materials from China. In non-resource industries, Canada runs a substantial trade deficit. Like the US, Canada has lost many manufacturing jobs in recent years.

Canada’s trade deficit with China is 1.9% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while the US trade deficit with China is 1.8% of American GDP. Despite anticipated Canadian gains from selling natural resources to China, Canada’s trade deficit with China is proportionally larger than the US trade deficit with China.

Rather than benignly increasing productivity, international trade can cause net losses of production and employment. However, there is no evidence that North American free trade transferred internationally mobile activity from the US to Canada. The Canadian trade surplus reflects natural resources that help sustain, and do not threaten, American employment. By contrast, the shift of manufacturing to China is eliminating North American jobs. Progressive forces in Canada and the US should cooperate to address this shift.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Joel Neville
Time: January 19, 2011, 2:47 am

Informative post! The American and Canadian’s need to work in unison to aviod any further market disruption. Particularly, the softwood market has been affected – and for us, who provide softwood supplies, it may have a bearing on trading costs. Therefore, I will be following this story very closely. Thanks

Comment from Glen
Time: January 20, 2011, 11:13 am

Yes!

It should also be noted that China’s largest advantage is in capital costs. The labour savings of production are minimal, as labour is usually only a small portion of costs anyway.

Intel opens Fabs in China because of capital subsidies.
Evergreen Solar moves production to China because subsidies.
Etc,
Etc,
Etc,

Write a comment





Related articles