TPP = 650,000 Jobs? Umm, no...

[PosterChild]

....mainstream economists do not believe that the number of jobs is significantly affected by trade policy.

“The reason we don’t project employment is that, like most trade economists, we don’t believe that trade agreements change the labor force in the long run. The consequential factors are demography, immigration, retirement benefits, etc.,” he said. “Rather, trade agreements affect how people are employed, and ideally substitute more productive jobs for less productive ones and thus raise real incomes.”

The Obama administration’s illusionary job gains from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

http://wapo.st/1ySV6ap

[NYC_SKP]

1. I believe that Obama himself said only 35 jobs. nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. That was for KXL.

Since I'm not sure if you're being snarky or not.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I wish.

Even if 'mainstream economists' actually believe (and were right) that 'trade agreements ... substitute more productive jobs ... and thus raise real incomes' we'd actually benefit. But we've got decades of post-NAFTA and CAFTA data that shows wage stagnation at best, and a massive relative loss of purchasing power for those at the lower end of the pay scale in America. (ie, if minimum wage earners made enough in current dollars to buy what the minimum wage bought in the 70s/80s, minimum wage would be approximately 3 times higher.)

So no, we don't 'gain' jobs, and no, we don't 'get raises' from trade agreements. Trade agreements benefit capital, not labour. They are detrimental to labour.