Economic theory posits that free trade won't lead to unemployment. It stipulates that while there may be structural unemployment in the short-term, in the long term, people will be employed in the industries in which your country has a comparative advantage. This, according to theory, improves the efficient allocation of resources, and allows firms to capitalize on economies of scale as they can service larger export markets. Trade barriers make imports less expensive, providing consumers with more disposable income, allowing them to reduce cyclical unemployment with their spending. Protectionism is bad, because it stifles competition.
At the same time, free trade prevents infant industries in a country from developing as it won't have economies of scale like larger firms abroad making it harder for them to compete on price. This will result in job losses. Moreover, it could lead to "dumping" which is when foreign firms sell their goods in another country for below their costs of production. It's a form of predatory pricing to drive out local competitors. Free trade could also lead to over-specialization in the long run so countries will suffer from depending too much on a few particular goods as they risk a huge fall in income and rise in unemployment if there is a change in demand.
The problem with FTAs like the TPP is that in the real world, we have many more variables than what we have in standard economic models. When countries have divergent labor and environmental standards, companies engage in a global race to bottom via global labor arbitrage. Therefore, the goods and services that countries produce aren't really based on capitalizing on comparative advantage and minimizing opportunity costs. Moreover, currency manipulation by China again artificially boosts job in China by prolonging its export-led model of growth, while marginalizing U.S. workers. The raw data we've seen on NAFTA hasn't been particularly good for U.S. workers either.
The TPP also has many troubling provisions. It establishes an intentional tribunal under which corporations could sue sovereign nations for enacting environmental or labor regulation that would "unfairly" impede on corporate profits. Governments of member nations would be liable for compensation and damages to businesses, and zoning codes, public health stipulations, and environmental laws are all vulnerable, depending on the final wording of the draft. The TPP should be opposed on a moral level because it is wrong that corporate profits should be prioritized over protecting workers and protecting our planet. Leaks of the TPP have shown that the deal gives Big Pharma stronger patent protections, making it more difficult for inhabitants of developing nations to purchase cheaper generic versions of the live-savings drugs they need. That is wrong.
= new reply since forum marked as read
