CBC Story: Carmakers say adios to Canada as Mexico shifts into higher gear

[136or142]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/carmakers-say-adios-to-canada-as-mexico-shifts-into-higher-gear-1.3108148

I don't see this as all bad as the story claims.  The manufacturing jobs are being lost to Mexico, but a wealthier Mexico will make it more appealing to export there, which will increase jobs here.

This should also help to decrease the amount of illegal immigration into the U.S.  Taken together with the U.S legalizing marijuana, those two things should put a huge dent into illegal immigration. 

The story mentions there are something like nearly 700,000 auto manufacturing jobs in Mexico. That's not a huge number out of a Mexican population of nearly 125 million but, I don't know if that is just the manufacturing jobs, or if it includes the other corporate jobs in marketing, human resources and finance.  If it doesn't, and taking into account that all jobs provided through foreign investment create spin off jobs in support industries and in service sector jobs like restaurants you are looking at as much as maybe 3-5% of total Mexican employment here.

The story mentions that wages have risen no where nearly as quickly as productivity.  It makes me wonder what the status of unions are in Mexico. It would not surprise me that, while NAFTA guaranteed 'rights' for corporations, that no such guarantees were given to labor unions.

That said, we've seen in China a sharp rise in wages to the point where most simple assembly jobs have moved out of China and into lower cost countries in that region like Vietnam, Burma and even North Korea.

In regard to wages, while the story mentions that the manufacturing jobs are low paid, I would expect that the professional jobs in marketing, human resources and finance would be somewhat higher paid, and certainly the middle and line management jobs would be quite well paid.  I would expect that most of the senior executive positions would still be filled by people from Canada or the United States at this time, but if they live in Mexico, they are still spending their money there.

[Simfan34]

Yes. All there is to say is "good for the Mexicans!"

[ag]

The story mentions that wages have risen no where nearly as quickly as productivity.  It makes me wonder what the status of unions are in Mexico. It would not surprise me that, while NAFTA guaranteed 'rights' for corporations, that no such guarantees were given to labor unions.

Mexico has an old tradition of union protection, enshrined in law - orders of magnitude stronger than anything in the civilized world. Historically, the unions were used by the government to control private enterprize. But upon nationalization the government frequently got saddled with the monsters it created. The problem with Mexican unions is that these tend to be extremely corrupt political machines. Some of the unions - such as those of teachers and oil workers - are more powerful and dangerous than the worst drug cartels. They have a lot of power - but, of course, do not care too much about the rank-and-file.

BTW, Mexico also has very extensive  labor protections in law. A regular worker cannot be fired at all, unless he deliberately shows up at a factory beating up his supervisor and destroying the machinery - and the employer would have to prove that in court. Downsizing a factory is NOT a legitimate reason for firing recognized by law (nothing, short of bankruptcy and liquidation, really is). In fact, even a written resignation statement, signed by the worker can be disputed in court - and the workers claim to reinstatement is explicitly favored by law even in this case. A manager, etc. (what is known as a "confidence employee") can be fired, but has to be paid 90 work days wage, + 20 work days wage for each year of employment in severance.

Of course, the outcome of all this is that firms try to keep as much labor off books as possible. VW or GM might have difficulty directly hiring outright informal labor, but they - and everybody else - do rely on multitude of subcontractors, individual contractors and such.

[136or142]

Ag, thanks. In some ways that's the funniest thing I've read all day, and in some ways that's the most pathetic thing I've read all day.

[ag]

Ag, thanks. In some ways that's the funniest thing I've read all day, and in some ways that's the most pathetic thing I've read all day.

The more pathetic thing for me is always the concern expressed by the labor types in the US/Europe about "labor rights" being insufficiently "protected" in countries like Mexico. Mexico was a freaking socialist country for 70 years. They put in law every single protection imaginable. If wages are low here, it is not because labor is "legally unprotected". 

[136or142]

Ag, thanks. In some ways that's the funniest thing I've read all day, and in some ways that's the most pathetic thing I've read all day.

The more pathetic thing for me is always the concern expressed by the labor types in the US/Europe about "labor rights" being insufficiently "protected" in countries like Mexico. Mexico was a freaking socialist country for 70 years. They put in law every single protection imaginable. If wages are low here, it is not because labor is "legally unprotected".  

Fair enough, but while I did say that I doubted that labor rights were protected in Mexico, which you have now corrected me on,  I was genuine in asking about it as I did not know.  I still suspect that in most Latin American Countries (not that Mexico is a Latin American Country) though that labor rights are not, de facto, protected.

[Yelnoc]

Ag, thanks. In some ways that's the funniest thing I've read all day, and in some ways that's the most pathetic thing I've read all day.

The more pathetic thing for me is always the concern expressed by the labor types in the US/Europe about "labor rights" being insufficiently "protected" in countries like Mexico. Mexico was a freaking socialist country for 70 years. They put in law every single protection imaginable. If wages are low here, it is not because labor is "legally unprotected".  

Fair enough, but while I did say that I doubted that labor rights were protected in Mexico, which you have now corrected me on,  I was genuine in asking about it as I did not know.  I still suspect that in most Latin American Countries (not that Mexico is a Latin American Country) though that labor rights are not, de facto, protected.

Why isn't Mexico a Latin American country? Am I behind on my terminology?

[136or142]

Ag, thanks. In some ways that's the funniest thing I've read all day, and in some ways that's the most pathetic thing I've read all day.

The more pathetic thing for me is always the concern expressed by the labor types in the US/Europe about "labor rights" being insufficiently "protected" in countries like Mexico. Mexico was a freaking socialist country for 70 years. They put in law every single protection imaginable. If wages are low here, it is not because labor is "legally unprotected".  

Fair enough, but while I did say that I doubted that labor rights were protected in Mexico, which you have now corrected me on,  I was genuine in asking about it as I did not know.  I still suspect that in most Latin American Countries (not that Mexico is a Latin American Country) though that labor rights are not, de facto, protected.

Why isn't Mexico a Latin American country? Am I behind on my terminology?

Oops, I'm sure it is.  I wrote "Latin American" but I was thinking "Central American."

Obviously I didn't mean "Latin America" as I would assume that labor rights are protected in such South American countries as Brazil, Venezuela, Peru and Bolivia.

Sorry for the error.