The "Disastrous" Trade Agreement Sent The Tide Of Unemployment.

For decades, economists have come to the conclusion that open international trade is beneficial to the US economy.

But recent research has found that although this view is still correct, the decline of the American working class is more painful than experts predict when it comes to China.

And these are unfolding in the presidential campaign.

If you are Saunders, and if you want supporters to fire your opponent, you'd better attack the North American Free Trade Agreement and the p Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).

Saunders said that Hilary did not deserve to become president because she supported every "catastrophic trade agreement that cost us millions of jobs".

This has won enthusiastic applause from supporters.

Similarly, in the Republican debate, trump also said TPP was a "terrible agreement".

"This agreement is designed to allow China to sneak in through the back door and take advantage of everyone else," says trump.

But China is not in the TPP agreement, and it is generally believed that TPP is built to balance China's power and influence.

"So Trump's criticism is wrong," says David Autor, a labor economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

He studied trade with China for many years.

He said the speeches made by the campaigners were sensational because they did hit the point.

"In the past 35 years, the blue collar people in the United States have really had a hard time."

Without rising, millions of manufacturing jobs are lost.

This is no wonder trade. Technology plays a major role here.

With computers and automation technology, factories no longer need so many workers, so they lose a lot of jobs.

If you study North American freedom

Or the trade with Mexico, in fact, not many American workers suffer losses, but China is another matter.

"The rise of China is a historic event in the world," Otter said.

"This is the largest country in the world, and it has caused a large contraction in the employment rate of the manufacturing industry in the United States."

What you wear

Wearing watches, kitchen appliances and mobile phones, these daily necessities are all cheaper and better because of international trade.

Otter said that in addition to reducing job opportunities, the United States and China actually benefited from it.

But the current friction is that these benefits are broad and scattered, but the pain of American blue collar is very concentrated.

"If I'm unemployed from the furniture factory that has worked for decades, WAL-MART's cheap toys and raincoats will not make me happy," Otter said.

Rather than attacking trade agreements, Otter said he wanted people to focus on how to help unemployed workers.

Compared with other developed countries, the United States is far from enough.

From 2000 to 2007, trade with China made us manufacturing industry lose one million jobs.

Other unemployment caused by technological development and productivity gains are not included.

Trade theory does not say that all workers should be protected, but that trade will benefit both countries.

But why does trade with China cause pain?

First look at the trade between the United States and France.

France is good at making delicious cheese, and the United States can make good Chevrolet cars.

If the two countries are to swap, the outcome will be bad cheese and poor quality cars.

So trade came into being. The two countries only need to do what they are good at, but also have cheese and cars.

But China is different from France. China is a big country. Its exports to the United States can be produced by American manufacturers, but its price is lower.

China has pformed its rural population into one billion workers and created a big manufacturing country with low labor force.

But even so, Otter admits, "we still benefit from it."