In his _Economic Reporting Review_ (stuck with the unfortunate initials, "ERR"), Dean Baker comments on "For Many, China Trade Bill Isn't About Exports" by John Burgess in the Washington Post, May 27, 2000, page E1: >This article reports on the fact that "many business leaders and economists" believe that the main impact of granting China permanent normal trading relations (PNTR) will not be on U.S. exports to China. Rather, according to the article, these experts view the main impact as being on U.S.investment and production in China. This was exactly the argument made by many of those opposed to granting PNTR to China. The debate on this issue would have been better informed if the Post had chosen to run this piece before the vote. The article goes on to note that some jobs may be lost to China as a result of the passage of PNTR, but then comments, "For the most part they would be low-skilled, low-paid ones." In fact, U.S. manufacturers are already producing a wide-range of goods in China, including auto and airplane parts. The jobs in these industries pay significantly more than the median and often involve a considerable amount of skill. There are a wide variety of relatively well-paying jobs that will be at risk as a result of competition from goods made in China. While it is true that the very best-paying jobs, those held by professionals with advanced degrees, probably are not endangered, such jobs account for a small portion of the nation's employment. The majority of workers are either employed at jobs that are directly threatened by trade with China, or likely to experience downward pressure on their wages as a result of the jobs lost by other workers. < Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
