Minimum Price Floor

Imagine being crammed in a un-air conditioned room with hundreds of workers in the Mexico heat. Imagine sewing all day and developing sore wrists which can lead to tendonitis. Imagine after nine grueling hours of work not getting paid enough to purchase food and other necessities for your family. Maquiladoras are very well known among the Mexico and US border. They conduct under tariff free materials which are imported to the companies. The North American Free Trade Agreement has a huge advancement and have grown by employing tons of Mexican workers. NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) promised to increase workplace efficiency, help corporations, and to improve the lives of many workers. In my opinion, NAFTA did not keep their promise. They definitely did not improve the lives of many workers and everything else they guaranteed. NAFTA has not kept its promises because they work in terrible conditions, they do not get paid enough, and they are giving up hope.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an international agreement between Canada, America and Mexico. This agreement took effect in January 1994 and was signed by President Bill Clinton. This agreement brought great changes in trade volumes and open new opportunities for millions of labours. Later, in January 2008 according to the schedule all duties and restrictions were eliminated. About 45,000 tariffs were eliminated in 1994 and only 3000 were left until 1999.

From a personal perspective, I agree with the ruling of the law to be unconstitutional as well. Although the recent ruling of the law does not cause a concerted action for the fixation of gasoline prices, it still does indirectly impose a form of price fixation. The prices are not fixed but it still forces gasoline retailers to set their prices according to Legislation, which otherwise would be illegal. This type of parallel pricing which is imposed if the law were to stay in place is exactly what the Sherman Act prohibits. Moreover, the main arguments to the law being in place are basically that smaller independent gas station owners will be driven out of business by the larger competitor’s ability to lower their prices. Rarely, however, does it occur that

NAFTA was established in 1992 and came into effect January 1st 1994. NAFTA was created to eliminate or reduce any tariffs between the three countries. It was formed to uphold greater trade between three countries "the increase in agricultural trade was doubled after the eight- to 12-year 'phase-in' period” (Grant, newswise). It promoted conditions of fair competitions, it also increased investment opportunities. NAFTA shows how free trade increases wealth and competitiveness,delivering real benefits to families, farmers, workers, manufacture and consumers. The impact of NAFTA on trade relations between Canada and the U.S. is more difficult to measure because the two countries had a free trade deal even before. NAFTA has helped boost agriculture flows between the two

Michigan's minimum wage is currently placed at eight dollars and fifty cents an hour and will be rising for the next couple years (Minimum Wage, 2016). Minimum wage laws are still a controversial topic among economist and are commonly utilized in campaigns as a promise to help the poor but how does this price floor impact the industries it affects. This paper will explore Michigan's current minimum wage law, its conception and history, the problem it was supposed to fix, it's effectiveness in solving the problem, how it helps and hurts the economy, what it costs and its unintended consequences, and my beliefs on Michigan's minimum wage

NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994 with the culmination of all quota and tariff repeals on January 1, 2008. This agreement was designed to expand trade between Canada, Mexico, and the United States by reducing restrictions imposed by tariffs and encouraging foreign direct investment in the developing economies.

Minimum wage is the price floor for wages, meaning that it is the lowest possible wage per hour. The minimum wage is set so no worker will be oppressed or underpaid, it makes people able to live. The minimum raise rises constantly so it can keep up with the cost of life which is always increasing as well. The current minimum wage in Arizona is 8.05$/hour.

Dealing with low wage jobs is not easy. Some people really need their money so they become in fear of losing their jobs. They always have to be nice and respectful to customers if they are giving them a hard time. If a problem occurs they have to think quickly on how to fix it because those small things become enormous. For example if a worker shows up late to work then the manger will send them home ,so they came to work wasting their time and gas for nothing. Even if the person had a great excuse they will not have a care in the world. All of these problems is for minimum wage and it is not worth it.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, commonly known as the NAFTA, is a trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico launched to enable North America to become more competitive in the global marketplace (Amadeo, 2011). The NAFTA is regarded as “one of the most successful trade agreements in history” for its impact on increases in agricultural trade and investment among the three contracting nations (North American Free Trade Agreement, 2011). Supporters and opponents of the NAFTA have argued the effects of the agreement on participating nations since its inception; yet, close examination proves that NAFTA has had a relatively positive impact on the economies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

A price floor prevents the price from going below a limit. So if the federal minimum wage is $5.00 per hour. And the Colorado minimum wage is $9.30 firms in Colorado can’t pay their workers any less than $5.00 per hour in Colorado. Without a price floor the workers minimum wage is set at equilibrium at W*and Q*, which happens to be $5.00, the federal minimum wage, as shown in red in the graph below.

This is done to attract manufacturing of goods in Mexico. “The U.S. tariff schedule provision known as 9802, formerly known as 806/807, greatly assisted the development of the Maquiladoras industry. This permitted U.S. goods to be exported to Mexico and face a duty only on the value added when the finished product is imported back into the United States”. In 1996 40% of all Mexican exports to the U.S. were from the Maquiladora program. Also the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce conceived a group named “Transformation 2000”, whom would inform and educate all manufactures on the Maquiladora programs by the year 2001”.

Based on census.gov, when US started exporting to Mexico in 1985, it was exporting exactly 13,634.7! In millions) and importing 19,131.7 (million). Currently, into thousand 15, and exports and imports croup substantially to 237,377.4 (in millions) and 294,741.1 and exports. This data shows a major increase between the 30 year trade. With Mexico and the US. Mexico and the US continue to be trading partners because of the huge beneficial investments and production sharing. Mexico already purchases more US goods than any other nation except Canada, Mexico and US partnerships don 't only focus on buying goods between one another but also in production sharing as well.

Economy, but also to reduce its economic dependence on the United States. The United States is, by far, Mexico’s most significant trading partner. About 82% of Mexico’s exports go to the

Yes, I do believe that the Commerce Department was right to establish a minimum floor price, this helped the U.S. tomatoes producer stay in the market even through Mexico was more advance in producing tomatoes, the U.S. producer would have benefit from antidumping suit against the Mexican tomato producers, this would have only allowed them to export a certain amount of tomatoes into the United States. Mexican tomatoes producers and tomatoes buyers would have suffered.

Sarah Talley and Wal-Mart are in a distributive negotiation as they only haggle about the price for 4th of July Watermelons (Lewicki, Saunders& Barry 2011). Rather than giving a “why” Wal-Mart persists with the position that the price is “too high” (Sebenius & Knebel 2006). In price-only negotiations only one party can win. Furthermore, there is a huge power difference due to Wal-Mart’s high position of strength which is based on their size (Lewicki et al. 2011). In the end these negotiations ended with Wal-Mart having to pay higher prices and with Frey Farm selling less volume at lower profits as they became a co-managed