But other economists, including Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Cathleen Cimino-Isaacs of the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), have pointed out that increased trade is paying off the U.S. economy. Some jobs are lost because of imports, others are created and consumers benefit greatly from lower prices and often improved product quality. Your 2014 PIIE study on the impact of NAFTA revealed a net loss of about 15,000 jobs per year as a result of the pact – but gains of about $450,000 for each job lost, in the form of higher productivity and lower consumer prices. In 1994, the United States, Mexico and Canada, with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), created the world`s largest free trade region, which generated economic growth and helped improve the living standards of the people of the three member countries. By strengthening trade and investment rules, this agreement has proven to be a solid foundation for building Canada`s prosperity and has provided a valuable example of the benefits of trade liberalization for the rest of the world. The new Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement will strengthen Canada`s strong economic ties with the United States and Mexico. On the other hand, critics of the agreement claim that it is responsible for job losses and wage moderation in the United States, driven by low-wage competition, from companies that have relocated their production to Mexico to reduce costs and a growing trade deficit. Dean Baker of the Centre for Economic and Political Research (CEPR) and Robert Scott of the Economic Policy Institute argue that the post-NAFTA increase in imports has resulted in a loss of up to six hundred thousand U.S. jobs over two decades, although they acknowledge that some of this import growth would likely have occurred without NAFTA. Nevertheless, NAFTA has been a recurring objective in the broader free trade debate. President Donald J.
Trump says it undermines U.S. jobs and manufacturing, and in December 2019, his administration finalized an updated version of the pact with Canada and Mexico, now known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The USMCA received broad support from all parties on Capitol Hill and came into force on July 1, 2020. The question is not whether North American trade is changing. It`s about whether you`re able to thrive in this new environment. In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump`s campaign included a promise to renegotiate or eliminate NAFTA if the renegotiations fail.  After the election, Trump made a series of changes that influenced trade relations with other countries. The exit from the Paris Agreement, the cessation of participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and the significantly larger increase in tariffs with China were some of the steps he took, which reinforced the fact that he was serious about changing NAFTA.
 Much of the debate about the virtues and errors of the USMCA resembles the debate on all free trade agreements (FTAs), such as the nature of free trade agreements as public goods, potential violations of national sovereignty and the role of commercial, labour, environmental and consumer interests in the development of the language of trade agreements. Much of the debate among political experts has focused on how to mitigate the negative effects of agreements such as NAFTA, including whether workers who lose their jobs are compensated or whether they are offering retraining programs to help them move into new sectors. Experts say programs such as U.S. Trade Adjustment Assistance (AAT), which helps workers pay for education or training to find new jobs, could help rebuke anger over trade liberalization. On December 12, 2019, the Mexican Senate adopted the revised treaty by 107 votes to 1.  On April 3, 2020, Mexico announced its readiness to implement the agreement and joined Canada, although