Debaters Robert E. Scott is senior international economist for the Economic Policy Institute.

Jeffrey J. Schott, a former U.S. Treasury official, is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Trade Agreements Benefit Consumers and Producers Trade has become an increasingly important part of the United States economy. In the 1960s, exports and imports represented less than 10 percent of U.S. gross domestic product; today the share is closer to 30 percent. As a result, American exporters sell more U.S. goods abroad than ever before — and imports give American consumers more choices at lower prices. Americans have higher living standards because trade enables them to afford more goods. Trade benefits consumers in other ways — many of the products that are produced in the United States are cheaper and better because they have imported components and raw materials, improving their quality and lowering their cost. Trade thus boosts the competitiveness of products made at home, which, in turn, allows American producers to sell more abroad and employ more workers in the U.S. For the United States, trade agreements open markets abroad without significant changes in current U.S. trade restrictions. That is because with few exceptions, U.S. trade barriers are already low and U.S. regulatory requirements protecting consumers, workers and the environment are high. Almost all our trading partners have higher barriers; trade negotiations are largely about how much and how fast they will change their practices, upgrade their regulatory standards toward U.S. norms and open their markets to new competition from the United States and other countries. From the U.S. perspective, the benefits are straightforward. We get more access abroad to sell our competitive farm products, manufactured items and services. Yes, trade deals can displace some workers from their current jobs but on balance, trade pacts create better and higher paying jobs than the ones displaced. Why do other countries accept such "unbalanced" deals? Because trade pacts require them to undertake domestic policy reforms that they need to do in any event to boost productivity and growth in their economies. Often those countries find it easier to pursue necessary but politically contentious reforms as part of an international accord in which they receive other economic and political benefits. Trade pacts reinforce U.S. political and strategic interests beyond the gains in commercial ties. Recall that the first U.S. free trade pact was in 1985 with Israel, and it is a cornerstone of the U.S.-Israel relationship. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will similarly cement American ties with the Asia-Pacific region. It reassures our allies that the United States is a reliable partner that remains engaged in a region facing North Korean adventurism. To say that trade agreements are good for America doesn’t mean that they benefit all Americans. Some firms can take advantage of the new opportunities and others suffer from increased competition. Yes, trade deals can displace some workers from their current jobs, but they also create many new jobs in areas where America has a competitive advantage such as business services and high-tech industries. Compared to overall U.S. job creation and dislocation each month, affected largely by technological advances and changes in consumer demand, the impact due to trade agreements is exceedingly small, but positive because, on balance, trade pacts create better and higher paying jobs than the ones displaced. Workers in manufacturing firms that export generally earn wages 12 to 18 percent higher than their counterparts in firms that only serve the domestic market. Of course, the net result is little solace for those suffering loss of job or income. But the response should not be to make everyone less well off. Instead, we should be doing more, like other advanced countries, to promote labor adjustment through programs that provide wage insurance, targeted job training and other transition support. Our political leaders have given such programs short shrift and are now witnessing the political backlash against their inaction. Let’s not forget that trade pacts create commercial opportunities but do not guarantee sales. American firms and workers face tough competition at home and abroad. Inadequate investment in educating American children and retraining and retooling workers is a higher tax on U.S. competitiveness than tariffs and quotas hindering America’s access to foreign markets.

They Increase Trade Deficits, Which Have Led to Job Loss It’s no surprise that voters on the right and the left are uneasy with U.S. trade policy — and they have every right to be. For years, the United States has consistently run much larger trade deficits than other developed nations, and we have suffered more trade-related job loss as a result. While growing exports tend to support domestic employment, growing imports costs jobs and reduces domestic output. Thus, the size and growth of trade deficits is strongly correlated with trade-related job loss. Over the last 20 years, trade and investment deals have increased U.S. trade deficits and cost Americans their jobs. The agreement allowing China into the World Trade Organization led to trade deficits that eliminated 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013 alone. Meanwhile, the United States already faces a trade deficit with countries in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership that cost 2 million U.S. jobs in 2015 — a trade deficit which would surely get worse if the pact is enacted. But lost jobs are just the tip of the iceberg of trade’s broader effect on the economy. The growth of trade with low-wage countries has particularly hurt workers without a college degree, who make up more than two-thirds of the U.S. labor force, or 100 million people. In his 2008 book, "Everybody Wins, Except for Most of Us," my colleague Josh Bivens shows that while the most privileged Americans have benefited from some cost-saving “efficiency gains” due to trade, increased global integration can harm most working Americans. Recently, Bivens estimated that the growth of trade with low-wage countries reduced the median wage for full-time workers without a college degree by about $1,800 per year in 2011. Workers without a college degree make up more than two-thirds of the U.S. labor force, roughly 100 million people. Thus, the growth of globalization, as encouraged by more than 20 U.S. trade and investment deals, plus the proposed T.P.P., is responsible for transferring approximately $180 billion per year from low- and middle-income workers to those in the top third, and especially to those in the top 10, 1 and 0.1 percent of the population. It didn’t have to be this way. Trade and investment deals like Nafta and T.P.P. are highly complex legal texts, written to favor multinational companies and large investors. A well-known economist once noted that a “free trade agreement” could be two pages long and simply say that all tariffs are eliminated between two or more countries. The T.P.P. has 30 chapters and thousands of pages of inscrutable legalese. These rules expand copyright and patents raising the profits of drug makers, software companies and Hollywood. The T.P.P. will also expose U.S. consumers to unsafe imported food, empower large corporations to attack U.S. health and environmental standards, and roll back Wall Street reforms. It is time for a reset in U.S. trade and international economic relations. We must put an end to unfair trade practices such as currency manipulation, which is the single largest cause of U.S. trade deficits and trade-related job losses. The United States needs to develop a results-based approach to trade negotiations that is designed to rebalance global trade and ensure that the benefits of trade are broadly shared, and not funneled to those with the most wealth and power in our society.