I am ok with that.
Not me. I have a problem with the govāt strong arming a company to get their way, even if i may like the end result of jobs staying in the US. There are reasons companies leave the country, how about we fix the issues that make them want to leave instead of threatening loss of future business to the parent company.Yeah, me too
Itās not strong arming them if they reach a compromise or make a deal.
Compromise? smells like strong arm tactics to me, assuming that is what actually went on, we donāt actually know we are just reacting to something DaveBj put out there as a possibility.
Thatās not really true. A business owner is still bound by what their competition is doing. If the competition is utilizing near slave labor which allows them to sell their product much lower than you can, your choices are either utilize the same workforce or shut down.
On the grand scale of the economy. 1000 jobs is a drop in the bucket
Or what about Disney who fired dozens of their American IT staff so that they could hire Indian IT people at half the cost, who were brought here on a visa program intended for people who had skills American workers didnāt possess - and the American staff were payed a bonus if they stayed long enough to train the Indian replacements?
Trump isnāt even president yet though, so I think itās something.
Is it really logical to expect Trump to personally micromanage the individual staff hiring/layoffs and production plans of numerous individual corporations, throughout the tenure of his presidency ?
Who said anything about that?
Wow, I think you are the one making this into something it isnāt.A drop in the bucket to Millie123, but a huge relief for those 1000 workers, their 1000 families, but who cares?
Who says I donāt care about people keeping their jobs? In my own personal family situation my own husband has been layed off twice. So yes, I empathize and sympathize with families who have undergone the stress of corporate layoffs on a personal level.
Itās just a temp fix. Doesnāt make any business sense to hire long-term when labor is much cheaper in Mexico. What will they do next year after the subsidy runs out?
Reminds me of the deal that was made to keep the White Sox in Chicago back in 87.
Ha, donāt remember that. I only got back into baseball this year because of the Cubs. I just hopped on the bandwagon lol
Did the Sox threaten to move? Might they again someday? Before the Rays, the Indians threatened once to move to St Petersburg. FL not Russia. And if memory serves me correct, New Orleans. But I can envision more corporations now threatening to move to Mexico to get corporate govt welfare. Not exactly imho a long term workable and sustainable economic strategy for long term economic success to make America even greater than it already is. But hey it provides a good photo op.
If this had been Obama, some of the same people gushing over this, would be howling about interference in the free market and private enterprise.Nothing wrong with making a deal by offering a little corporate welfare!
Honest question