Trump team and United Technologies reach agreement on keeping close to 1,000 factory jobs in Carrier plant in Indiana

[Xystus]

I’ve read no fewer than seven articles on this news and have seen no evidence whatsoever of strong-arm tactics being employed to save these jobs.

I think it’s safe to say that with more than 1,000 jobs on the line and only 1,000 are reported to remain here in the US that a compromise was indeed realized.

I never said strong arm tactics were used. I was responding to the “You move those jobs out of the country, you’ll never get another federal contract, at least as long as I am in office.” theory that was put out there as one of the “incentives”. Two people said they have no problem with that if that was indeed the case. We don’t know what the incentives to stay were but if it was something similar to “You move those jobs out of the country, you’ll never get another federal contract, at least as long as I am in office.” then yes, it was strong arm tactics and I don’t approve. I am not saying Trump did any strong arming, I am simply saying that the particular theory in question IS. If Obama told a company “You let people use the restroom of whatever gender they happen to identify with on that particular day or you’ll never get another federal contract, at least as long as I am in office.” I would bet money that those same two people would be against it, as would I.

 

[M-Dent]

Alan Murray from Fortune magazine seems to have more possible details than most news outlets.

In the end, UTC agreed to retain approximately 800 manufacturing jobs at the Indiana plant that had been slated to move to Mexico, as well as another 300 engineering and headquarters jobs. In return, the company will get roughly $700,000 a year for a period of years in state tax incentives.

Some 1,300 jobs will still go to Mexico, which includes 600 Carrier employees, plus 700 workers from UTEC Controls in Huntington, Ind. The company has plans in place to offer displaced workers employment and relocation in UTC’s aerospace business, or to provide funding for reeducation.

fortune.com/2016/11/30/donald-trump-carrier-deal-jobs/

 

[ProVobis]

Honest question

How can one see keeping jobs in the US as a bad thing without seeing unemployment as a good thing ?

Those whose jobs would have moved to Mexico would not have packed up and moved to Mexico to keep them.

How can one tout free market at the expense of our own workers’ livelihoods and proceed to complain about the tax system benefiting the wealthy ?

It just seems that the incomes of the owners and CEOs of these large corporations are all that matters when we frown upon our elected officials attempting to curtail unemployment.

You could look at it that way.

But when have someone who has filed for six bankruptcies micromanaging outside interests, what can possibly go wrong?

 

[ProVobis]

Alan Murray from Fortune magazine seems to have more possible details than most news outlets.

Seems like the real concern should be the continued weakening of the Mexican peso something that was predicted with a Trump win.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Alan Murray from Fortune magazine seems to have more possible details than most news outlets.

In the end, UTC agreed to retain approximately 800 manufacturing jobs at the Indiana plant that had been slated to move to Mexico, as well as another 300 engineering and headquarters jobs. In return, the company will get roughly $700,000 a year for a period of years in state tax incentives.

Actually, that doesn’t sound too bad. $700,000 a year to save 1000 jobs only amounts to $700 per year per job saved. I’m sure the wage differential between Indiana and Mexico is much greater than that. But I would like to see** all** the details before I can say for sure.

 

[Saints_Alive]

You could look at it that way.

But when have someone who has filed for six bankruptcies micromanaging outside interests, what can possibly go wrong?

We’ll just have to see what happens.

 

[DaveBj]

I never said strong arm tactics were used. I was responding to the “You move those jobs out of the country, you’ll never get another federal contract, at least as long as I am in office.” theory that was put out there as one of the “incentives”. Two people said they have no problem with that if that was indeed the case. We don’t know what the incentives to stay were but if it was something similar to “You move those jobs out of the country, you’ll never get another federal contract, at least as long as I am in office.” then yes, it was strong arm tactics and I don’t approve. I am not saying Trump did any strong arming, I am simply saying that the particular theory in question IS. If Obama told a company “You let people use the restroom of whatever gender they happen to identify with on that particular day or you’ll never get another federal contract, at least as long as I am in office.” I would bet money that those same two people would be against it, as would I.

For the record, the bolded is from one of my posts, and it is a TOTAL hypothetical. Neither I nor anyone else has any evidence that Trump said anything like that.

But that’s what I would have said, if I had been President. To quote that great American philosopher Bugs Bunny, “Ain’t I a stinker?!”

 

[M-Dent]

Seems like the real concern should be the continued weakening of the Mexican peso something that was predicted with a Trump win.

It is a Double-edged sword - just speaking economically.

A strong US dollar and weak Mexican peso makes selling US goods in Mexico (and possibly parts of Latin America) more difficult. Yet it can benefit some US travelers buying Mexican goods.

Overall, the risk of having huge currency imbalances (with a number of countries) does make it difficult to sell US made products. Which is not in the benefit of the US, or the next administration.

What are your thoughts?

 

[ProVobis]

It is a Double-edged sword - just speaking economically.

A strong US dollar and weak Mexican peso makes selling US goods in Mexico (and possibly parts of Latin America) more difficult. Yet it can benefit some US travelers buying Mexican goods.

Overall, the risk of having huge currency imbalances (with a number of countries) does make it difficult to sell US made products. Which is not in the benefit of the US, or the next administration.

What are your thoughts?

You pretty much summed it up.

 

[Xystus]

For the record, the bolded is from one of my posts, and it is a TOTAL hypothetical. Neither I nor anyone else has any evidence that Trump said anything like that.

But that’s what I would have said, if I had been President. To quote that great American philosopher Bugs Bunny, “Ain’t I a stinker?!”

I know there is no evidence of it, i have said that. Another poster said they would have no problem with that if it were the case, you said you wouldn’t either. I would have a problem if that were the case since i would view that as the govt strong arming a company.

 

[DaveBj]

I know there is no evidence of it, i have said that. Another poster said they would have no problem with that if it were the case, you said you wouldn’t either. I would have a problem if that were the case since i would view that as the govt strong arming a company.

I could live with it. That’s not really what I would call strong-arming. It would be like, you want to do business with the federal government, you keep the jobs in the country.

 

[rae317]

Does Indiana have the funds to pay every business that wants to send jobs to other countries?

Since when did negotiating directly with individual companies become a part of the responsibility of the president (especially those not even in office yet) - by what authority of congress or the constitution?

Of course if the people of this country had not chosen lower priced goods made elsewhere over buying products made in this country we would still have many more manufacturing jobs. But we are only ever concerned with our immediate needs and don’t consider the consequences of our actions over the long term.

 

[tomarin]

Of course if the people of this country had not chosen lower priced goods made elsewhere over buying products made in this country we would still have many more manufacturing jobs. But we are only ever concerned with our immediate needs and don’t consider the consequences of our actions over the long term.

One thing I’ve often wondered about the working class voters who elected Mr. Trump on the basis of renegotiating trade deals and bringing jobs back to America is do these same voters want everything to cost a lot more as things used to (because they weren’t made in China or another country where labor costs are low)? In other words, aren’t Trump voters and value-minded Walmart shoppers the same people? Will they be disappointed if that comes to pass? I suspect it’s a case here of wanting to have one’s cake and eating it too.

 

[Saints_Alive]

Something I’ve wondered about since this thread started is how many of the people expressing negative viewpoints regarding the saving of jobs have Financial Security themselves and couldn’t care less if their fellow Americans lost their jobs.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Something I’ve wondered about since this thread started is how many of the people expressing negative viewpoints regarding the saving of jobs have Financial Security themselves and couldn’t care less if their fellow Americans lost their jobs.

Speculating on the less than admirable motives of other posters. Not very charitable.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Does Indiana have the funds to pay every business that wants to send jobs to other countries?

Since when did negotiating directly with individual companies become a part of the responsibility of the president (especially those not even in office yet) - by what authority of congress or the constitution?

Of course if the people of this country had not chosen lower priced goods made elsewhere over buying products made in this country we would still have many more manufacturing jobs. But we are only ever concerned with our immediate needs and don’t consider the consequences of our actions over the long term.

I agree. Where are the libertarians on this issue? The ones who regularly call for limited government and keeping the government from picking winners and losers in the marketplace? Can any of these people say what they think of Indiana choosing to subsidize Carrier over other companies that don’t get subsidies?

 

[DaveBj]

Something I’ve wondered about since this thread started is how many of the people expressing negative viewpoints regarding the saving of jobs have Financial Security themselves and couldn’t care less if their fellow Americans lost their jobs.

FWIW, I am fairly financially secure, and I do care about keeping jobs in the U.S. Just speaking for myself.

Speculating on the less than admirable motives of other posters. Not very charitable.

No names were named, and it is a valid point.

 

[J_Peterson]

Something I’ve wondered about since this thread started is how many of the people expressing negative viewpoints regarding the saving of jobs have Financial Security themselves and couldn’t care less if their fellow Americans lost their jobs.

So he saved 1000 jobs which is good, they are also sending about 1000 jobs to Mexico anyway. To get the 1000 jobs to stay they had to offer tax breaks which will hurt the people of the state and help the shareholders.

Not to mention that Trump said that companies that send jobs to Mexico will face consequences. This company is sending jobs to Mexico and is getting a tax break. It’s just another instance of Trump being Trump. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

I don’t think I’d say I have financial security. My job will go away at some point. I don’t have much education and am in my 40’s. I’m one layoff away from potentially never working again. I don’t feel very secure; Trump doesn’t help me feel more secure.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No names were named, and it is a valid point.

It is an irrelevant point. One does not need to name names to be uncharitable. The assumption should be that everyone here posts in good faith. To question the sincerity of any poster based on their financial situation is uncharitable. If someone says they don’t think saving those 1000 jobs was worth a big state subsidy, no one should speculate that the person does not care about those jobs since he is already secure. In addition to being uncharitable, it is also an ad hominem attack.

 

[Saints_Alive]

We’ll just have to wait until Trump becomes our president before we can judge how good a president he will be.