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

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peebo said:
Wasn’t it back in 2009 that Obama loaned GM and Chrysler billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out those auto companies…and bail them out it did…and they paid the money back…and countless thousands of jobs in the auto industry and its affiliated companies were saved…and now those Republicans who condemned Obama for government interference are now praising President elect DT…funny how that works.
Click to expand...
Then maybe Carrier should pay back the government tax breaks they will get. As you rightly pointed out, the money given to GM and Chrysler was a loan and they had to pay it back.
 
THP said:
A tax cut for one group of people does not equal a tax hike on another group of people. Only socialists who think that the govt owns all the money think that way. 😉
Click to expand...
I guess it depends. There are companies which don’t pay any taxes. How are tax cuts going to help them? You can’t expect the president to jawbone every company which sees cheaper labor in Mexico, or Germany, for that matter.
 
THP said:
A tax cut for one group of people does not equal a tax hike on another group of people.
Click to expand...
It is, as I said, redistribution of wealth. I didn’t say others would see a tax hike. But giving any group a tax cut, and not giving that tax cut to others does cause wealth to flow from the second group to the first. The idea that taxpayers should not be concerned when the state takes money from them and uses it in a way that does not benefit them is nonsense. Unless Trump made it happen, in which case it is OK. But if a Democratic President were to use the power of government to choose which companies were granted this favor, the Right would be jumping all over him.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is actually a tremendous bargain for Indiana tax payers. $700 is less than a month of unemployment compensation that would have been paid. It is the same deal Indiana proposed over a year ago, but Trump convinced them to accept it. The Huntington plant is still going to close. Carrier will make more furnaces here and fewer air conditioners. Mexico is a good market for air conditioners, not so much for furnaces. Carrier has little chance of selling air conditioners made with $30/hour labor to Mexicans who earn $3/hour. It makes sense for most companies to produce locally for the market being served. Have you noticed all the Japanese, Korean, and German car manufacturers who now build cars here for the American market?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
When the taxes for the 6.6 million people in Indiana are used to subsidize the jobs of 1000 people at Carrier, that’s called redistribution of wealth - a socialist concept. I guess anything is OK as long as it was Trump who did it.
Click to expand...
There is probably very little i agree politically with LeafByNiggle but here is one thing. The Government should not be giving tax deals to individual companies. This is called “picking winners and losers” If the government wants to help then cut taxes for all so everyone gets the benefits, not just who the government chooses. There should be a level playing field and the government should ensure that but thats all it should be doing here.
 
Xystus said:
There is probably very little i agree politically with LeafByNiggle but here is one thing. The Government should not be giving tax deals to individual companies. This is called “picking winners and losers” If the government wants to help then cut taxes for all so everyone gets the benefits, not just who the government chooses. There should be a level playing field and the government should ensure that but thats all it should be doing here.
Click to expand...
After this, why shouldn’t a company say they are relocating to Mexico even if they have no intention of doing so? This is the problem with these types of state government giveaways. It would be better to create a good business climate for all business.
 
Trader said:
This is actually a tremendous bargain for Indiana tax payers. $700 is less than a month of unemployment compensation that would have been paid.
Click to expand...
That calculation assumes that everyone immediately goes on unemployment after the move. In fact a good many of them, given that they have some notice, will be lining up other jobs. Others will relocate to where there are jobs or just leave the state.

Then there is the effect this deal might have on other companies (as stinkcat_14 alluded to above), similar to when a ransom is paid to kidnapper. It only encourages more kidnapping. So other companies will insist on a similar deal. In the end it may cost Indiana far more than the $700,000. And now the latest news is that the taxpayer-funded incentives were $7,000,000, and that Trump is invested in the parent company. Sweet deal for Trump!
It is the same deal Indiana proposed over a year ago, but Trump convinced them to accept it.
Click to expand...
I heard it was not the same deal, but Trump quadrupled the rejected deal. Why shouldn’t he? It’s not his money.
The Huntington plant is still going to close. Carrier will make more furnaces here and fewer air conditioners. Mexico is a good market for air conditioners, not so much for furnaces. Carrier has little chance of selling air conditioners made with $30/hour labor to Mexicans who earn $3/hour. It makes sense for most companies to produce locally for the market being served. Have you noticed all the Japanese, Korean, and German car manufacturers who now build cars here for the American market?
Click to expand...
The cost of transportation does figure in to the economics, but it takes a very large transportation cost to offset the wage differential. The American factories making foreign cars are here for several reasons. One is transportation. Cars are big and heavy. Japan, Korea, and Germany are separated from us by an ocean. But air conditioners are smaller, and Mexico is a short train ride away. Transportation is not as big a factor. Another is a skilled workforce. Another is to maintain good will with their customers - many people have a bias against buying totally foreign cars, but a Honda assembled in America is more acceptable.
 
ProVobis said:
Good post but I have to point out that there is a difference between debt and deficit. Deficits occur when there are realized expenditures that exceed revenues on hand.

Bernanke through the QE programs issued $4 Trillion worth of debt before any money was actually spent. Most of it is still sitting with the 12 member banks of the Fed. Some say the $4 Trillion can easily be cancelled but that would effectively raise interest rates, especially that of the longer-term issues. Maybe that’s what Trump plans to have Yellen do, I don’t know. But then he also wants to spend on infrastructure with tax cuts so that compounds the mystery.
Click to expand...
Debt and deficit result in the same dilemma; an obligation that creates a liability. But I know what your striving towards. In regards to the QE’s (Quantitative Easing), I am of the belief that we should not have gone down that path - but that is another conversation.

What I am frustrated by in reading many posts are the misnomers that conservatism is the righteous path. Each side has contributed greatly to the stagnate condition of our economy. I do not believe that the people that voted for Trump are necessarily individuals that care about conservative issues. They are just people that have seen our government sell the well-being of the people for the benefit of the wealthy.

Bernie Sanders had a very similar sounding message and garnered large support. We just throw around terms like “socialism” like we truly understand what it means? Just look back at the banking crisis to see evidence that the financial sector had no problems with handouts!
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The cost of transportation does figure in to the economics, but it takes a very large transportation cost to offset the wage differential. The American factories making foreign cars are here for several reasons. One is transportation. Cars are big and heavy. Japan, Korea, and Germany are separated from us by an ocean. But air conditioners are smaller, and Mexico is a short train ride away. Transportation is not as big a factor. Another is a skilled workforce. Another is to maintain good will with their customers - many people have a bias against buying totally foreign cars, but a Honda assembled in America is more acceptable.
Click to expand...
Transportation matters in all industries, some much more than others. It’s difficult to replace much of the food industry with foreign products, for example, because raw commodities are high-weight/low-value, and finished (value enhanced) products have to be delivered fresh (not frozen) to the retailer very quickly. Not too many miles from here is a factory that produces heavy playground equipment. It’s not only heavy, it’s clumsy, so you can’t get very much of it on any given truck or rail car.

But when it comes to high-value, small-volume industrial products that don’t have to be “fresh”, is this country really willing to give up production of them?

I understand the conservative position that “free trade” is beneficial for all in a sort of theoretical sense. But is it always? There really is something unattractive about running a huge trade deficit with countries that pay starvation wages to employees, give no benefits, don’t have a workers’ compensation system. Just viscerally, that doesn’t seem to be a winning strategy.

Yes, I know all money has to return to its place of origin sometime or other or it’s worthless. At least the expectation has to be there for it to have any value. But as long as this country runs huge budgetary deficits, a lot of it can return in the form of purchasing debt instruments. It can also return in the form of purchasing commodities. An economy that is ever more dependent on selling debt instruments and commodities does not seem adequate to me.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Transportation matters in all industries, some much more than others. It’s difficult to replace much of the food industry with foreign products, for example, because raw commodities are high-weight/low-value, and finished (value enhanced) products have to be delivered fresh (not frozen) to the retailer very quickly. Not too many miles from here is a factory that produces heavy playground equipment. It’s not only heavy, it’s clumsy, so you can’t get very much of it on any given truck or rail car.

But when it comes to high-value, small-volume industrial products that don’t have to be “fresh”, is this country really willing to give up production of them?

I understand the conservative position that “free trade” is beneficial for all in a sort of theoretical sense. But is it always? There really is something unattractive about running a huge trade deficit with countries that pay starvation wages to employees, give no benefits, don’t have a workers’ compensation system. Just viscerally, that doesn’t seem to be a winning strategy.

Yes, I know all money has to return to its place of origin sometime or other or it’s worthless. At least the expectation has to be there for it to have any value. But as long as this country runs huge budgetary deficits, a lot of it can return in the form of purchasing debt instruments. It can also return in the form of purchasing commodities. An economy that is ever more dependent on selling debt instruments and commodities does not seem adequate to me.
Click to expand...
I agree about the trade deficit. It is an undesirable situation. And perhaps government policy could be used to make it more balanced. However I don’t think strong-arming or bribing one company at a time in an ad hoc manner is the best government policy to accomplish that end. It should be a uniform policy that applies equally to all companies that might contribute to the problem. For that reason, the Carrier deal, whatever it was, is a poor approach. If there is some sort of deal if they comply or punishment if they don’t, the same sort of deal or punishment (carrot or stick) should be applied to all similar companies. And it should be done in an open and transparent manner under the rule of law. That would make it much better than grandstanding with this one company.
 
Donald Trump, picking winners and losers since 2016.

The government has no business bribing companies to keep jobs in country.
 
It appears that most posters don’t remember or weren’t around many years ago when you bought cars, refrigerators, radios, toys etc. that lasted many years.

Because we now rely on Mexico, China, India etc. for many of these products, yes they are cheaper than one which are built or would be built in America, but the difference is that you actually save money in the end. U.S. products made in the U.S. last for many years and those from other countries usually last eight years if one is lucky, so you have to spend more in the end.

You get what you pay for in my opinion.

I guess when this is the way the U.S. has done business for so many years many Americans don’t remember the good old days when products lasted for many years.

Also instead of judging whether fair and free trade are going to be beneficial, let us wait and see.

Obama bailed out the auto industry and the banks with billions of our money and no one says anything about it.

It all seems lake a double standard and people should stop believing what 99% of the media says. I still haven’t found an honest media source. I do not believe that there are any true journalists anymore. One that puts aside their own opinions and just tells us the facts.

Bernadette
 
BernadetteM said:
Because we now rely on Mexico, China, India etc. for many of these products, yes they are cheaper than one which are built or would be built in America, but the difference is that you actually save money in the end. U.S. products made in the U.S. last for many years and those from other countries usually last eight years if one is lucky, so you have to spend more in the end.

Bernadette
Click to expand...
From the way I see it, generally speaking, when people have something that breaks down…they are not prepared for it. Generally speaking, it is said that most Americans have less than $500 dollars in their bank account for emergency expenses. So when big ticket items break down that need to be placed immediately. Like your refrigerator, water heater, furnace. They are truly not prepared to pay a premium price up front for an appliance that may last longer in the long run…they are just interested in replacing the appliance that will get them through their crisis here and now.
 
BernadetteM said:
…

Obama bailed out the auto industry and the banks with billions of our money and no one says anything about it.

It all seems lake a double standard and people should stop believing what 99% of the media says. I still haven’t found an honest media source. I do not believe that there are any true journalists anymore. One that puts aside their own opinions and just tells us the facts.

Bernadette
Click to expand...
Actually people did complain about the auto bailout. A lot.

There are differences, however in what the auto companies got and Carrier is getting. The auto companies and the employees had to make concessions, the companies had to pay back billions of dollars (GM alone paid back 7.5 billion with a “bee”) , the potential jobs lost were about 1,000,000 (yes one million), and they had to submit to taxpayer supervision (via the government) until the money was paid back.
 
sallybutler said:
Actually people did complain about the auto bailout. A lot.

There are differences, however in what the auto companies got and Carrier is getting. The auto companies and the employees had to make concessions, the companies had to pay back billions of dollars (GM alone paid back 7.5 billion with a “bee”) , the potential jobs lost were about 1,000,000 (yes one million), and they had to submit to taxpayer supervision (via the government) until the money was paid back.
Click to expand...
Yes the auto industry and ancillary industries form a huge part of our economy.
 
BernadetteM said:
It appears that most posters don’t remember or weren’t around many years ago when you bought cars, refrigerators, radios, toys etc. that lasted many years.

Because we now rely on Mexico, China, India etc. for many of these products, yes they are cheaper than one which are built or would be built in America, but the difference is that you actually save money in the end. U.S. products made in the U.S. last for many years and those from other countries usually last eight years if one is lucky, so you have to spend more in the end.

You get what you pay for in my opinion.

I guess when this is the way the U.S. has done business for so many years many Americans don’t remember the good old days when products lasted for many years.

Also instead of judging whether fair and free trade are going to be beneficial, let us wait and see.

Obama bailed out the auto industry and the banks with billions of our money and no one says anything about it.

It all seems lake a double standard and people should stop believing what 99% of the media says. I still haven’t found an honest media source. I do not believe that there are any true journalists anymore. One that puts aside their own opinions and just tells us the facts.

Bernadette
Click to expand...
And you could say the same thing for Japanese products…especially cars…when they first came on the market they were considered a joke…now they are the biggest selling cars and some of the most reliable…also many products on the market now a days have a use by date…that’s where they get the turn over…what manufacturer would make a refrigerator that’s going to last 40 years…not good for business if you can’t keep making and selling…and of course US companies that manufacture overseas still have to meet their own standards otherwise they would go out of business fast if they produced an inferior quality product…and yes…some of the products manufactured by foreign companies are cheap in quality…but how do you convince companies like say…WalMart not to buy their products…but only buy American made…and probably more expensive…good luck on that…and if we do not allow other countries to sell their products here…then they’ll probably refuse to buy our products…and governments can’t tell private enterprise what they can and cannot do or sell…or to whom… ( within limits of course) not unless they want to impose some sort of dictatorship here…as for Obama and the auto industry bailout…you have got to be kidding that no one said anything about that?Republicans were up in arms about Obama trying for a power grab over the economy by bailing them out…now of course no one seems to acknowledge it saved GM…and countless thousands of jobs in the auto industry and its affiliates…and the money was paid back…of course even now some Republicans won’t admit that so its probably no point in pursuing that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top