Trump to Announce Carrier Plant Will Keep Jobs in U.S.

[alexw]

Thats precisely what it is and imo its fucking brilliant. This should.be government policy.

Its a horrible precedent. What do you bully them for next? Its the sort of thing you see in third world dictatorships where favored friends get contracts and where if your not one of them you don't.

If you want to stop certain behaviors write deterrence policies into law, but don't bully.

[Glorious Leader]

Its a horrible precedent. What do you bully them for next? Its the sort of thing you see in third world dictatorships where favored friends get contracts and where if your not one of them you don't.

If you want to stop certain behaviors write deterrence policies into law, but don't bully.

That's why I said it should be government policy i.e law. If you are going to do business with the federal government, if you are a vendor or have a contract with the federal government you should be required by law to provide a minimum set of standards for that contract. Employ people at a living wage, employ them in the US etc etc. If you are carrier or its parent company don't want the 7 billion dollars worth in government contracts you can walk away. It's leveraging the power of the federal government over these bloody tyrants.

[Gsara]

Now we just have to see what exactly the workers that arent getting fired get to keep as far as wages, pensions etc. We do know Carrier is getting some pretty nice state and fed subsidies and access to government contracts. So Trump at least gave them a reason to only shut down half the plant instead of all of it.

[Nadiru]

Sounds like borderline communism. Controlling the means of production?

At what point did you manage to convince yourself that Donald Trump ever represented a free market ideology? Were you just not paying attention for 9 months? He's an economic nationalist to the core.

[Deleted]

So there you have it Ford and now Carrier Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet and he has done more in 20 days as president elect than Obama has in 8 years as president to keep well paying manufacturing jobs here in the US

Get real. Unemployment rate has been structurally declining and job creation has structurally been increasing under Obama. This also includes manufacturing jobs. Employment in manufacturing has been increasing as of June 2009, after a significant recession-driven decline.




Unemployment rate in the manufacturing industry according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:


Evolution of job openings in the manufacturing industry according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:



Evolution of hourly earnings in the manufacturing industry according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

[Nadiru]

I didn't? I never convinced myself he represents anything in terms of actual policy because he never gave us any real policy consistently and he continues to prove that.

This behavior is perfectly in line with his rhetoric, though. And if you never convinced yourself that he was a free market kind of guy, why would you think that him telling a company that actions have consequences is communism? Unless you actually think that, but I don't think you've drunk that particular Kool-Aid.

[Nadiru]

Except his entire argument for fixing healthcare was to let capitalism fix it. Like I said, he has no consistent policy. He doesn't think things through. And yes, trying to control the job market by giving tax breaks for hiring people in a certain region is borderline communism. What if they started doing that with every business? Handing out tax breaks and guaranteeing government contracts as long as you do what they say?

No? His argument for fixing healthcare (ignoring repealing the ACA, which is axiomatic to these changes) was the following:

1) Health insurance can be sold across state lines
2) Allow taxpayers to fully deduct insurance premiums on their tax returns
3) Medicaid expansion.

Of those three things, exactly one of them even comes close to "letting capitalism fix it."

[Tierbook]

lol the net is not 1000 jobs. technically the net is -800 jobs.

so he prevented a bigger net loss of jobs

so he is still not a job creator

so net -800 and -7 million dollars

I must be terrible at math, but if 2k jobs were going to leave and now it's only 1k leaving, that means Trump saved 1k jobs. Where did those 1.8k extra that are leaving you are talking about come from..... also in what world is 7 million a lot? Payroll taxes for 1k people will pay that back to the state soon enough.

[Nadiru]

I must be terrible at math, but if 2k jobs were going to leave and now it's only 1k leaving, that means Trump saved 1k jobs. Where did those 1.8k extra that are leaving you are talking about come from..... also in what world is 7 million a lot? Payroll taxes for 1k people will pay that back to the state soon enough.

Assuming a slightly-below average income of 40k per year per job, it pays for itself partways through FY 2019.

[Tierbook]

Assuming a slightly-below average income of 40k per year per job, it pays for itself partways through FY 2019.

From what i've found online the average pay for Carrier Workers in Indiana is about 75k..

Number would probably be around 65k once you take out presidents http://www.payscale.com/research/US/.../Salary/by_Job

[Nadiru]

His argument was that competition would fix it. That's the extent of his elaboration on the matter. Repeal Obamacare and let competition fix it.

You didn't answer my question though. What happens if he does this type of deal with every business?

What if he does the type of deal where he threatens to withhold government contracts and offers them a pittance of a tax break in return? Well, I have a hard time seeing companies benefiting from this.

- - - Updated - - -

From what i've found online the average pay for Carrier Workers in Indiana is about 75k..

Number would probably be around 65k once you take out presidents http://www.payscale.com/research/US/.../Salary/by_Job

Assuming a more conservative 50k it pays for itself by around this time next year, then. The reason I take cautious assumptions is to illustrate just how big a slam dunk steady employment ends up being for tax receipts.

[paralleluniverse]

The corrected headline should be:

Crony Capitalist Trump breaks promise to keep Carrier in the US, 1100 jobs still being moved to Mexico despite a $7M tax bribe and free publicity.

[Venant]

I mean, that's really the entire problem: what matters has become divorced from what is.

Its not only Trump that engages in this type of behavior, its just that certain people 'like' other politicians more and therefore let them get away with far worse than Trump has done. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, and then made a cornerstone of his version of the 'war on terror' signing off on drone strikes(signature strikes) against people with unknown identities that 'look suspicious'. His counter terrorism policy would be the equivalent of lowering crime in Chicago by allowing police officers to drive around randomly murdering anyone they suspect of being in a gang. It's even more absurd when Obama praises BLM, when his major foreign policy initiative is the institutionalized murder of 'brown people' who 'look suspicious'.

So yes, falling for a cult of personality seems to be a human weakness, but many of the people outraged over Trump should really consider some of the horrible things that they allowed to happen under Obama because they had been suckered in to his cult of personality themselves. If all of the anti-Trump people accepted the advice of 'physician, heal thyself'; then there would be major political change. However, as a rational person you know that is not going to happen, because people are addicted to irrationality and indulging in their own emotions.

- - - Updated - - -

So he's arguing that the BEST CEO is making the wrong decision for short term psychological gains? Maybe in the corporate sphere. But in presidential affairs, this has a much larger impact. If he's going to take on his presidency as some kind of "i'll make sure i get elected a 2nd time"-scheme rather than actually doing any difference i'd be worried.

He's arguing that the best CEO strategy is to do something immediately that has really good optics, which is what Trump is doing. Also, who is it to determine what the 'wrong decisions' are? There are plenty of solutions to problems that are at the same time so horrific that people would be unwilling to accept them with the current system, does this mean that not attempting these solutions is the 'wrong decision' because the alternative is less effective?

[Acidbaron]

Mike pence promised 7 million dollar in tax cuts to keep those 1100 jobs.

I guess when you're already losing, losing a little bit less is a positive thing in the states.

[Daerio]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38173437

700$ per worker per year is the cost to the taxpayer on this deal according to sources now. Not great from a negotiation standpoint that we're paying them money to follow the law; (a law that isn't in place yet) but I don't think every company in America is going to get their own deal. Also, I'm pretty sure if a Democrat made a deal like this the liberals on this forum would be kissing their ass for it.

I'm personally curious how upcoming tax changes relate to this deal. I'm looking at this deal from the perspective that Trump already promised to lower their taxes, and I'm guessing that figure is higher than 7 million. Also, at least some of that 7 million is coming straight back in taxes, though I'm not going to dive into the math to figure out how much.

[Tijuana]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38173437

700$ per worker per year is the cost to the taxpayer on this deal according to sources now. Not great from a negotiation standpoint that we're paying them money to follow the law; (a law that isn't in place yet) but I don't think every company in America is going to get their own deal. Also, I'm pretty sure if a Democrat made a deal like this the liberals on this forum would be kissing their ass for it.

I'm personally curious how upcoming tax changes relate to this deal. I'm looking at this deal from the perspective that Trump already promised to lower their taxes, and I'm guessing that figure is higher than 7 million. Also, at least some of that 7 million is coming straight back in taxes, though I'm not going to dive into the math to figure out how much.

The company also has to invest 16 million dollars in an Indiana factory, to show the jobs are really staying, in order to get the tax incentives. They have to spend more than the tax cut, to get the tax cut. It's still a net loss to them.

On the other hand, if they want to keep those sweet sweet military hardware contracts, maybe this is worth it to them?

[Daerio]

The company also has to invest 16 million dollars in an Indiana factory, to show the jobs are really staying, in order to get the tax incentives. They have to spend more than the tax cut, to get the tax cut. It's still a net loss to them.

On the other hand, if they want to keep those sweet sweet military hardware contracts, maybe this is worth it to them?

I think this entire discussion is ignoring the possible negative consequences of them refusing to cooperate with the administration. Carrier isn't just cooperating out of the goodness of their heart or the incentives; they don't want the hammer to come down either. That's pretty strong leverage, and as Trump has said, never negotiate without leverage.

Liberals on this forum are trying to entirely ignore "the art of negotiating."

[Noxx79]

I think this entire discussion is ignoring the possible negative consequences of them refusing to cooperate with the administration. Carrier isn't just cooperating out of the goodness of their heart or the incentives; they don't want the hammer to come down either. That's pretty strong leverage, and as Trump has said, never negotiate without leverage.

Liberals on this forum are trying to entirely ignore "the art of negotiating."

"Not great from a negotiation standpoint"
You literally just said it was not a good negotiation.
Besides, you actually want the government to be threatening businesses? That's not a particularly conservative or Republican thing.

[DeadmanWalking]

No? His argument for fixing healthcare (ignoring repealing the ACA, which is axiomatic to these changes) was the following:

1) Health insurance can be sold across state lines
2) Allow taxpayers to fully deduct insurance premiums on their tax returns
3) Medicaid expansion.

Of those three things, exactly one of them even comes close to "letting capitalism fix it."

Selling Health Care across state lines doesn't work, Georgia has had a law that allows it since 2011 and never once has a out of state company even asked for paperwork to apply to supply Health Care in GA. The reason is that healthcare companies spend hundreds of millions on statewide surveys to figure out a states health needs to figure out how to manage the books and make their internal system work for profits and they are unwilling to move into a new state and spend this money to eventually make profits and compete against established companies which causes profits to lower for all the companies in that state. They would much rather just stay in the states they are in and just pull in profits for their services than spend money to expand and lose profits through increased competition.

It sounds really good during rallys but the reality is that it doesn't work in reality because it is far more profitable to keep with the system as is.

- - - Updated - - -

Besides, you actually want the government to be threatening businesses? That's not a particularly conservative or Republican thing.

Well neither is Trump when it comes right down to it.

[Daerio]

"Not great from a negotiation standpoint"
You literally just said it was not a good negotiation.
Besides, you actually want the government to be threatening businesses? That's not a particularly conservative or Republican thing.

When businesses are doing bad things, yes.

I happen to completely agree with the position that as America we should not allow businesses to ship their production, support, logistics and finances through foreign countries for the purposes of tax evasion while still having unfettered access to our market. Nothing about that is acceptable to me; if corporations wish to act as international organizations then they'll get taxed like them. The idea that we should allow foreign companies to undercut American business without being taxed is pretty crazy.

And I don't actually think this was a bad deal. There was cost associated with Carrier making this agreement, a lot of it. They had already made plans and invested money in moving those jobs. Democrats don't seem to have any viable alternatives.