Carrier stays in the USA.

[David1967]

In the spirit of giving credit where it is due. Carrier, who was going to close its Indianapolis plant and send the jobs to Mexico is now leaving the bulk of those jobs here in the USA. This is a good thing and I hope this is a trend that continues to grow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/trump-to-announce-carrier-plant-will-keep-jobs-in-us.html

 

[Quetzal]

Excellent news! Let's keep that ball rolling.

 

[David1967]

Excellent news! Let's keep that ball rolling.

More companies stay here, everybody wins.

 

[Quetzal]

More companies stay here, everybody wins.

I am the first to admit that I am not a Trump fan but if we can see more of this...

In exchange for keeping the factory running in Indianapolis, Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence are expected to reiterate their campaign pledges to be friendlier to businesses by easing regulations and overhauling the corporate tax code, according to a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump.

The state of Indiana also plans to give economic incentives to Carrier as part of the deal to stay, according to local officials.

(From the OP)

I would be very happy. It is a give and take. As long as these tax codes don't open up loop holes for corruption at the expense of the workers.

 

[David1967]

I am the first to admit that I am not a Trump fan but if we can see more of this...

He wasn't my first choice either, but if he does something good we should give him credit. I would be posting the same had it been Hillary that was President elect and pulled this off. If it helps the US economy and workers, I could care less what party they are a member of. It was heartbreaking seeing the video of the workers getting laid off

I would be very happy. It is a give and take. As long as these tax codes don't open up loop holes for corruption at the expense of the workers.

Time will tell. But I hope not.

 

[YmirGF]

This is pretty amazing news consider Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet. Also, Wall Street is still having the party of the millennium...

 

[David1967]

This is pretty amazing news consider Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet. Also, Wall Street is still having the party of the millennium...

Exactly. I hope this is the way he continues after he is sworn in.

 

[Quetzal]

This is pretty amazing news consider Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet. Also, Wall Street is still having the party of the millennium...

I think this was a bit easier since Pence has connections in the state. Still, good news.

 

[David1967]

I think this was a bit easier since Pence has connections in the state. Still, good news.

Not sure to what extent, but he may have played a part in Ford continuing to make a particular SUV that was going to Mexico, staying in the Kentucky plant. I say "not sure", because how much influence Trump had on that depends on which news source you read.

 

[David1967]

This is pretty amazing news consider Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet. Also, Wall Street is still having the party of the millennium...

Yeah, I haven't got my statement yet, but my IRA should be doing pretty well right now. To quote former president Bill Clinton, it really is "the economy stupid."

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Yea, we just federally subsidized an inefficient air-conditioning plant!

We'll pull the money from education or infrastructure or something. . . Nah, that makes people mad. Let's just get the debt up to 25 trillion in the next 4 years.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yea, we just federally subsidized an inefficient air-conditioning plant!

We'll pull the money from education or infrastructure or something. . . Nah, that makes people mad. Let's just get the debt up to 25 trillion in the next 4 years.

I mean... Kuz has a point.

We're giving huge tax incentives to a company that didn't want to be here simply because there are costs associated with paying workers fair wages and relying on decent safety standards. There are costs associated with existing in a first-world country, and that cut into their profits... What bargaining chip could we really use, other than making someone else pay for their company's location?

What's actually good about this? What great deal was actually struck? Who does it really benefit?

Tax burdens don't decrease just because someone gets a break on paying their portion of it - they get shifted. When a huge corporation gets a long-term break, the difference in the requirement for that bill just gets placed onto someone else. How is that fair to anyone but Carrier?

I'm glad that those wages stay here and those workers get to keep their jobs. But the overall issue is bigger than that, isn't it?

We're also forgetting that we, the consumer arm of the economy, can make better choices about which companies we purchase our products from. If an American organization wants to move their industry outside of our borders, and if we truly care about the impact that such decisions have on our national production and commerce, then why don't we use that collective capital by investing into companies that want to stay here? Wouldn't that be the better outcome for everyone? It would not only put pressure on current and future companies to stay here, but it would reward those that do and keep all of that capital flowing inside the our system.

Rewarding a company for threatening to leave is not a very good deal, in my humble opinion. What precedent does it set for others?

 

[Quetzal]

I'm glad that those wages stay here and those workers get to keep their jobs. But the overall issue is bigger than that, isn't it?

Devils advocate time. I think it is easy to have a big picture perspective when you are not directly impacted. I like your post, it does offer a nice contrast. But none of that matters for the folks who would have lost their jobs. Just a thought.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Devils advocate time. I think it is easy to have a big picture perspective when you are not directly impacted. I like your post, it does offer a nice contrast. But none of that matters for the folks who would have lost their jobs. Just a thought.

I completely agree. It's a devastating thing and I'm not unaware of the personal impact that it can have. There are ways to mitigate that impact, however.

It's very similar to the coal industry and the huge infrastructure that surrounds it. We are going to bend over backwards over the next few years trying to keep a dying system alive, and it's basically just to appease the millions of workers attached to that industry and to the companies that profit from it... There are ways to remedy the human cost of cauterizing this energy wound, namely through relocation packages, purposeful education and retraining, or early retirement and health benefits to those people who have already given their most productive years to the industry. But you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. I know it sucks - but omelettes are good for you.

We can't fix any problem without appropriately addressing all the known facets of it - and I think that's ultimately the biggest hindrance towards real progress. The actual solution is a little more complicated than just a Tax Break, or a few tweets, so no one wants to actually dig in and provide wisdom, guidance, or leadership - especially when it's so politically damaging to even suggest such a thing. We just offer mass organizational incentives and hope for the best, sometime in the future. We just did it with Carrier. We did it with the banks and the auto industry a few years ago, and we're going to keep doing it going forward. In the long-run, it's foolish.

 

[Quetzal]

There are ways to remedy the human cost of cauterizing this energy wound, namely through relocation packages, purposeful education and retraining, or early retirement and health benefits to those people who have already given their most productive years to the industry. But you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. I know it sucks - but omelettes are good for you.

If that includes an increase in taxes because the government (state or federal) has to pay for that, the GOP supporters are out by default.

 

[David1967]

Yea, we just federally subsidized an inefficient air-conditioning plant!

We'll pull the money from education or infrastructure or something. . . Nah, that makes people mad. Let's just get the debt up to 25 trillion in the next 4 years.

Unbelievable. We have to make it profitable for business to stay here. And no, education wont suffer. Employed people equal taxpayers that fund the system not take it away. Would you rather them be out of work and on welfare? Who do you suppose is going to fund that? There is no down side to keeping people in good paying jobs.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If that includes an increase in taxes because the government (state or federal) has to pay for that, the GOP supporters are out by default.

Ironically, that's exactly what happens when highly profitable organizations get passes on paying part of the collective tax burden... What they're arguing for, knowingly or not, is spreading the cost of things across the very working classes that they're claiming to help. It's a nonsense argument.

Unbelievable. We have to make it profitable for business to stay here. And no, education wont suffer. Employed people equal taxpayers that fund the system not take it away. Would you rather them be out of work and on welfare? Who do you suppose is going to fund that? There is no down side to keeping people in good paying jobs.

Was Carrier not profitable before?
Were they hemorrhaging money left and right because of the regulations and modest tax rate that they had to cover? Were the extremely high wages that they paid their employees just too much for their organizational funds to cover? Or were they simply after higher profits than what they were already making?

A healthy market should provide opportunities for those workers who lost their jobs to assimilate into, shouldn't it? If the surrounding market isn't healthy, then that's a failure in the system which was most likely allowed to occur because of short-sighted deals like this one... Think about it.

Instead of funding short-term employee welfare, we've decided to fund long-term corporate welfare. Which is better in your opinion? Who do you suppose is going to fund that?

There is a downside when those very same workers have to pay to keep their jobs, don't you think?

I am not advocating or praising the fact that people could lose their jobs. It's horrible. But what we're doing is continuing a pattern of normalizing huge tax breaks for organizations that have no real problem with paying their current burdens - we are shifting that burden onto people who have to choose between how much gas they can purchase that week, or how much they can spend on groceries... the common worker. Why is that more acceptable than "punishing" organizations for not making better choices?

 

[David1967]

Why is that more acceptable than "punishing" organizations for not making better choices?

Because the organization is not "punished", they just go elsewhere. Its the unemployed person with enough pride to actually work for a living that are punished.

 

[David1967]

Let's just get the debt up to 25 trillion in the next 4 years.

Rather it be for jobs than welfare. Besides the fact that under the current administration its almost there anyway. Guess that's ok ?

 

[Quetzal]

Rather it be for jobs than welfare. Besides the fact that under the current administration its almost there anyway. Guess that's ok ?

I have a question. Would you be okay paying 5%-7% more federal taxes if it meant a country wide relocation/training for workers in the coal industry? This money would go towards relocation of employment, living stipends, and a education curriculum specific to bring them up to speed in a related industry (in this case, energy/power). (This is a specific example because it is relevant to what we brought up a few posts ago.)

As for me? You bet!