Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fascinating thread. The truth about the jobs came out at the end. I'm no economist, so I appreciate the insights of those a little closer to this situation than me. A few comments follow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by szug-bot
Do explain. I am impartial here, really in surprise that 10k jobs are "coming back" to the States, but Trump's getting credit or not should be easy to explain.
For starts, Trump is not the president yet, though he likes to act like he is. And now we know that Mr. Longhi's comments were really "If, if, if".
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
Again, the biggest numeric job losses they projected were in services - not only retail and wholesale, but also healthcare - presumably because if we enter into recession again people will cut back on health care utilization. So it's not that surprising that we would be hit badly by a trade war.
Some manufacturing sectors would be badly hurt. For example, a major portion of Washington's economy is based around export of aircraft (Boeing) to China, meaning Washington would have the deepest recessionary contraction. Still, it looks like the secondary dip caused by drops in consumer demand would be more damaging than the manufacturing hit.
I think NAFTA was ill founded, but extricating ourselves from it now would be very, very difficult without economic dislocation just as bad as its implementation. It's probably easier at this point to try and cajole Mexico to improve labor standards until costs become closer to parity with the U.S.
Durable goods manufacturing is #4 in Washington's economy; non-durable goods #8. (I'm not sure what "non-durable goods" are, presumably goods intended for some sort of consumption. Maybe someone can help me out here.) "Key businesses within the state include the design and manufacture of jet aircraft (Boeing), computer software development (Microsoft, Nintendo of America, Valve Corporation), online retailers (Amazon.com, Expedia, Inc.), electronics, biotechnology, aluminum production, lumber and wood products (Weyerhaeuser), mining, and tourism." Not all the aircraft is for defense purposes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...hington_(state) Key Industries in Washington State
Discrediting the media is a pretty popular facist move -- look up the word Lugenpresse. This is what I see: "People say, SEE he saved those Carrier jobs, the media is trying to make THAT look bad? They are so biased!" But the people in the media are looking at the deal saying: "Hey, now. This is a really bad deal on its own, but also sets a terrible precedent for crony capitalism. This is not good!" And people call that bias. Recognizing the conflicts of interests, lack of qualifications, and poor judgement that Trump has already displayed does not mean they are biased.
Regarding the attacks on Melania -- I agree, save the personal attacks. But, in 2008, conservatives were outraged about Michelle Obama wearing a sleeveless dress. I think it is fair game to call out "family values" voters on their hypocrisy when their votes put a former stripper into the White House.
Agree. Re: the bold-I don't like personal attacks on family members either. However, they seem to go with the territory. The Kennedys and the Bushes seemed to let everything roll off their backs. They may have been angry, but they didn't go squawking to the press in return like Trump does. Obama himself said kids were off limits when crap was going around about Palin's kids, and he was right. But his own daughters caught flak, basically for being teenagers wearing short skirts, rolling their eyes at their dad, etc.
Negotiate better deals, like giving Carrier 7 million to ship half their jobs out of the country? No, Trump did nothing for this. If they're saying they are bringing in 10,000 jobs right now, they already had plans to do so. No one even knows what his economic policies look like.
Look up the average wage of a Carrier employee in Indiana (Hint: It's about $23 per hour). Now look up the average wage of a Mexican factory employee (Hint: about $5 per hour). Now do some math: the difference in the hourly wages is about $18 per hour. For a 40 hour work week and for 52 weeks in a year, we should multiply this $18 per hour by 2080 to get the labor cost savings per employee associated with a plant relocation to Mexico. By my math, it works out to $37,440 per year per employee. Multiply that by 1,100 employees, and you get $41 million and some spare change. Please explain to me how a one-time tax break in the amount of $7 million persuaded a large company like Carrier to forgo potential labor savings totaling over $40 million yearly.
BTW: Had Carrier not decided to remain in Indiana, how many jobs would there be at their Indiana plant? The fact that they eliminated half of the jobs is certainly better than having them move ALL of the jobs to Mexico, isn't it?
Look up the average wage of a Carrier employee in Indiana (Hint: It's about $23 per hour). Now look up the average wage of a Mexican factory employee (Hint: about $5 per hour). Now do some math: the difference in the hourly wages is about $18 per hour. For a 40 hour work week and for 52 weeks in a year, we should multiply this $18 per hour by 2080 to get the labor cost savings per employee associated with a plant relocation to Mexico. By my math, it works out to $37,440 per year per employee. Multiply that by 1,100 employees, and you get $41 million and some spare change. Please explain to me how a one-time tax break in the amount of $7 million persuaded a large company like Carrier to forgo potential labor savings totaling over $40 million yearly.
BTW: Had Carrier not decided to remain in Indiana, how many jobs would there be at their Indiana plant? The fact that they eliminated half of the jobs is certainly better than having them move ALL of the jobs to Mexico, isn't it?
Parent company of Carrier is United Technologies, which secures over $5B in government contracts a year. Is there a chance that they were told they would lose those if they didn't keep some jobs here?
Look up the average wage of a Carrier employee in Indiana (Hint: It's about $23 per hour). Now look up the average wage of a Mexican factory employee (Hint: about $5 per hour). Now do some math: the difference in the hourly wages is about $18 per hour. For a 40 hour work week and for 52 weeks in a year, we should multiply this $18 per hour by 2080 to get the labor cost savings per employee associated with a plant relocation to Mexico. By my math, it works out to $37,440 per year per employee. Multiply that by 1,100 employees, and you get $41 million and some spare change. Please explain to me how a one-time tax break in the amount of $7 million persuaded a large company like Carrier to forgo potential labor savings totaling over $40 million yearly.
BTW: Had Carrier not decided to remain in Indiana, how many jobs would there be at their Indiana plant? The fact that they eliminated half of the jobs is certainly better than having them move ALL of the jobs to Mexico, isn't it?
First of all, he didn't save jobs for 1,100 employees; he saved them for 730, and 700 more jobs down the road were lost at the Huntington plant.
Negotiating on an individual basis with companies, does not a jobs policy make. He just showed every smart CEO in America how to get a sweet tax break. And, follow the companies he is tweeting about going after next. All in Indiana, because that is the only place Pence can pull strings.
He spent that amount of time/resources on some abysmally small number of jobs -- like, 0.02% of the jobs in Indiana, let alone the country. How do you extrapolate that to the whole country?
Irregardless of all of that, Carrier didn't keep jobs because it was fiscally in their favor. They kept the jobs because their parent company has a ton of government contracts, and the likelihood of keeping those contracts with a President who hates them is low.
When a deal is so bad, that even Sarah Palin figures it out and is against it, you know it is pretty dang bad.
Last edited by mbw5100; 12-08-2016 at 10:51 AM..
Reason: misspelling
Parent company of Carrier is United Technologies, which secures over $5B in government contracts a year. Is there a chance that they were told they would lose those if they didn't keep some jobs here?
Hopefully; companies that enjoy the benefits of being granted US Government contracts should definitely have their arms twisted if they attempt moves that screw over citizens.
Let's set aside ideological issues and issues of character, and just directly address competence for a second.
Trump of course has no prior experience as an elected official. We have had five other presidents who did not have experience as an elected official prior to becoming president. Three (Eisenhower, Grant, and Taylor) were career military officers. One (Taft) was an attorney, then a judge, and finally Secretary of War under Teddy Roosevelt. The last was Herbert Hoover, who was an engineer and served as Secretary of Commerce under Harding and Coolidge. Trump has less experience with government than any of them.
Trump of course ran in large part on his business acumen. The problem is, his business record isn't great. His father was a legitimate self-made man, but Donald's choices in investments overall did worse than the general market did. Studies have suggested if put his money into an index fund in the late 1980s, he would be much richer today. He's certainly no Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Thus there's nothing in his past as a businessman to suggest that he has any unique insights which would help the nation.
Mind you, many of our past presidents have had flaws - as both human beings and as leaders. But the picture painted from what we know so far does not suggest that Trump will be near the top of the heap in terms of presidential competence.
I find it incredibly ironic that you were replying to a post talking about media manipulation, and then you cite highly dubious, and completely unfounded claims by the media.
They are using conformation bias to manipulate you, I thought you were intelligent enough not to fall for the partisan nonsense pushed by the msm. You would be much better off applying some of that skepticism you reserve for Fox News, to CNN. All the msm use partisan politics to manipulate their viewers.
First of all, he didn't save jobs for 1,100 employees; he saved them for 730, and 700 more jobs down the road were lost at the Huntington plant.
Negotiating on an individual basis with companies, does not a jobs policy make. He just showed every smart CEO in America how to get a sweet tax break. And, follow the companies he is tweeting about going after next. All in Indiana, because that is the only place Pence can pull strings.
He spent that amount of time/resources on some abysmally small number of jobs -- like, 0.02% of the jobs in Indiana, let alone the country. How do you extrapolate that to the whole country?
Irregardless of all of that, Carrier didn't keep jobs because it was fiscally in their favor. They kept the jobs because their parent company has a ton of government contracts, and the likelihood of keeping those contracts with a President who hates them is low.
When a deal is so bad, that even Sarah Palin figures it out and is against it, you know it is pretty dang bad.
Not arguing any of that or even in favor of whatever deal was made. I am merely trying to counter the suggestion that Carrier remained in Indiana because of the $7 million in tax breaks offered by the state of Indiana. I am sure that Carrier had what its management believed to be economic incentive to stay, but the relative chump change for a company of Carrier's size represented by the tax breaks were certainly not the decisive factor.
Parent company of Carrier is United Technologies, which secures over $5B in government contracts a year. Is there a chance that they were told they would lose those if they didn't keep some jobs here?
That's probably got quite a bit to do with the decision. Certainly much more than a measly $7 million tax break. It also likely had to do with the expectation that a Trump administration will favor a more lenient regulatory environment and that Trump will likely try to push the GOP controlled Congress to lower the federal corporate tax rate, which would result in a tax savings much larger than the $7 million offered by Indiana.
I'm not arguing in favor of the deal. I am just countering the notion that Carrier was bribed by some relatively small tax break.
First of all, he didn't save jobs for 1,100 employees; he saved them for 730, and 700 more jobs down the road were lost at the Huntington plant.
Negotiating on an individual basis with companies, does not a jobs policy make. He just showed every smart CEO in America how to get a sweet tax break. And, follow the companies he is tweeting about going after next. All in Indiana, because that is the only place Pence can pull strings.
He spent that amount of time/resources on some abysmally small number of jobs -- like, 0.02% of the jobs in Indiana, let alone the country. How do you extrapolate that to the whole country?
Irregardless of all of that, Carrier didn't keep jobs because it was fiscally in their favor. They kept the jobs because their parent company has a ton of government contracts, and the likelihood of keeping those contracts with a President who hates them is low.
When a deal is so bad, that even Sarah Palin figures it out and is against it, you know it is pretty dang bad.
Actually, Palin said the details of the deal haven't been released yet. People believe details of the deal were released when in reality the details being pushed by the media are nothing more than unconfirmed rumors (maybe confirmed details have since been released).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
