WSJ: Carrier Will Receive $7 Million in Tax Breaks to Keep Jobs in Indiana

[AsburySkinsFan]

40 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Old school Conservatives are not what won the nomination for him....the real ones are rather used to not getting their wishes by now.

They still put him in the White House. 

You do not get to shed culpability, and don't dare say "he's better than the alrernative" because if you do then I'm going to tag you in EVERY asanine thing he does.

[tshile]

32 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

 And Pence is talking about how the free market has failed.  

 

Well, when you have governments imposing completely different standards on companies in regards to environmental concerns, employee work conditions, wages, benefits, etc... is it really a free market?

 

[Dan T.]

In Indianapolis today, President-elect Donald Trump will tout his deal to stop nearly a thousand Carrier jobs from moving to Mexico. But at a ball bearing plant just a mile away, hundreds of Hoosiers may soon lose their jobs. In October, the Rexnord Corp. announced it "tentatively decided" to move its Indianapolis operation to another one of its facilities, in Mexico. Closing the plant would cost 350 workers their jobs, the union representing employees there told ABC News. The move is anticipated to happen sometime in the spring next year. Rexnord has not responded to ABC News' requests for comment. The president of the Indiana AFL-CIO, Brett Voorhies, started his career at Rexnord and has friends  and family members who work at the plant. He told ABC News that people are happy for their friends at Carrier but wish Trump could help them too.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/donald-trump-celebrates-saved-carrier-jobs-nearby-company/story?id=43905325

[tshile]

Trump's going to save the blue collar workforce.

 

100-200 jobs at time.

 

[skinfan2k]

pretty much every company that has plans to go overseas will now complain to the President. 

 

and why do Americans feel entitled that their job should stay in America???  We are a service economy now and consumers. We arent producers

[tshile]

1 minute ago, skinfan2k said:

pretty much every company that has plans to go overseas will now complain to the President. 

 

and why do Americans feel entitled that their job should stay in America???  We are a service economy now and consumers. We arent producers

 

everyone feels entitled to things they don't have but think they should have.
 

[PeterMP]

On 12/2/2016 at 10:53 AM, Rskins06 said:

I don't understand how this is even close to being a bad thing.  There are 800 families who are not having to now worry about looking for a job to support their families.

 

On the individual level, for those people and their families, it is a good thing.

 

On the state level of Indiana, it might actually be a good deal.  I'm dubious of the $16 million.  Industry has a history of over stating those types of things, and even if it is right, if $15 million of it is going to buy machines made in Germany, I'm not sure how much that really benefits Indiana.  Realistically, I don't think this is one of those things that we'll ever know.  I made the point before that the tax gain for keeping the people employed is not cut and dry.  Unemployment in the state of Indiana is actually historically pretty reasonable and I suspect even low (nationally based on most unemployment metrics (e.g. the U-3 and U-6) it is) and certainly to the level that would suggest that many of those people would have found other jobs so it isn't like you are losing economic activity and taxes for all of those people.

 

However, if you cannot see how these kind of deals don't set bad precedents (e.g. companies to get tax breaks simply by threatening to off shore jobs), and create at least the opportunity for crony capitalism and corruption (e.g. you give me company a tax cut, the company will donate money to your "charitable foundation", which is donating money to other politicians political campaigns so that they don't prosecute your other company for fraud), then I don't know what to tell you.

 

**EDIT**

From my perspective, at this time, the issue is not jobs.  It is the low wage growth over the last 30+ years and the growth of certain costs (e.g. health care and college mostly).  I'm not sure how allowing corporations to keep more money is going to fix any of those issues.

[FanboyOf91]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

 

It's good (short-term) politics, bad long-term policy.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

I understand that.

 

But, for various reasons, many of the people the democrats are trying to reach do not view it that way. Why is probably pages and pages worth of discussion, and I doubt we'd disagree much on it, but recognizing they don't see it that way matters if you care about reaching them; certainly if you want their votes for your policies.

 

I had a very good friend who was a blue collar worker who fell on rough times when the economy collapsed recently. I did all the research and put together a plan of action for him that involved using various forms of 'welfare' available to him. It included the timelines and a plan for the next 2 years to get back on their feet.

 

They (him and his girlfriend, with whom he had an infant at the time) refused to do it. They didn't want "handouts." I tried my hardest, I could not convince them to do any of it. It would have helped them immensely, and they were the type of person I personally think government assistance is for. They wouldn't do it.

 

These people exist and simply telling them they are wrong and trying to explain it doesn't work.

 

They wanted a job. Not a 'handout.' *shrug*

 

Nobody is telling them they are wrong.  That is their personal choice.

 

I don't take tax deductions on my charitable contributions.  There are people that have said doing such a thing is essentially stupid (mostly Republicans supporting Trump and Romney).  That's their opinion and find with me.  I disagree.  I know we that at least we qualified for reduced school lunch programs when I was young and growing up and my father refused to take it.  That was his opinion and his decision.

 

When people like that get unlucky or make not good choices, they are going to be hard to help, and I'm not sure what we can do about that.

 

But I strongly suspect people like that aren't celebrating this morning if they are one of the 800 jobs that got saved by giving Carrier specifically a tax cut, and I don't think they are going to celebrate if you they can keep their job because an environmental regulation that is positively affecting the health of other people got over turned either.

 

I strongly suspect, especially if explained to them, your friend would see the issues with crony capitalism and allowing companies to do things that negatively affect other people's health so that he can have a job.

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

53 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

I thought when Trump proposed a massive tariff on any imported goods from a company that moved jobs out of the U.S. it was lambasted?  Now you are behind it? And Pence is talking about how the free market has failed.  

 

We are in an alternate universe...

I cant find internet "proof" but I was listening to Michael Savage and he said re infrastructure security (power grids etc), I kid you not, "With the government comes great power and its about time that great power was put to use. The Fed govt should force the best and smartest employees of Microsoft to work at Homeland Security for 2 years, with Microsoft paying them."

 

I was stunned. Conservatives are now abandoning the "Fed regulation is bad, free capital market is good" mantra? Mark Levin 3 days ago was yelling about the Supremacy Clause and how sanctuary cities and city/local/state officials must follow Federal law. What happened to states rights? (I know immigration is a fed govt power, not the best example)

 

All that is gone now. Its a bank robbery by the right imo. They know they will have it so good for 4 years, grab as much as you can to take advantage, precedent and principles be damned.

 

I was happy to her Levin say the Carrier deal is bad news bc the fed govt shouldnt be given the right to help one company but not another just bc of who the president is. He said there will be a Dem president again and repubs shouldnt celebrate the Carrier deal bc it will come back to bite them when a Dem president does the same.   

[tshile]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

But I strongly suspect people like that aren't celebrating this morning if they are one of the 800 jobs that got saved by giving Carrier specifically a tax cut,

 

No, but they may have false hopes that they're in some line to receive attention from Trump down the road.

 

Again - when it comes to reaching people sometimes the facts are less important that the opinion. It doesn't matter if you and I agree their company will never receive anything from Trump, what matters if if those workers think they might. Trump sold that to a lot of people....

 

We've already seen one person come in here and talk about how Trump managed to do this before he was even President.... there are a lot of people looking at this situation exactly that way...

 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Basically Trump's presidency is going to be the lyrics of "And The Money Kept Rolling In (And Out)" from Evita, isn't it?

 

I'm a smelly liberal so I don't oppose the government intervening in industries in ways big and small, but I think the effect should be broad and somewhat fair.

 

If I'm a competitor of Carrier, I'm furious not only that they got the deal they got, but that Trump basically did a national infomercial for them yesterday. The President Elect stood in front of the Carrier logo talking about how awesome carrier was on national tv for God knows how long.

 

Out of curiosity, if you wanted to hire Citizen Trump as a pitchman and get 30 minutes of commercial time on CNN and Fox, how much would that have cost last year?

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

Carrier is a big company, but it's owned by United Technologies, a gigantic defense contractor that does a lot of business with the federal government—soon to be headed by one Donald J. Trump. 

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/donald-trump-working-class-indiana

 

Im going to assume that UT and Carrier probably donated decent coin to the Indiana gov and trump. 

 

That ball bearing plant down the street needs to make some military ball bearings asap. 

[PeterMP]

33 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

No, but they may have false hopes that they're in some line to receive attention from Trump down the road.

 

Again - when it comes to reaching people sometimes the facts are less important that the opinion. It doesn't matter if you and I agree their company will never receive anything from Trump, what matters if if those workers think they might. Trump sold that to a lot of people....

 

We've already seen one person come in here and talk about how Trump managed to do this before he was even President.... there are a lot of people looking at this situation exactly that way...

 

 

Which is why I took the time to write a post to them.  There are people out there that are not going to respond to reasonable arguments.  I'm not sure what you can do about those people.

 

The other thing I'd say about the Carrier deal, it is good for those individuals that those jobs are staying, but again, looking at unemployment data, it is hard to argue that jobs alone are a big issue in much of the country (e.g. on a national level).  The issue is wage growth vs. expense growth.  If those jobs are here for the next 10 years with essentially no wage growth, I'm not sure how much you've really helped those workers.

 

In terms of Trump and stopping off shoring more generally, I'm not against trying to do something.  I think mostly it is a losing battle, but I think in the context of trying to do something we can say larger scale (e.g. nationally) these types of deals aren't probably good.

 

(I do think Trump is focused on the wrong end.  He's worried about companies leaving.  I've always thought it should be more the other way.  I'd be curious about exploring something around the the idea that the US is a unique market in the world in that we consume, especially per capitia, than any other market.  You should have to "pay" to have access to the US market.  If that's in the in the context of jobs that's something I'd be willing to explore.  If you are doing $X amount of business here, then you must employee Y number of people in the US.  

 

I'm not quite sure how that would work or what the larger ramifications would be, but that makes more sense than charging US companies to off shore jobs.  Long term, all that's going to do is make US companies uncompetitve against international companies, which means international companies are going to be able to under cut US companies and over time drive the US companies out of business.  It makes a lot more sense then giving out company specific tax cuts, which only encourages threat of off shoring jobs by other companies and at least sets the appearance of crony capitalism and corruption, and certainly favors larger companies that are in a better position to off shore jobs.)

 

We can fight ignorance with education, but I'm not sure what you do with intentional ignorance.  If you have solutions, I'd be happy to listen.

 

**EDIT**
In general, you seem to spend a lot of time here pointing out problems (with the left/Democrats) without pointing out solutions.

[LD0506]

16 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

In general, you seem to spend a lot of time here pointing out problems (with the left/Democrats) without pointing out solutions.

 

Interesting.........

 

Not to be a noodge- not right now anyway- but it feels to me that this is shortsighted on some level. One of the big issues we have as citizens of this country is even trying to define what the problems are and prioritize them, way before any solutions get bandied about. A question asked does not automatically and immediately call up an answer, problems pointed out are at best the very first fumbling steps to even considering IF there is a solution. We have issues, major ones, a lot of them, and unless and until we can wade through all the visceral fog and reach some sort of consensus on what they even are there are no chances to find answers.

 

The preceding was an unpaid public service announcement, we now return you to your regularly scheduled cage match................

[SkinsHokieFan]

I think we can officially say that any BS from the Republican party about "small limited federal gov't" is just that, BS.

 

At least we won't have to hear about Ronald Reagan anymore 

[Larry]

2 hours ago, TimmySmith said:

You made a completely worthless statement with regard to the subject at hand.  I figured that correcting you might get you back on topic.  The tax incentives are over ten years.  The tax benefit per employee is annually.  

 

I maintain that the reality of $700 spent for $7K gained is worthwhile.  Are you saying it's not?

 

 

 

You did not "correct me", because I made no statement whatsoever regarding time frames. 

 

I did did not make a statement, worthless or otherwise. I asked a question. (One which you've now ignored twice). 

 

I'll repeat it for you:  If, (as people are asserting) handing out tax breaks to businesses which employ people results in increased tax revenue, then why not do it for all businesses which employ people?  

 

I will note that making completely unsupported claims that "tax credits increase revenues ten fold" is not a response to the question. (Even if it were supported, or true). 

 

3 hours ago, alexey said:

Existing customers cannot always get the new customer deal

 

youre right about the potential for abuse though

That's a good point.  Paying to come is not the same as paying to stay.  

 

1)  Carrier is an existing customer. 

 

2)  And you're right. Paying (cherry picked) people to stay is much easier to abuse.

[SkinsHokieFan]

From that leftwing rag, the National Review

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442665/trump-carrier-bailout-economically-unsound

 

Quote

But the math is the math is the math. Trump and Pence are trying to sell you a free lunch, the same way the Keynesians and their magical spending multiplier do when they promise that government stimulus programs (Trump is pushing one of those, too) will somehow magically pay for themselves.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442665/trump-carrier-bailout-economically-unsound

[tshile]

41 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

**EDIT**

In general, you seem to spend a lot of time here pointing out problems (with the left/Democrats) without pointing out solutions.

 Well, i'm a little ill-equipped to argue trade/economic policy here. I'm afraid of embarrassing myself. I ask questions from time to time, but generally I stay away from proposing solutions about trade/economic policy here.

 

I have, on multiple occasions especially in the middle of the election cycle, said that the US market should be a special market and we should require others to "pay" to be a part of it. Having access to our market is and should be treated like a privilege, I believe was my specific wording. You can substitute "pay" with some many ideas: tariffs, labor laws enforced, etc.

 

In terms of solutions, I think we should look out for ourselves first. I think we should stop hiding behind Economists' grand appeal to increasing utility, while ignoring that the increases go to the wealthiest of the country and the rest of us fall behind. I think we should stop stretching our military out so much and spending so much money messing with other countries, and (again) focus on us more. I also think the bigger issue is how a portion of our country appears to lack even the basics of education these days (specifically - critical thinking; in general; fake news spreads so easily because we're lazy and dumb.) This goes even further into crime, etc etc.

 

All of which  I have posted about multiple times, through multiple threads here on ES. Most of the time I get met with a variety of simple responses taking shots about how isolationism/protectionism is <insert tired argument that doesn't apply to what was actually said>, white/middle class people can't/shouldn't comment on the poverty issue, etc etc.

 

So yeah, I generally stay away from economic policy discussion here. It's rare anyone tries to actually get into the details anyways. You, PF Chang, and a few others do. Though most of you just call the rest of us isolationists/protectionists for suggesting that we get the raw end of the deal on global trade because other countries lack the labor/environmental laws, and that going on and on about how our free trade made the lives of people in <insert random county> better doesn't really do a whole lot of people here who've watched their jobs go away and never come back.

 

Also, at the idea that I only point out problems with the left/democrats. I guess you just don't pay attention.

[FanboyOf91]

12 minutes ago, SkinsHokieFan said:

I think we can officially say that any BS from the Republican party about "small limited federal gov't" is just that, BS.

 

At least we won't have to hear about Ronald Reagan anymore 

 

Not true. If the Dems ever retake the White House, you'll be hearing all about it from Fox News on down to the grassroots voter about how  "the GOP needs to remind the latte-loving liberal Democrats about the free-market Constitutional conservative principles that are the bedrock of-"

 

(runs out of the room screaming)

[twa]

14 minutes ago, SkinsHokieFan said:

From that leftwing rag, the National Review

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442665/trump-carrier-bailout-economically-unsound

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442665/trump-carrier-bailout-economically-unsound

 

If we had listened to National Review we would have Cruz for president.

 

But ya'll really don't want to listen to them except when you think it helps you....

[PeterMP]

16 minutes ago, tshile said:

 Well, i'm a little ill-equipped to argue trade/economic policy here. I'm afraid of embarrassing myself. I ask questions from time to time, but generally I stay away from proposing solutions about trade/economic policy here.

 

I have, on multiple occasions especially in the middle of the election cycle, said that the US market should be a special market and we should require others to "pay" to be a part of it. Having access to our market is and should be treated like a privilege, I believe was my specific wording. You can substitute "pay" with some many ideas: tariffs, labor laws enforced, etc.

 

In terms of solutions, I think we should look out for ourselves first. I think we should stop hiding behind Economists' grand appeal to increasing utility, while ignoring that the increases go to the wealthiest of the country and the rest of us fall behind. I think we should stop stretching our military out so much and spending so much money messing with other countries, and (again) focus on us more. I also think the bigger issue is how a portion of our country appears to lack even the basics of education these days (specifically - critical thinking; in general; fake news spreads so easily because we're lazy and dumb.) This goes even further into crime, etc etc.

 

All of which  I have posted about multiple times, through multiple threads here on ES. Most of the time I get met with a variety of simple responses taking shots about how isolationism/protectionism is <insert tired argument that doesn't apply to what was actually said>, white/middle class people can't/shouldn't comment on the poverty issue, etc etc.

 

So yeah, I generally stay away from economic policy discussion here. It's rare anyone tries to actually get into the details anyways. You, PF Chang, and a few others do. Though most of you just call the rest of us isolationists/protectionists for suggesting that we get the raw end of the deal on global trade because other countries lack the labor/environmental laws, and that going on and on about how our free trade made the lives of people in <insert random county> better doesn't really do a whole lot of people here who've watched their jobs go away and never come back.

 

Also, at the idea that I only point out problems with the left/democrats. I guess you just don't pay attention.

 

1.  I wasn't talking about economic policy.  I was talking about the problem you specifically pointed out and that is reaching people that believe Trump is going to help them.  What do we do about people that are (easily) duped by politicians?

 

2.  It has made lives better here too in the context of reduced prices and other things.

 

3.  Generally, I reject the idea that globalization has to result in most of the gains going to the top.  Most of the recent gains have gone to the top, but I'm not even sure that has much of anything to do with globalization vs. the weakening of labor (which started back in the 1970s), trickle down economics based tax cuts, and bailouts for big companies (the Great Depression was a great leveler of wealth inequality (though I'm not sure the pain was worth it)).  I think it is very likely possible to put in place policies that allow for globalization without gains going primarily to the top, and even without globalization, it is possible to have gains go mostly to the top (they did in the 1920s).  The general longer term increase in the trend of wealth inequality started in the 1970s.

[SkinsHokieFan]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

If we had listened to National Review we would have Cruz for president.

 

But ya'll really don't want to listen to them except when you think it helps you....

 

Lets stay on topic snowflake.

 

Cruz can run for the title of Jesus again in '24 

[Destino]

I support tax incentives to keep or attract jobs to the US, even if we start calling it bribery all of the sudden.  The global market place has changed and the US government's approach has to change with it, not turn fatalist and accept it.  We should be make running a business in the US as cheap and advantageous as possible for those that employ a large percentage of their workforce here.  We don't want to combat wealth creation, the problems here are wealth gap and wealth accumulation at the top.  Policies that encourage businesses to send as middle class jobs to low paying nations, and fold some of the savings into executive pay, work against us.  A goal we should all be able to agree with is that we want corporations to spend as much money as possible employing Americans.  We should be arguing about how to make that happen, not if we should even bother trying. 

 

It's not just about tax incentives though.  The US needs to spend on infrastructure in ways that also encourage business growth, especially targeted growth in specific areas where development is sorely needed.  Want to help struggling areas?  Spend money upgrading the infrastructure and stipulate that government contracts go to those that agree to hire a certain percentage of local residents to do the work.  Bring jobs into those communities so that you do more than just raise the rent and shuffle the poor somewhere else. 

 

No chance this happens though.  Companies are very happy offshoring jobs, and their paid shills in DC aren't going to upset that.  Republicans will never support massive increases in infrastructure spending, never mind trying to target that spending in communities that need it the most. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

1.  I wasn't talking about economic policy.  I was talking about the problem you specifically pointed out and that is reaching people that believe Trump is going to help them.  What do we do about people that are (easily) duped by politicians?

 

2.  It has made lives better here too in the context of reduced prices and other things.

 

3.  Generally, I reject the idea that globalization has to result in most of the gains going to the top.  Most of the recent gains have gone to the top, but I'm not even sure that has much of anything to do with globalization vs. the weakening of labor (which started back in the 1970s), trickle down economics based tax cuts, and bailouts for big companies (the Great Depression was a great leveler of wealth inequality (though I'm not sure the pain was worth it)).

 

1. Oh. Whoops. I don't know. There's an education issue there. I don't know how you get them to understand the situation better when they feel belittled by you. Lie to them? Is that any better? It seems to work better...

 

2. Yeah reduced prices. Another great argument from economists that also neglects a serious part of the problem - reduced prices at walmart doesn't do much for people who lose their jobs and can't find more work. The group of people we're discussing also seem to have great pride in having a job, but I don't often hear them boasting about how cheep their goods are. There's a huge disconnect between the people and the academics/researchers on this.

 

3. I'm not saying it has to, I'm saying many of these people we're discussing seem to think that is what has happened. As for the rest of it, out of my wheelhouse. I imagine there's a lot of things that have contributed. But people seeing their jobs go overseas, for cheaper costs, seem to see company owners making more money while they have no work.