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

[twa]

1 hour ago, Hersh said:

 

Ah, still searching for justification to support terrible policy. Would be more fun to watch if it wasn't bad for the country.

 

 

 

I don't see it as terrible policy as long as it is not the norm.

 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

I don't see it as terrible policy as long as it is not the norm.

 

 

Norm for who?  What we're seeing so far looks an awful lot like W's third term, so far.  In many ways.  

[Ray-Ban Dan]

Just so we're clear, Trane is the only way to go.

[Springfield]

46 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Norm for who?  What we're seeing so far looks an awful lot like W's third term, so far.  In many ways.  

 

I think I could settle for that, possibly.

[ClaytoAli]

22 hours ago, Hersh said:

Trump needs to call this out??

 

Trump is the leader in this kind of behavior. The leadership in the GOP needs to talk very serious with him or I expect many lawsuits to eventually be filed against Trump. 

 

Of course they could be sitting back and allowing this to happen so they can impeach him eventually.

 

[DogofWar1]

Well this sucks for the workers but was quite obviously going to happen.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/08/news/companies/carrier-jobs-automation/index.html

 

This is a big part of why these sweetheart deals are going to end badly.  Companies aren't dumb.  They will squeeze to get a deal about them keeping a physical factory with nothing about workers and their wages in the deal.  Then they keep the factory there, and heck, they'll throw some investment into the propaganda, because that always sounds good.  Meanwhile, that "investment" is them shipping robots in.  But we don't tell the workers that until it's too late, and after the cameras have all moved on.

[LadySkinsFan]

We seriously need a Don't Like button.

 

^^^Crap policies coming to a country near you.

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[Larry]

Like I said (I think elsewhere), we're going to see a whole lot of photo ops and publicity stunts on this subject. The real yardstick will be the BLS jobs report. 

 

(And huge numbers of people will only notice the former. If confronted with the latter at all, they will actually dismiss it. Because, they will say, the latter is propaganda.)

[No Excuses]

18 minutes ago, Larry said:

Like I said (I think elsewhere), we're going to see a whole lot of photo ops and publicity stunts on this subject. The real yardstick will be the BLS jobs report. 

 

(And huge numbers of people will only notice the former. If confronted with the latter at all, they will actually dismiss it. Because, they will say, the latter is propaganda.)

 

I'm not sure if the group that falls for this spin will be a huge number of people. He has come into the power in large part thanks to the white working class. The working class in general is going to see quite a bit of job loss in the coming years. 

 

It will be very hard to spin poor job growth to people on the ground who are seeing their or their neighbors livelihood in danger more and more. 

[LD0506]

14 hours ago, No Excuses said:

It will be very hard to spin poor job growth to people on the ground who are seeing their or their neighbors livelihood in danger more and more. 

 

Feh, no problem, it's because of the Dems, they did even MORE damage to the country in their squishy-soft lefty liberal voted-for-a-Muslim-president way than we thought, so just give us four more years.............

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[Larry]

2 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

While I really want to be cynical about this story (in lots of ways), I also have to wonder:  

 

Has the election of Trump caused companies like this to consider the PR to be a factor, even if a small one, in making decisions like this one?  

 

Might this be a good sign, even if one that's pretty much impossible to quantify?  

 

[Busch1724]

Despite the criticism Trump deserves, if he can build pride within the country and encourage consumers to buy "Made in America"; then that would be a success as companies would locate here as part of the PR. Maybe something like what Ford is doing can turn into a trend that positively impacts us. I would hope this trend would occur organically instead of through backroom dealings.

[DogofWar1]

Fahrenthold with the wet blanket.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Fahrenthold/status/816749237249654791

 

Also, over/under on number of fleshy humans who will be employed there in 10 years?  20?

 

And I suppose I should specify that independent contractors with consistent work at the factory count as "employed" despite the fact that independent contractors are kinda different than employees.

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Fahrenthold with the wet blanket.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Fahrenthold/status/816749237249654791

 

 

You mean, it's possible the decision had more than one factor?  

 

(Maybe the fact that the Michigan option was half the price was a factor, too.)

[Destino]

12 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

You mean, it's possible the decision had more than one factor?  

 

(Maybe the fact that the Michigan option was half the price was a factor, too.)

 

It does seem like these jobs debunking articles are providing alternative theories and additional factors more than they are actually debunking anything. 

 

That said I do think it unlikely that Trump's economic policy is the reason behind all these moves.  I just can't really buy into the notion that a business would drastically alter plans based on what they hope Trump will be able to do once he's President.  Building a plant is a long term investment and Trump could end up saddled with a democratic controlled congress before his first term is up severely limiting his plans to remake the US into a corporate utopia.  

 

[Hersh]

12 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

It does seem like these jobs debunking articles are providing alternative theories and additional factors more than they are actually debunking anything. 

 

That said I do think it unlikely that Trump's economic policy is the reason behind all these moves.  I just can't really buy into the notion that a business would drastically alter plans based on what they hope Trump will be able to do once he's President.  Building a plant is a long term investment and Trump could end up saddled with a democratic controlled congress before his first term is up severely limiting his plans to remake the US into a corporate utopia.  

 

Doesn't matter what the truth is, Trump will claim credit and some people will believe him. If I'm a company that he tries to bully, I'd pull out the Dick Cheney line and to let me know when he applies the same standards to his own products and own family. 

[twa]

22 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

Building a plant is a long term investment and Trump could end up saddled with a democratic controlled congress before his first term is up severely limiting his plans to remake the US into a corporate utopia.  

 

 

He would have to screw up royally for a Dem congress to happen.

The more likely result in 2 yrs is more Dem losses

[Hersh]

5 minutes ago, twa said:

 

He would have to screw up royally for a Dem congress to happen.

The more likely result in 2 yrs is more Dem losses

History says that is definitely not more likely though I think Gerrymandering prevents a Dem House nor do I see a Dem Senate in two years. 

[Larry]

38 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

That said I do think it unlikely that Trump's economic policy is the reason behind all these moves.  I just can't really buy into the notion that a business would drastically alter plans based on what they hope Trump will be able to do once he's President.  Building a plant is a long term investment and Trump could end up saddled with a democratic controlled congress before his first term is up severely limiting his plans to remake the US into a corporate utopia.  

 

 

Oh, I think it's guaranteed that "Trump's pro-growth policies" weren't the primary factor. 

 

For one thing, Trump hasn't even coherently stated any. Let alone implemented any. 

 

I guarantee you the the price tag was vastly more important a factor. (Businesses being focused on numbers with dollar signs in front of them, and all). 

 

 

---

 

13 minutes ago, twa said:

 

He would have to screw up royally for a Dem congress to happen.

 

 

Based on what I've seen so far, "screw up royally" isn't exactly outside the realm of possibility. 

 

But I do agree that it's unlikely that the damage will be spectacular enough to penetrate the reality denial shields that quickly. 

 

(Just look how long it took, to happen to W). 

[DogofWar1]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

You mean, it's possible the decision had more than one factor?  

 

(Maybe the fact that the Michigan option was half the price was a factor, too.)

Oh there were plenty of factors, I'm sure.  But saying it wasn't mostly Trump means challenging him.  Trump wants people to think these instances are him, or at least mostly him.  It's a play straight out of the Machiavelli playbook, do something nice for the common folk so they love you while royally screwing them over in larger but more obscure manners.

[twa]

7 minutes ago, Hersh said:

History says that is definitely not more likely though I think Gerrymandering prevents a Dem House nor do I see a Dem Senate in two years. 

 

the number of seats the Dems will need to defend is gonna be the killer.

History probably said a Trump win was impossible

 

 

[visionary]