Indiana losing 1k Jobs

So, I hear that this company is sending about 1,000 jobs overseas (Mexico). I realize that the part of the company that was moving is inefficeint and losing money...but couldn't Trump have kept those 1k jobs in the USA somehow?

Other urls found in this thread:

wsj.com/articles/indiana-gives-7-million-in-tax-breaks-to-keep-carrier-jobs-1480608461
blog.dilbert.com/post/153905823756/the-new-ceos-first-moves-and-trump
indystar.com/story/money/2016/03/02/nothing-comes-meeting-between-gov-pence-head-carrier-utec/81220606/
youtube.com/watch?v=Tjs3TuYRNdA
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Trump could very easily have told UI that if those jobs left, they could kiss any government contracts goodbye.

Instead he gave them tax breaks for moving jobs to Mexico, just less of them.

UT*

...

That is a good point. So why didn't he do this?
Seem like too much bullying? Seems he wouldn't care about that.

Better than doing nothing to be honest

maybe because he cares more about the CEOs and wants to be their friends after his presidency is over

This I gotta hand to him though. I think heard that Obama didn't do very much in situations like these.

I suppose. If such a simple answer as:
was available then why not do it?

>Trump could very easily have told UI that if those jobs left, they could kiss any government contracts goodbye.

Thats exactly what he did though shill

>trump desperate to make good
>makes """""deal""""" with carrier
>give them massive tax breaks and they still ship 1300 jobs abroad and even say theyll send more
>give trump his 1000 jobs to keep out of pity
>"TRUMP IS A HERO!!!!"

Then why are they still sending 1300 jobs to Mexico?

8 years!

When China's bubble explodes you won't see these kind of things ever again, just wait a few years and the factories will come back. Trump doesn't have to do anything in fact.

Couldn't have Obama?

People point out legit problem and solution.

>shill

Gotta love these faggots

Why didn't they open a 2nd factory and create jobs?

Why didn't Trump solve world hunger too?

I missed that bit in Obama's 2012 campaign.

I don't know a whole lot about the Carrier incident, but It probably relates to what is happening with a particular company that is/was also moving a large part of their production to Mexico.
There wasn't much that he could do. The section that is moving had been operating at a deficit. If UT had been a bit bigger, they could bring down their cost with a decent amount of automation. Problem is the entry cost for it, and it turns out that the only solution was to move out or let it die. Those jobs had an expiration date long before the announcement was made earlier this year.

Wouldn't an economic collapse in china just make labor that much cheaper?

The jobs are never coming back. Learn how to program like the rest of us. Also make work visas illegal.

pretty sure they are just downsizing and not moving anyone to mexico. i could be wrong because it was a shaky source

Here is what Salon.com said back in July:

>No, it wasn’t. This was a calculated greed decision. Severing this workforce of 2,100 top-quality, experienced and dedicated producers makes questionable business sense: The move to Mexico is expected to save UTC only $70 million a year in labor costs (a blip on the spreadsheets of a global behemoth that hauls in $56 billion a year and has an uninterrupted 22-year record of increasing dividends).

So $7 million incentives over 10 years VS $70 million per year in labor cost savings. Less than half will be leaving so UTC will still save $25-30 million per year.

So it seems like Pence and Trump did a good really deal with UTC. $7 vs $350-400 million over ten years. Quite a bargain.

Trump is literally saying he will not let anymore jobs go to Mexico while letting more jobs go to Mexico. Sure it's nice he got Pence to save some of them with a generous tax break but he's already breaking a major campaign promise.

wsj.com/articles/indiana-gives-7-million-in-tax-breaks-to-keep-carrier-jobs-1480608461

A crash in China's economy is the only thing that separates the people from a revolution, if the increasing middle class loses its money the PRC has its days counted. When China makes actual worker laws they will compete in even terms with the rest of the world.

Companies will see that and learn from the example which means India and Brazil will also collapse.

'Member when Burger King moved to Canada and liberals lost their shit and Obama said there was nothing he could do to stop them? And 'member when Trump saved over 1000 jobs to fulfill a promise he never made simply by promising competitive businesses taxes and an end to excessive regulation, all before taking office? I member. Guess there were a few options open to Barry that he chose not to take.

>700 dollars a year in tax cuts per job saved is "generous"

Where have you been for the last 8 years when Obama doubled our debt at a cost of 100k per job created?

So the standard for really good job is "only" -1,300 jobs? Just picture yourself as an employer.
>Your man comes in and says
>"Hey boss I am headed out on a victory tour. We only lost 1,300 contracts with the deal I just made!"

....
>You: "Your fucking fired."


That is the opposite of the promise.

Also, "Salon"...wat?

Repost.

Tax Breaks, Subsidies, Incentives have always been part of these deals - no one is denying that.

What has been happening is, all these big corporations were enjoying all of these tax breaks, incentives and STILL moving out jobs from America.

With Trump he is just making them play fair and make the incentives two way street. Reward paves the way for a future that can be more focused on a sustainable approach.

Trump will gain political capital with these sorts of maneuvers that he can then leverage in cooperative efforts with the rest of the government. Trump needs more than anything else to prove himself politically in the short term, because he won't be given as much leeway as his predecessors to implement long term solutions with upfront costs.

His strategy must be dynamic and trend towards long term stability in order to have a lasting impact, which could mean a reversal of tactics after momentum has developed. Rewarding positive behavior will probably be the go-to tactic until momentum is developed.

Long term, I'd favor tariffs when possible to increase our domestic utilization of resources. But I'll always be hesitant after seeing the abuse of corn subsidies and the associated sugar tariffs that seem to have no expiration date.

Heh. Spanish IIndustrial Eng. Immigrant here. We're already seeing a decent bit of onshoring, have been for what seems to be the last 5 years, however many go straight for automation and minimizing floor personnel where possible.
>tfw I'm the immigrant taking their jerbs.

So...

You do know Donald Trump and Mike Pence spent their thanksgiving negotiating with Carrier to keep 1,400 jobs in Indiana right?

Or are you just trying to blatantly lie to anyone ignorant enough to believe you?

>B-b-b-but Obama!

Obama being bad doesn't excuse Trump being bad.

>So the standard for really good job is "only" -1,300 jobs? Just picture yourself as an employer.

blog.dilbert.com/post/153905823756/the-new-ceos-first-moves-and-trump

The political filter misses the story completely. As usual.

Here’s the real story. You need a business filter to see it clearly. In my corporate life I watched lots of new leaders replace old leaders. And there is one trick the good leaders do that bad leaders don’t: They make some IMMEDIATE improvement that everyone can see. It has to be visible, relatively simple, and fast.

Why?

Because humans are not rational. Our first impressions rule our emotions forever. Trump has a second chance to make a first impression because his performance as President is fresh ground. Trump is attacking the job like a seasoned CEO, not like a politician. He knows that his entire four-year term will be judged by what happens before it even starts. What he does today will determine how much support and political capital he has for his entire term.

Donald Trump actually found a way to keep American jobs while Obama did pic related basically.

800. 300 were going to stay anyways but Carrier said they could count them so Trump could say he saved a thousand jobs.

So you think too that automation will basically kill China's faux-capitalism based on slave labor?

700 dollars a year per job is an exceptional payoff. Cry all you want, but Obama simply shrugged his shoulders when Carrier made the announcement. Hell, he even mocked Trump earlier in the year for saying he could save the jobs.

And again, he should have made it a big win. He only offered the carrots and not the stick (losing government contracts).

Should have been able to save all the jobs.
Kinda easy.

So the promise to keep jobs in America has already downgraded to "keep SOME jobs in America." Fantastic.

>muh true scottsman

That's exactly what he did.

First off, a tax break just means Carrier gets to keep their own money. I hope this becomes very common in our upcoming glorious new era with companies keeping more of their profits and giving less to democrat welfare programs. With less money for benefits, the welfare dregs now find work, maybe in some of the jobs that don't go overseas. Maybe serving hamburgers and fries to the guys working in the Carrier plant. It worked in '94, it can work again.

Second, Trump doesn't have any control over jobs going from one place or one country to another. All he can do is incentivize - which was done here to save some, not all, of the jobs.

An immediate win allows for immediate results.

Also take note he hasn't even been in office yet and he found a way around a problem that Obama shrugged at.

Donald said so himself, "you know what would stop ME from moving jobs to mexico and chasing as much profit as the government will allow? if the government removed the profit potential by adding a huge fucking tariff to companies that leave the country"

A buddy of mine sent me the video of Obama in a town hall being asked by a Carrier employee what he's supposed to do now that his job is being shipped to Mexico. Obama basically says deal with it and get a new job and that Trump can't save his job either. "What can he do? What does he think he can do? What magic wand does he have to bring jobs back?" Uh. I don't know, how about the high uncompetitive tax rates? Or excessive innovation and growth crushing regulations? Seems like the president has at least some input on those factors. Not quite a magic wand and not really rocket science or even advanced economics. Hell, I'd say it's not even intermediate economics.

He's only starting and he hasn't even been inaugurated yet and he was able to keep jobs that Obama said can't be kept.

This. Trump got cucked hard and his idiot supprters still try to pass this off as a victory. It's the taxpayers that are going to be paying for those contracts.

Why is corporate welfare good but actual welfare bad?

>Trump won't be able to keep the jobs in America
>Trump keeps some jobs
>SEE TRUMP DIDN'T KEEP ALL THE JOBS

It will keep 108 million dollars in the local economy.

It's not rocket science - You can;

Give Tax Breaks, Keep Jobs And Money In Local Economy

Not Give Tax Breaks, Lose Jobs And Give Gibs To Local Economy Instead

As stated prior to the election, Trump is not a Neo-Con. His economic policy is barely any different from Bernie.

Bernie wanted to tax companies more, give the cash to the people.

Trump taxes them less, and forces them to give jobs (cash) to the people.

Both Neo-Liberals and Neo-Cons hate it because it's not competitive.

see Also: He hasn't even been in office yet and he was able to do something Obama can't.

Pretty sure the state will simply mow down opposition like it usually does

Journalists will be banned so no one will ever know

People that will never work get fucked and moves to Canada in the quest for gibsmedats, meanwhile actual hard-working people get to conserve jobs.

No, he promised to bring the jobs back. Not:
>As president I will lose fewer jobs to Mexico and China.

Are you actually retarded?

>Not taking peoples money is the same as giving people money

...Makes sense.

> able to do something Obama can't

See jobs flee to Mexico?

>Oh no more government contracts?
>Guess our contracts over time to help other governments

Don't get me wrong he could renegotiate the contracts easy enough, but that would only have a negative impact on our quality.

It's best to keep these matters seperate and to show good will as an encouragement for the future

He's already winning too much.

I would take a $700 per worker tax cut rather than all the unemployment, food stamps, and Medicare amounts for those and their families affected.

Are you actually moving the goal posts?

Obama saw plenty of that.

Hell, when he handed over billions to the auto-industry, he was able to sit back while those billions were used for golden parachutes and executive bonuses, as the jobs were sent to Mexico.

Cool guy.

Hope. Change. Etc.

None of those jobs have to do anything with his administration and most of them are taken by inmigrants anyway

Not automation entirely, but as demand grows, shipping becomes a bigger issue. Look at what has happened with Honda, Hyundai, Toyota: It's cheaper to have a really advanced plant in the middle of nowhere, Ohio, than to produce in their respective countries and import. There are other things contributing, but it's a large list that I don't think has as big an impact.
Chinas faux slave labor is, strange enough, still cheaper than a fully automated environment. Consider that goods from china not only have human value add, but also r&d, quality control(barely at times), and delivery, and it's impressive that they even pretend to pay these individuals.

Also, those do not represent net job creation, don't fall for Obamaleaf's lies

So...

4 more years of this?

>Great Success!

Trump cut a deal to save 1000 jobs for 10 years for $7 million ($700 per job, per year).

Obama's stimulus bill had an estimated cost of $278,000 per job.

Liberals really can't do basic math and see what a win this was for the US.

Yeah, but think about it the way our shill friends think about it;

>Trump cuts taxes
>Less for welfare
>Creates jobs to cover the cost of that welfare
>Tyrone has to go to work instead of sitting on his ass smoking weed and planning his next rape

Don't you see the injustice here?

Its the "Keep just enough jobs so Americans don't revolt" plan.

If there are enough full fat American bellies then that will keep all the poverty losers complacent.

Money spent on welfare will just be spent elsewhere. That's how the US government works.

>None of those jobs have to do anything with his administration

Yeah they just happened magically. Total coincidence .Changes in policy had nothing to do with it.

If the Carrier deal is any indication, then no.

But who knows, maybe Trump will, as he said, get tired of winning, and revert back to Obama's playbook and simply give cash to billionaires and screw the working class.

We'll have to wait and see.

please tell me you have a source vid on that pic, please. Or just more info, anything; tell me a fuckin' story about it I don't care

We really just need to go full fascist and invade Canada or something. I fucking hate being at the mercy of these (((globalists))).

In addition, Pence got Carrier to repay the government $65 million for previous incentives to stay in state.

Source: indystar.com/story/money/2016/03/02/nothing-comes-meeting-between-gov-pence-head-carrier-utec/81220606/

Thank you for posting an utter nonsense reply to my post.

I appreciate the (You), even if you couldn't be bothered typing out a logical response.

Here's the deal, Satan.

What actually happened was They gave them $700k/yr in tax incentives to spend at minimum of $53M/yr in wages and $16M over 10 years on state level spending. In doing so if they leave the state within 10 years they will owe the $700k/yr back (retrospectively) and also pay a $10M penalty they would have owed if they left in the first place.
It's an amazing deal. They had already built the factory in Mexico and are going to run the thing at 40% capacity instead of 80% because of Trump. That dead factory space is a huge burden to them, if you know anything about manufacturing.
This also saved another 1100 jobs in the state that would have been lost if those jobs left the state, totaling roughly $40M/yr in external savings to the state of IN (plus the $50M or so in wages)

>If the Carrier deal is any indication, then no.

I mean literally the opposite of this. 1,300 jobs leave. Company gets tax break.

What am I missing? It could have been worse? Obama "could" have been worse too.

Of course not but most of those jobs were created when the global crisis ended onwards because the economy recovered, also you have to take into account both jobs created and jobs destroyed.

Obama's net job creation is slighty largen than Bush's

It's a natural result of a cyclical economy. The vast majority of those jobs are lower paying than the ones they replaced, to say nothing of this being the slowest economic recovery in history, despite Obama having doubled the national debt to spur the economy.

I don't reply seriously to Australians if I can help it.

Learn to use tineye.
youtube.com/watch?v=Tjs3TuYRNdA

Trump cucked America with this deal; he gave them a bunch of corporate welfare and they're still going to send a bunch of jobs to Mexico. He should have made sure they can't send any jobs to Mexico and not given them anything in return, they shouldn't be sending jobs anywhere in the first place.

Trump isn't exactly anti-debt friend. (I am ok with this.)

Tell me if my math is wrong, I'm a lawfag, not a STEM fag, but....

7 million in tax breaks (given by the state of IN, not the Fed Gov) over ten years is massive?

$7 mil / 10 yrs = 700k

700k / 800 jobs saved = $875 tax break per year, per job saved

From an ABC news article from earlier this year, the average wage of an employee at this Indy Carrier plant is $41k per year

$41 k x 800 jobs x 10 years = $328 million in gross earnings

$328 mill x IN income tax rate of 3.23% = $10.5 million in taxes the state can collect

I don't usually reply to retards, but OK.

Corporate welfare is returning profits to the entity that created them. i.e. someone or something productive. They get to decide how to spend the capital that they created. You know, adding another factory to build or make more shit that other people want.

Actual welfare is taking capital created by someone else and giving it to a non-productive member of society to buy drugs, bling, or other non-essential goods and services. No actual capital is created, the previously generated capital is taken from its creator, handed out in exchange for votes, and redistributed differently by dregs. Money goes to Mexican cartels instead of new factories, for example.


Corporate welfare = good, more shit is produced. Economy grows.

Actual welfare = bad. Dregs spend money they didn't earn. Vote democrats and socialists into power to maintain flow of stolen capital. Actual entity that did earn it and had it taken, now has reduced means and less incentive to produce more.

There's nothing wrong with smart debt to create leverage, but Obama doubling the national debt with absolutely nothing to show for it is pathetic.

This, I'd say Canadians don't deserve it but they have shit internet and are following the cUK model of banning and censoring. American will only ever have ALL of its manufacturing jobs back after WW3 like after WW2.

Or we can just forget these shit factory work and focus on educating our people, but that would mean they stop voting for retard republicans and democrats and WE DONT WANT THAT

how many of those are part time jobs

I don't think that in this case the arithmetic average is the best representative of the jobs' wage saved, but you have a good point.

I'll never understand you liberal fascists

Why would you want to punish people to do things when you can incentivize them?
What good would strong arming everyone into submisson do?

Trump is showing good diplomacy. I'm surprised you cucks aren't impressed

> Have to subsidize all the retards in this country because they can't compete in a competitive system
> Don't worry guys, it's okay when the republicans do it!
> Sup Forums supports this garbage

How many of those are part time minimum wage jobs?

"Slowest recovery" is still a recovery. And their debt accumulation will be about the same (trump a bit more actually based on his econ plan).

Meh. He was a shit pres. Saying that Trump will be about the same as Obama implies he will also be a shit pres.

What did the factory cost? Why couldn't trump get them to walk away from the Mexico factory entirely? They receive BILLIONS per year from fed gov contracts.

>he could just make their life harder instead of making their business more viable
smells like liberal spirit

yeah, I'm assuming none of these laid off people get new jobs that pay as well in the next ten years, which is most likely not true. But it does show that this deal isn't nearly as bad as everyone on the left is claiming it to be

Like your postings as I've vriefly speed read the thread (time constraints).
Interested if you or any else has a link to those specific details, or whether it's 1 part what we know and 1 part filling in the blanks.

cheers.

? Who do you think I voted for? I am just asking questions.

Go call some actual shill or redditer a cuck.

and don't forget the 800 * 1200 * 18 = 17.2mm dollars that Indiana won't have to spend on unemployment for those workers and the secondary effects of the 328mm that will support other jobs in the local economy. It's about the best deal I can imagine frankly

how'd you match the video after tineye?