Trump to Announce Carrier Plant Will Keep Jobs in U.S.

[ArcticCrusher]

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

 Number 1 way to force companies to stay is with the threat of govt contracts.  This is where a POTUS can yield tons of power.  

Rather brilliant.  Why couldn't the intellectual-elite come up with it?

[Highmark]

2 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Rather brilliant.  Why couldn't the intellectual-elite come up with it?

Simple.   Cronyism and Donations. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Highmark

[1jkw]

2 minutes ago, racer254 said:

You know, it gets so sickening to hear this type of response.  "drop in the bucket"  "pimple on kelloggs ass" 

I want to know, when to you guys actually decided when something is NOT a david and goliath analogy? 

Maybe the whole thought process about something being small in comparison should really just go away.

To a company that does billions of dollars of business, the amount it will cost them to keep those jobs here in the US is very small, it's just a fact, and when all the state and federal tax breaks are added in it's even smaller.

Using the  defense contracts as leverage was a smart move.

Maybe just using the amount of tax dollars spent or given up for each job saved and the spinoff jobs they support should be the measure.

[Snake]

Just now, 1jkw said:

To a company that does billions of dollars of business, the amount it will cost them to keep those jobs here in the US is very small, it's just a fact, and when all the state and federal tax breaks are added in it's even smaller.

Using the  defense contracts as leverage was a smart move.

Maybe just using the amount of tax dollars spent or given up for each job saved and the spinoff jobs they support should be the measure.

Last time we used fucked up metrics, the standards went from "Jobs Created!!!!!!!!!eleventy11!!" to "People Touched."

[Anler]

1 hour ago, Snoslinger said:

if Obama did this are you for fucking real? the guy saved GM and he gets blasted. "let the cards fall" "it's called capitalism" "quit wasting taxpayer money". he puts together stimulus packages to kick-start jobs and he gets blasted. he's helped create millions of jobs with low interest loans and other incentives and he's laughed at. if Obama had done this the same thing would apply, you'd all be saying the same things. but the second trump manages to save a handful of jobs, temporarily, at the expense of taxpayers, you all pop open the champagne. why don't you take a step back and look at your insanity? it really is amusing to watch.

That's what I mean. I supported the gm bailout. But you don't support Trump keeping carrier. That makes you a hack.

[racer254]

22 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

To a company that does billions of dollars of business, the amount it will cost them to keep those jobs here in the US is very small, it's just a fact, and when all the state and federal tax breaks are added in it's even smaller.

Using the  defense contracts as leverage was a smart move.

Maybe just using the amount of tax dollars spent or given up for each job saved and the spinoff jobs they support should be the measure.

So why to these company move the jobs overseas if this is just a small cost?  To constantly say a cost is "small" yet these companies still move the jobs to save $$$ doesn't really seem to coincide with each other.   So if the cost is small, why move?

[Highmark]

Just now, 1jkw said:

To a company that does billions of dollars of business, the amount it will cost them to keep those jobs here in the US is very small, it's just a fact, and when all the state and federal tax breaks are added in it's even smaller.

Using the  defense contracts as leverage was a smart move.

Maybe just using the amount of tax dollars spent or given up for each job saved and the spinoff jobs they support should be the measure.

I wouldn't say that.   It was on CNBC this morning their labor was going from $23 here to about $2.75 there.  That's almost $85 million is labor savings per year. 

Considering they made a profit of around $7.8 billion its small but still significant.   I'm not sure what % of income of UTX comes from Carrier but that is a 2% savings on income.   In today's world that is significant.  

[1jkw]

Just now, Snake said:

Last time we used fucked up metrics, the standards went from "Jobs Created!!!!!!!!!eleventy11!!" to "People Touched."

It's not fucked up at  all, simply put. Did the money given out or not collected yield a higher job retention number, and did those jobs in turn maintain or increase other jobs?

 

Those 1,000 jobs saved at Carrier will no doubt maintain other jobs from parts suppliers to Carrier. 

 

 

 

[Snake]

1 minute ago, 1jkw said:

It's not fucked up at  all, simply put. Did the money given out or not collected yield a higher job retention number, and did those jobs in turn maintain or increase other jobs?

 

Those 1,000 jobs saved at Carrier will no doubt maintain other jobs from parts suppliers to Carrier. 

 

 

 

[1jkw]

23 minutes ago, racer254 said:

So why to these company move the jobs overseas if this is just a small cost?  To constantly say a cost is "small" yet these companies still move the jobs to save $$$ doesn't really seem to coincide with each other.   So if the cost is small, why move?

Cheap labor is why they move.

The parent company of Carrier does billons of dollars in business with the US Government, the cost for them is small  to  keep those jobs here compared to what they could lose if they lost favor with the government.

The cost is small in comparison for the parent company, if Carrier was independently owned unless there was huge tax breaks or grants they would likely be gone, because to the smaller company ( Carrier)  by itself doesn't do billions of dollars of business with the Fed. Gov.

Edited December 1, 2016 by 1jkw

[1jkw]

15 minutes ago, Snake said:

 

Typical when you have no clue just deflect.

[Mainecat]

Trumps trade policy has been exposed. He fuckin lied.

[Mainecat]

20 minutes ago, Highmark said:

I wouldn't say that.   It was on CNBC this morning their labor was going from $23 here to about $2.75 there.  That's almost $85 million is labor savings per year. 

Considering they made a profit of around $7.8 billion its small but still significant.   I'm not sure what % of income of UTX comes from Carrier but that is a 2% savings on income.   In today's world that is significant.  

Manufacturing wages are 40 dollars a week in Mexico. The only way to fight this is to tariff.

[Snake]

1 minute ago, Mainecat said:

Trumps trade policy has been exposed. He fuckin lied.

If you like your plan.........

[02sled]

3 hours ago, MiSledder said:

I honestly dont think she wouldve cared, i truely believe power was her only concern

Of course it was.... and the ability to lay claim to being the first woman to shatter that glass ceiling that she referred to a number of times.

[Momorider]

3 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Manufacturing wages are 40 dollars a week in Mexico. The only way to fight this is to tariff.

 Carrier already said they were paying $3/hr in mexico that is $120 a week for 40 hrs and I think Mexico works more than 40 MCLIAR

[Highmark]

13 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Manufacturing wages are 40 dollars a week in Mexico. The only way to fight this is to tariff.

This was straight from Jim Cramer on CNBC this morning.  I'll take his word on this particular labor rate over yours. 

Hey I want jobs to stay here as much as anyone but this is significant savings.  Lets not even take into account the raises over time.  3% yearly starting at $23 v. 3% yearly starting at $2.75 builds up in a hurry.  Raises alone are around $3 million a year.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Highmark

[1jkw]

24 minutes ago, Highmark said:

I wouldn't say that.   It was on CNBC this morning their labor was going from $23 here to about $2.75 there.  That's almost $85 million is labor savings per year. 

Considering they made a profit of around $7.8 billion its small but still significant.   I'm not sure what % of income of UTX comes from Carrier but that is a 2% savings on income.   In today's world that is significant.  

85 million is a lot of money but not near what the 9.5 billion in work in progress now on the books with the Fed. Gov.

Half of the jobs are still going, add in the State and Fed. tax breaks ect. and having favor with an admin. that is going to increase military spending is smart on their behalf.

[Momorider]

 

[Highmark]

2 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

85 million is a lot of money but not near what the 9.5 billion in work in progress now on the books with the Fed. Gov.

Half of the jobs are still going, add in the State and Fed. tax breaks ect. and having favor with an admin. that is going to increase military spending is smart on their behalf.

$9.5 work in process sales or net income.   Either way I applaud any effort to keep jobs here but its understandable why some companies are being forced to do it.

I want to also be clear, NO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS should be done outside the US unless proven the need in a high amount of detail. 

[1jkw]

6 minutes ago, Highmark said:

This was straight from Jim Cramer on CNBC this morning.  I'll take his word on this particular labor rate over yours. 

Hey I want jobs to stay here as much as anyone but this is significant savings.  Lets not even take into account the raises over time.  3% yearly starting at $23 v. 3% yearly starting at $2.75 builds up in a hurry.  Raises alone are around $3 million a year.

Anyway you slice it, a worker here gets more in one day then a worker there gets in a week.

[02sled]

2 hours ago, Snoslinger said:

if Obama did this are you for fucking real? the guy saved GM and he gets blasted. "let the cards fall" "it's called capitalism" "quit wasting taxpayer money". he puts together stimulus packages to kick-start jobs and he gets blasted. he's helped create millions of jobs with low interest loans and other incentives and he's laughed at. if Obama had done this the same thing would apply, you'd all be saying the same things. but the second trump manages to save a handful of jobs, temporarily, at the expense of taxpayers, you all pop open the champagne. why don't you take a step back and look at your insanity? it really is amusing to watch.

There is a difference between a company going into bankruptcy and a company relocating. A very big difference. The spin off employment tied to automotive is much larger than just the manufacturer

 

1 hour ago, Ez ryder said:

ok based in the USA. with no major controlling shareholders from other places . so example no 51% owned by some Saudi prince

You will be hard pressed to find any publicly traded companies where anyone has 51%. Controlling interest is far less than 50%. An investor can control a business with perhaps 30% or 40% of the shares. If you have 30% of the shares you only need 21% of the shareholders to agree with you on a vote. That is if all the eligible shareholders actually vote. The little guy who owns 20 shares of a business rarely does so perhaps 10% of the remaining shareholders support you and you are the new CEO.

[Highmark]

Just now, 1jkw said:

Anyway you slice it, a worker here gets more in one day then a worker there gets in a week.

Absolutely so lets change the tax structure where American companies can compete here.   It wouldn't be difficult to do.   If you make 100% of your product sales in the US then a very low or zero tax rate.   If you make 50% then a 25% income tax rate.   Some sliding scale.  We already report the numbers so its not like its tough to calculate.

[1jkw]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

$9.5 work in process sales or net income.   Either way I applaud any effort to keep jobs here but its understandable why some companies are being forced to do it.

I want to also be clear, NO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS should be done outside the US unless proven the need in a high amount of detail. 

I 100% agree, every effort needs to be made to keep jobs here and Gov. should buy 100% US. made products.

 

[1jkw]

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Absolutely so lets change the tax structure where American companies can compete here.   It wouldn't be difficult to do.   If you make 100% of your product sales in the US then a very low or zero tax rate.   If you make 50% then a 25% income tax rate.   Some sliding scale.  We already report the numbers so its not like its tough to calculate.

Not sure if the US tax rate was zero if you can compete with the low wage and work standards of other countries.

Pretty sure in the past GE and other companies have paid zero tax.