Thread: Merry Christmas Carrier employees

OriginalGoober - 11/30/2016 at 01:13 AM


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


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/trump-to-announce-carrier-plant- will-keep-jobs-in-us.html?_r=0


MartinD28 - 11/30/2016 at 01:42 AM

Details of the carrots or inducements?

Maybe Trump will expand upon this if & when he does a press conference. Looking forward to see how he responds to questions by the "corrupt & biased media". The pres-elect hasn't done a press conference since July. These are quite different than standing in front of a crowd in an arena or state fair and spouting anything off the top of his head regardless of accuracy and inciting a crowd. It actually takes knowledge of subject matter. The American people are waiting for the first couple of press conferences by Donald.


Muleman1994 - 11/30/2016 at 02:51 AM

Where Obama has repeatedly failed, Donald Trump succeeds:

Carrier says it has deal with Trump to keep jobs in Indiana

By JULIE PACE - From Associated Press - November 29, 2016 9:10 PM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — Air conditioning company Carrier said Tuesday that it had reached a deal with President-elect Donald Trump to keep nearly 1,000 jobs in Indiana. Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence planned to travel to the state Thursday to unveil the agreement alongside company officials.

Trump spent much of his campaign pledging to keep companies like Carrier from moving jobs overseas. His focus on manufacturing jobs contributed to his unexpected appeal with working-class voters in states like Michigan, which has long voted for Democrats in presidential elections.
The details of the agreement were unclear. Carrier tweeted that the company was "pleased to have reached a deal" with Trump and Pence to keep the jobs in Indianapolis.

A transition official confirmed that the president-elect and Pence, who is ending his tenure as Indiana governor, would appear with Carrier officials Thursday. The official insisted on anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the trip ahead of an official announcement.

Trump said last week that he was "making progress" on trying to get Carrier to stay in Indiana.
In a September debate against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, he railed against Carrier's decision to move hundreds of air-conditioner manufacturing jobs from Indianapolis to Mexico.

"So many hundreds and hundreds of companies are doing this," Trump said. "We have to stop our jobs from being stolen from us. We have to stop our companies from leaving the United States."

During the Republican primaries, Trump said he would said he would demand that Carrier parent company United Technologies reverse a decision to move two of its Carrier heating and ventilating parts plants to Mexico, eliminating 2,100 U.S. jobs.

Carrier wasn't the only company Trump assailed. He pledged to give up Oreos after Nabisco's parent, Mondelez International, said it would replace nine production lines in Chicago with four in Mexico. He criticized Ford after the company said it planned to invest $2.5 billion in engine and transmission plants in Mexico.

The event in Indiana will be a rare public appearance for Trump, who has spent nearly his entire tenure as president-elect huddled with advisers and meeting with possible Cabinet secretaries. He plans to make other stops later this week as part of what advisers have billed as a "thank you" tour for voters who backed him in the presidential campaign.



[Edited on 11/30/2016 by Muleman1994]


LeglizHemp - 11/30/2016 at 02:59 AM

LOL, my guess is the american citizens will have ended up keeping them here, after all with the Tax cuts Trump is giving the parent company....he isn't doing sh!t.....we the tax payers will be.

Beyond tax breaks, the company would have had several motivations to reach a deal with the Trump administration, said Mohan Tatikonda, an operations management professor for the Indiana University Kelley School of Business.

For one, Carrier's parent company, Connecticut-based United Technologies Corp., is a large government contractor. The company "would like to start off on the right foot" with a new presidential administration, Tatikonda said, particularly because the government plays a large role in its business.

[Edited on 11/30/2016 by LeglizHemp]


Bhawk - 11/30/2016 at 04:29 PM

quote:
Details of the carrots or inducements?


If I was a CEO, I'd be on the phone with the transition team right now.

"Whattaya give me to stay? We weren't even planning on moving, but what ya got?"


porkchopbob - 11/30/2016 at 06:25 PM

quote:
Where Obama has repeatedly failed, Donald Trump succeeds:



And Mike Pence, since a lot of tax incentives for businesses are also determined by the state.

I'm happy for the 1000 employees (1000 other Carrier jobs are still Mexico-bound), but it will be interesting to see if this drives prices up for customers. How will this be funded?

quote:
While Carrier will forfeit some $65 million a year in savings the move was supposed to generate, that’s a small price to pay to avoid the public relations damage from moving the jobs as well as a possible threat to United Technologies’ far-larger military contracting business.

Roughly 10 percent of United Technologies’ $56 billion in revenue comes from the federal government; the Pentagon is its single largest customer. With $4 billion in profit last year, the company has the flexibility to find the savings elsewhere.


Ah, I see. So, Yuge Federal Tax incentives for the corporation, but we saved 1000 jobs. Does this set a precedent that companies can threaten to leave in order to broker a profitable federally financed deal to stay? Tax dollars at work...


Muleman1994 - 11/30/2016 at 07:13 PM

Much to the liberals dismay, Donald Trump has saved American jobs and fulfilled a campaign promise.

Not a word from Obama who failed to stop companies and jobs from fleeing The U.S.

Long before taking his oath of office Donald Trump is getting the job done.


Swifty - 11/30/2016 at 07:21 PM

quote:
Much to the liberals dismay, Donald Trump has saved American jobs and fulfilled a campaign promise.

Not a word from Obama who failed to stop companies and jobs from fleeing The U.S.

Long before taking his oath of office Donald Trump is getting the job done.



You are the class clown aren't you? It is one thing to save jobs using the long arm of the government as Trump and Pence have done and another thing entirely to establish an environment where investment and industry function together to create jobs. What you are applauding here is state driven socialism and not capitalism. You seem to get the two very different economic systems confused.


BoytonBrother - 11/30/2016 at 07:22 PM

The obsession with Obama continues. Very creepy.


porkchopbob - 11/30/2016 at 07:29 PM

quote:
quote:
Much to the liberals dismay, Donald Trump has saved American jobs and fulfilled a campaign promise.

Not a word from Obama who failed to stop companies and jobs from fleeing The U.S.

Long before taking his oath of office Donald Trump is getting the job done.



You are the class clown aren't you? It is one thing to save jobs using the long arm of the government as Trump and Pence have done and another thing entirely to establish an environment where investment and industry function together to create jobs. What you are applauding here is state driven socialism and not capitalism. You seem to get the two very different economic systems confused.


Federal meddling in the Free Open Capitalist Market is only OK with Mule when Republicans do it. Also, Federal handouts at tax payer expense are only OK when Billion Dollar Corporations do it. He doesn't understand the parallels.

We don't know what deal was made. Until then, unless I worked for Carrier, I wouldn't celebrate yet. Trump can't strike deals with every company that finds profit overseas.


porkchopbob - 11/30/2016 at 07:30 PM

quote:
The obsession with Obama continues. Very creepy.


You should see the wall of Hillary photos on his bunker ceiling.


Muleman1994 - 11/30/2016 at 07:38 PM

quote:
quote:
Much to the liberals dismay, Donald Trump has saved American jobs and fulfilled a campaign promise.

Not a word from Obama who failed to stop companies and jobs from fleeing The U.S.

Long before taking his oath of office Donald Trump is getting the job done.



You are the class clown aren't you? It is one thing to save jobs using the long arm of the government as Trump and Pence have done and another thing entirely to establish an environment where investment and industry function together to create jobs. What you are applauding here is state driven socialism and not capitalism. You seem to get the two very different economic systems confused.

___________________________________________________________________________ ____________

Ah a leading WP moron keeps making a fool of himself.
If it were socialism the government would have nationalized the business and seized it.

The establishing an environment where investment and industry function together will be done, as Donald Trump has stated, when he is actually in office and can get the 35% corporate tax rate, highest in the world, down to a level where companies and therefore jobs will stop fleeing the U.S.

Obama was told, by business leaders, what needed to be done and Obama ignored the professionals as he has throughout his failed Presidency.



pops42 - 11/30/2016 at 10:34 PM



As Trump claims to have saved Carrier jobs, details are hazy

by JOSH BOAK & BRIAN SLODYSKO & JULIE PACE, The Associated Press
11 minutes ago
WASHINGTON --
In persuading Carrier to keep hundreds of jobs in Indiana, President-elect Donald Trump has claimed victory on behalf of factory workers whose positions were bound for Mexico. But the scant details that have emerged so far raise doubts about the extent of the victory.
At Carrier's Indianapolis plant, the deal spares about 800 union workers whose jobs were going to be outsourced to Mexico, according to federal officials who were briefed by the heating and air conditioning company. This suggests that hundreds will still lose their jobs at the factory, where roughly 1,400 workers were slated to be laid off.
Also, Trump has yet to say what the workers might have to give up or what threats or incentives were used to get Carrier to change its mind.
Sen. Joe Donnelly, an Indiana Democrat, said he has lingering questions about what the announcement could mean for the workers.
"Who is going to be retained? What is the structure there will be for the retention? What is going to be put in place?" Donnelly said. "Are these the same jobs at the same wage? I would sure like to know as soon as I can."
Fuller answers could emerge Thursday, when Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who is ending his tenure as Indiana governor, are to appear with Carrier officials in Indiana.
On the campaign trail, Trump threatened to impose sharp tariffs on any company that shifted its factories to Mexico. And his advisers have since promoted lower corporate tax rates as a means of keeping jobs in the U.S.
Trump may have had some leverage because United Technologies, Carrier's parent company, also owns Pratt & Whitney, a big supplier of fighter jet engines that relies in part on U.S. military contracts.
In February, United Technologies said it would close its Carrier air conditioning and heating plant in Indianapolis and move its manufacturing to Mexico. The plant's workers would have been laid off over three years starting in 2017.
Whatever deal Trump struck with Carrier does not appear to have salvaged jobs at a separate branch of United Technologies in Huntington, Indiana, that makes microprocessor-based controls for the heating, air conditioning and refrigeration industries. That branch will move manufacturing operations to a new plant in Mexico, costing the city 700 jobs by 2018.
Huntington Mayor Brooks Fetters suggested that local officials lack the political clout to preserve those jobs.
"At a local level, there was not much that anybody was going to do to make global, publicly traded companies make a decision other than what they made for the benefit of their shareholders," Fetters said.
Donnelly said he worries about other factory job losses threatening his state. Bearing maker Rexnord, which has a factory near the Carrier plant in Indianapolis, plans to lay off about 350 workers. And electronics manufacturer CTS plans to eliminate more than 200 jobs at its Elkhart plant, he said.
Union leaders who represent the Carrier workers were not involved in the negotiations that the Trump team had with their employer.
Chuck Jones, president of United Steelworkers Local 1999, which represents Carrier workers, said of Tuesday's news: "I'm optimistic, but I don't know what the situation is. I guess it's a good sign. ... You would think they would keep us in the loop. But we know nothing."
Trump's deal with Carrier may be a public relations success for the incoming president. It also suggests that he has unveiled a new presidential economic approach: actively choosing individual corporate winners and losers — or at least winners.
To critics who see other Indiana factories on the verge of closing, deals like the one at Carrier are unlikely to stem the job losses caused by automation and cheap foreign competition.
The prospect that the White House might directly intervene is also a concern to some economists. The incentives needed to keep jobs from moving often come at the public's expense. They note that Trump's activism might encourage companies to threaten to move jobs overseas in hopes of receiving tax breaks or contracts with the government.
"It sets up a race to the bottom," said Diane Lim, chief economist at the nonprofit Committee for Economic Development.
Carrier's parent company indicated that moving production to Mexico would save the company $65 million annually. Because of pressures like that, states routinely give manufacturers incentives, and "economists who recoil at the thought of this are living in a dream world," said Scott Paul, president of the American Alliance for Manufacturing.
For Trump, a challenge will be trying to duplicate the Carrier feat many times over to retain and increase the nation's 12.3 million manufacturing jobs.
Since the start of 2015, the Labor Department has issued over 1,600 approvals for layoffs or plant closings as a result of shifts of production overseas or competition from imports, the American Alliance of Manufacturing noted.
But other forces, such as consumer demand and the value of the dollar, also determine whether assembly lines keep humming.
Payroll services provider ADP said Wednesday that manufacturers shed 10,000 jobs in November. U.S. manufacturers have struggled in the past year as a stronger dollar has cut into exports and domestic businesses have spent less on machinery and other equipment.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Wednesday that Trump would have to replicate the Carrier deal 804 times to meet President Barack Obama's record. He said that Obama created 805,000 jobs in manufacturing and that the figure is much higher if existing jobs that have been protected are included.
Trump acknowledged the extent of the problem on the campaign trail this year.
"So many hundreds and hundreds of companies are doing this," he said. "We have to stop our jobs from being stolen from us. We have to stop our companies from leaving the United States."
Carrier wasn't the only company Trump assailed during the campaign. He pledged to give up Oreos after Nabisco's parent, Mondelez International, said it would replace nine production lines in Chicago with four in Mexico. He criticized Ford after the company said it planned to invest $2.5 billion in engine and transmission plants in Mexico.


alloak41 - 12/1/2016 at 12:38 AM

Looks like the jobs are staying. Hatred of Trump aside, isn't that something we should be happy about?


Swifty - 12/1/2016 at 01:11 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Much to the liberals dismay, Donald Trump has saved American jobs and fulfilled a campaign promise.

Not a word from Obama who failed to stop companies and jobs from fleeing The U.S.

Long before taking his oath of office Donald Trump is getting the job done.



You are the class clown aren't you? It is one thing to save jobs using the long arm of the government as Trump and Pence have done and another thing entirely to establish an environment where investment and industry function together to create jobs. What you are applauding here is state driven socialism and not capitalism. You seem to get the two very different economic systems confused.

___________________________________________________________________________ ____________

Ah a leading WP moron keeps making a fool of himself.
If it were socialism the government would have nationalized the business and seized it.

The establishing an environment where investment and industry function together will be done, as Donald Trump has stated, when he is actually in office and can get the 35% corporate tax rate, highest in the world, down to a level where companies and therefore jobs will stop fleeing the U.S.

Obama was told, by business leaders, what needed to be done and Obama ignored the professionals as he has throughout his failed Presidency.





China has plenty of private companies but remains communist. Northern Europeans have private industries but are socialist states.

The issue in this case is that Trump cut a deal. As a private entrepreneur he can cut deals like this and it can be a good deal. But as a President Elect he is responsible for establishing polices and opening opportunities for capital investment in the types of industries that create jobs. Tax policy aside he has not yet moved in that direction.

I hope he succeeds.


LeglizHemp - 12/1/2016 at 01:40 AM

quote:
Looks like the jobs are staying. Hatred of Trump aside, isn't that something we should be happy about?


1000 out of 1400, yes, it is a good thing....on the surface. just like last 8 or 8 or 8 or 4 or 8 or 4 or 2 or 6 year stretches of presidents (change years and from prez to congress if you like for my story) , we should also know the details of any deals. and of course one side will love it and the other will hate it. then we should look at how people have felt over the years about similar deals, decide whether their choice is partisan or not......dissect it to the molecular level....and then only then.....will we know if this was a good thing


OriginalGoober - 12/1/2016 at 01:41 AM


I think this sets a great tone for the new year. Number one, the PRes -Elect is not just spending time on the golf course. Number two, he is not afraid to pick up the phone and learn about the barriers preventing companies from staying here and is willing to commit to change things. Number three, he is about results.

THis is a small but significant win for the Pres. Elect


LeglizHemp - 12/1/2016 at 01:49 AM

i wouldn't start so early with time on the golf course....i mean the man owns golf courses


LeglizHemp - 12/1/2016 at 02:32 AM

i guess my state of indiana is paying them 700k to stay? hmmmm....well least people in other states aren't buying these jobs.....they are buying other jobs? what is the message here? is this welfare?....is this a different kind of welfare and does it benefit the employee or the employer....or the taxpayer......i'm just asking......thoughtful responses are appreciated


nebish - 12/1/2016 at 03:47 AM

The only thing wrong with this deal is that it doesn't go far enough, maintaining enough of the jobs and send a stronger signal to other companies.

What cost? What is the cost not to do it?

Laid off workers go on unemployment. After employer sponsored healthcare benefits expire for laid off workers, more subsidies get paid under the Affordable Care Act for their health insurance. Community taxes collected under pay roll taxes evaporate. School districts have less money. Property values fall. Been there, done that. We've been doing that for decades. Not working out too well is it. And you wonder why the rust belt voted Trump? You wonder why blue collar union members voted Trump? Go have a fancy economist tell them again that tax incentivizes for Carrier is a bad thing. You go tell that to the stores in the towns those workers live in. You go tell that to the emergency services people that rely on approved tax levies. Laid off workers don't vote for levies.

You see the domino effect? We can't afford to not do it.

I don't care if they want use the carrot or the stick. We must keep jobs here and we must get more jobs here from both foreign and US companies a like. Doesn't matter to us (US) if it is a corporate tax abatement program to keep people employed here, or tax and tariff penalty program for companies either moving operations outside our border or foreign companies bringing in foreign make goods.

Carrier have alot of government contracts or other UTI companies do alot of business with the government. Good. You tell them, "if they enjoy doing business with the federal government they should think twice about where they invest their next plant (here or foreign country)". You tell them "you better think twice before shuttering your US plant for one in Mexico". Is that a threat? Who the **** cares. This is serious **** here, you want to keep seeing this country going down the **** ter? Then you keep opposing deals like this. Maybe not in your back yard, ok. Who cares about the people in that far off community? This is one country and what happens in every town, city and state effects this country and it effects you whether you know it or not.

To think that this in any way is a bad things is almost beyond my comprehension. Will more companies test the government in order to get deals? If we (US) get what we want / need out of it who cares? We must not only protect existing jobs and build into these deals job expansion requirement or triggers - this is 100% the right direction and it doesn't matter if it is a Democrat or a Republican doing it.

Now, not only will Carrier stand to make less profit due to keeping the plant here with US labor, but they are at a competitive disadvantage to foreign made finished goods.

Look, the components that go into all these assemblies are made and have parts coming from all over the world, for now, we can't change that. First and foremost we need to keep as many of these manufacturing or assembly jobs that we have. Many of the parts that the Indiana plant works with are going to be foreign made, and that is what it is. We need to focus first on what we have and if that is as good as it gets for right now than so be it.

Now, Carrier Corp and it's dealers have to bid residential and commercial goods and services against some of their competitors that do not use any US manufacturing or assembly labor. That puts Carrier at a disadvantage.

So the next step must be to incentivize more foreign made assemblies to be done here. This will work to level the playing field and put less pressure on companies like Carrier to seek foreign labor if less of the competitors they are competing against are benefiting from foreign labor.

Forget what you were taught in the economics class and forget these lock-step economists that look at the world as a global pool of labor, where capital seeks it's biggest return regardless of national boundries. That my friends, is a race to the bottom, not what has happened here with Carrier.

We are Americans. We need to promote, protect and grow jobs in this country. The rest of the world will have to figure out their own situation because we aren't going to let them have our jobs any more.

Again, the only thing wrong here is that it didn't go far enough.


Bhawk - 12/1/2016 at 04:15 AM

I started following politics and current affairs when I was 14. I'm now 46. That entire time I've heard the gospel of the sacred sanctity of the free market and government just needs to get of the way and stay out of the way.

Apparently all that was BS, now it's by any means necessary.

That was fast.


nebish - 12/1/2016 at 04:59 AM

quote:
I started following politics and current affairs when I was 14. I'm now 46. That entire time I've heard the gospel of the sacred sanctity of the free market and government just needs to get of the way and stay out of the way.

Apparently all that was BS, now it's by any means necessary.

That was fast.




Pretty sure you are speaking to the broader philosophy from the right or economists in general. I've been very consistent in my views, any posts you find on the topic in the last 12 years here will prove that. But I'm sure most of the long time members remember how strong I speak on the issue.

What is good in the classroom and in theory hasn't worked well for us. I think it has worked well for the rest of the world at our expense. Economic theory knows no boarders. I want economic and trade policy that is in our favor, one that maximizes the benefits of our market for our workers, communities, state and federal governments. I don't care whether that is how Republicans are supposed to feel because I am not a Republican. The issue may be tougher to square for those belonging to the Republican side of things.


alloak41 - 12/1/2016 at 07:24 AM

quote:
I started following politics and current affairs when I was 14. I'm now 46. That entire time I've heard the gospel of the sacred sanctity of the free market and government just needs to get of the way and stay out of the way.



In many cases, the government should stay out of the way. Namely (particularly) with needless regulation, affirmative action, red tape, confiscatory taxation, fees, licensing, etc.......Long list. As a business operator, I deal with these issues daily, and can guarantee that much of my time is wasted in non-productive tasks that have NOTHING to do with the profitability or well being of my business, nor my employees.

I fail to see how an effort to keep some jobs here is in quite the same realm as the above. Folks have been complaining about "outsourcing" for years, and as soon as someone starts taking action that's not right, either?





heineken515 - 12/1/2016 at 12:30 PM

quote:
quote:
Details of the carrots or inducements?


If I was a CEO, I'd be on the phone with the transition team right now.

"Whattaya give me to stay? We weren't even planning on moving, but what ya got?"


Yes the pundits are all over this, somehow I think it would backfire on the company attempting the shakedown, plus until proven otherwise, I think our President Elect is a smarter negotiator than this.

Nebish - thank you for weighing in, thoughtful response !

It is "mind bottling" ( <-- Will Ferrell nod ) to me how some turn this event into a negative.

Some would say this is exactly one of the reasons Trump got elected, his ability to shake things up, unconventional methods, results.

I for one cannot wait to see what else he does.


jszfunk - 12/1/2016 at 12:56 PM

quote:


Now, not only will Carrier stand to make less profit due to keeping the plant here with US labor, but they are at a competitive disadvantage to foreign made finished goods.

Now, Carrier Corp and it's dealers have to bid residential and commercial goods and services against some of their competitors that do not use any US manufacturing or assembly labor. That puts Carrier at a disadvantage.




hmmmm, if that's the case, does not make sense why carrier decided to stay. Maybe I am missing something, but I think more might be revealed today.

http://www.wthr.com/article/trump-pence-coming-to-indianapolis-thursday-to- discuss-carrier-deal


Swifty - 12/1/2016 at 02:30 PM

quote:
The only thing wrong with this deal is that it doesn't go far enough, maintaining enough of the jobs and send a stronger signal to other companies.

What cost? What is the cost not to do it?

Laid off workers go on unemployment. After employer sponsored healthcare benefits expire for laid off workers, more subsidies get paid under the Affordable Care Act for their health insurance. Community taxes collected under pay roll taxes evaporate. School districts have less money. Property values fall. Been there, done that. We've been doing that for decades. Not working out too well is it. And you wonder why the rust belt voted Trump? You wonder why blue collar union members voted Trump? Go have a fancy economist tell them again that tax incentivizes for Carrier is a bad thing. You go tell that to the stores in the towns those workers live in. You go tell that to the emergency services people that rely on approved tax levies. Laid off workers don't vote for levies.

You see the domino effect? We can't afford to not do it.

I don't care if they want use the carrot or the stick. We must keep jobs here and we must get more jobs here from both foreign and US companies a like. Doesn't matter to us (US) if it is a corporate tax abatement program to keep people employed here, or tax and tariff penalty program for companies either moving operations outside our border or foreign companies bringing in foreign make goods.

Carrier have alot of government contracts or other UTI companies do alot of business with the government. Good. You tell them, "if they enjoy doing business with the federal government they should think twice about where they invest their next plant (here or foreign country)". You tell them "you better think twice before shuttering your US plant for one in Mexico". Is that a threat? Who the **** cares. This is serious **** here, you want to keep seeing this country going down the **** ter? Then you keep opposing deals like this. Maybe not in your back yard, ok. Who cares about the people in that far off community? This is one country and what happens in every town, city and state effects this country and it effects you whether you know it or not.

To think that this in any way is a bad things is almost beyond my comprehension. Will more companies test the government in order to get deals? If we (US) get what we want / need out of it who cares? We must not only protect existing jobs and build into these deals job expansion requirement or triggers - this is 100% the right direction and it doesn't matter if it is a Democrat or a Republican doing it.

Now, not only will Carrier stand to make less profit due to keeping the plant here with US labor, but they are at a competitive disadvantage to foreign made finished goods.

Look, the components that go into all these assemblies are made and have parts coming from all over the world, for now, we can't change that. First and foremost we need to keep as many of these manufacturing or assembly jobs that we have. Many of the parts that the Indiana plant works with are going to be foreign made, and that is what it is. We need to focus first on what we have and if that is as good as it gets for right now than so be it.

Now, Carrier Corp and it's dealers have to bid residential and commercial goods and services against some of their competitors that do not use any US manufacturing or assembly labor. That puts Carrier at a disadvantage.

So the next step must be to incentivize more foreign made assemblies to be done here. This will work to level the playing field and put less pressure on companies like Carrier to seek foreign labor if less of the competitors they are competing against are benefiting from foreign labor.

Forget what you were taught in the economics class and forget these lock-step economists that look at the world as a global pool of labor, where capital seeks it's biggest return regardless of national boundries. That my friends, is a race to the bottom, not what has happened here with Carrier.

We are Americans. We need to promote, protect and grow jobs in this country. The rest of the world will have to figure out their own situation because we aren't going to let them have our jobs any more.

Again, the only thing wrong here is that it didn't go far enough.


So you would agree that repealing Obamacare and privatizing Medicare are also bad ideas? If free market principles have failed in the economic realm and if we are now ready to embrace a mixed economy, should we not extend this rationale to our health and well being? Healthy workers improve productivity and the government should invest in their health. From the posts here it seems that after electing a Republican president and voting in Republican majorities in the Senate and House, there is growing interest in abandoning the central doctrine of the Republican party and that is privatization, privatization and more privatization.

Trump's tax plan totally favors the very rich. It's like he designed it for his family. The Republicans are very eager to pass this package and it will likely come first as it only requires 51 and not 60 votes in the Senate. Given that jobs are going to be saved at Carrier through government intervention, one can at least ask where were the rich? Last winter Charles Koch wrote an interesting essay where he agreed with every point Bernie Sanders was making as he campaigned, except for how these essential remedies should be financed. Koch argued that the private sector and not the public sector should be in charge of this. Now as America needs the Koch brother and other billionaires where are they? They don't seem to be doing anything other than waiting for their tax breaks at which point they will argue there are still too many regulations for them to invest in American jobs and services.

With the Carrier deal Trump might have stumbled onto something and hopefully he has the good sense to transfer any positive benefits into other sectors of America. If he does that Trump will be a very popular president.


MartinD28 - 12/1/2016 at 02:44 PM

quote:



hmmmm, if that's the case, does not make sense why carrier decided to stay. Maybe I am missing something, but I think more might be revealed today.





Possibly we will learn more today. It would be good if ALL details are put out for the public to see. I don't know enough to speak to how much is required to be transparent and what does not need to be disclosed. We do know months ago Governor Pence could not give away enough to induce Carrier to stay.

We also have never seen Trump's tax returns. To believe he will release them after an audit is naive. We will never see them. That alone brings a certain amount of suspicion to what's in this deal & how he will govern.

Good for Carrier, but we need to see a big picture policy of how things will operate in the future re: dissuading companies to leave America or entice companies to come here. There can't be actions for a bunch of one-offs.


porkchopbob - 12/1/2016 at 03:28 PM

quote:
It is "mind bottling" ( <-- Will Ferrell nod ) to me how some turn this event into a negative.



I don't think it's negative, it's definitely good for the Indianapolis community and the 1000 workers. We just need to know at what cost to tax payers, both state and federal. Will companies threaten to leave for a better deal? Trump can't, and shouldn't, make deals with every single company that finds it more profitable elsewhere. Is this a pyrrhic victory?

I think there is also a surprise of the hypocrisy of a Republican President meddling in private business and state economics. Many are equating it with Nixon going to China, and it's an interesting parallel. It should be interesting moving forward whether this is morning in America or a total disaster.


nebish - 12/1/2016 at 03:42 PM

quote:
quote:



hmmmm, if that's the case, does not make sense why carrier decided to stay. Maybe I am missing something, but I think more might be revealed today.





Possibly we will learn more today. It would be good if ALL details are put out for the public to see. I don't know enough to speak to how much is required to be transparent and what does not need to be disclosed. We do know months ago Governor Pence could not give away enough to induce Carrier to stay.

We also have never seen Trump's tax returns. To believe he will release them after an audit is naive. We will never see them. That alone brings a certain amount of suspicion to what's in this deal & how he will govern.

Good for Carrier, but we need to see a big picture policy of how things will operate in the future re: dissuading companies to leave America or entice companies to come here. There can't be actions for a bunch of one-offs.


I too an anxious to hear more.

They had said something to the effect of they could save $65 million in wages (not sure over what time span) by moving to Mexico. The tax benefit / incentive package is believed to be in the millions, but the new story I saw implied it was not an equal offset. But there are other factors that could be in play. Remaining a preferred government contractor / supplier. Public Relations for the company. Saving labor is one thing, but there is still the transportation of finished goods to consider and some allowance for damage to product that happens from such transportation. All other factors aside, it makes sense to have your final assembly location close to the market you will be selling the product into. Lots of factors go into it, will be good to know more of what all the moving pieces are.

I agree, there needs to be atleast a rough policy position on how a Trump administration is going to address these issues with other corporations going forward. I do think it needs to be flexible enough to allow for circumstances and negotiations, as in one company may get a better deal than another for a variety of reasons.

quote:
So you would agree that repealing Obamacare and privatizing Medicare are also bad ideas? If free market principles have failed in the economic realm and if we are now ready to embrace a mixed economy, should we not extend this rationale to our health and well being? Healthy workers improve productivity and the government should invest in their health. From the posts here it seems that after electing a Republican president and voting in Republican majorities in the Senate and House, there is growing interest in abandoning the central doctrine of the Republican party and that is privatization, privatization and more privatization.

Trump's tax plan totally favors the very rich. It's like he designed it for his family. The Republicans are very eager to pass this package and it will likely come first as it only requires 51 and not 60 votes in the Senate. Given that jobs are going to be saved at Carrier through government intervention, one can at least ask where were the rich? Last winter Charles Koch wrote an interesting essay where he agreed with every point Bernie Sanders was making as he campaigned, except for how these essential remedies should be financed. Koch argued that the private sector and not the public sector should be in charge of this. Now as America needs the Koch brother and other billionaires where are they? They don't seem to be doing anything other than waiting for their tax breaks at which point they will argue there are still too many regulations for them to invest in American jobs and services.

With the Carrier deal Trump might have stumbled onto something and hopefully he has the good sense to transfer any positive benefits into other sectors of America. If he does that Trump will be a very popular president.




I wouldn't say that repealing Obamacare is a bad idea. I don't know if fixes can be implemented within the program and if repeal is more a PR move than anything else, or if it is too much of a mess to be kept and fixed. I do think it is a mess. Do you?

I would be closer to wanting a single payer Medicare for all system than I am with giving the insurance companies more control and profit. My thing has always been that I believe everyone, no matter how rich or how poor, should always have some financial stake in their well-being and health. IE, if a person engages in risky behavior (be that smoking, unhealthy eating habits, participating in sports with high chance of injuries) should bear some burden for the cost of their care for any condition or problem that arises out of the said risky behavior. If you put yourself at risk then you should have to foot some of the bill to fix whatever has gone wrong with you. If we could have a federal system where people are held financially accountable for some of their decisions then I could go for that. I want people to have some meaningful skin in the game for their own care, not just have it 100% funded and subsidized by the federal government.

I'm not sure what you are saying on the rich Americans part or what you want them to do. I suspect most of these people own or run corporations, or many corporations, they invest. Banks and financial institutions rely on their deposits so money can be pumped out for loans and working capital. They buy and sell real estate, often owning more than one home (and paying property taxes and the maintenance on multiple homes). They travel and spend money at resorts. They give to charity. They dine out. They shop at grocery stores and shop online for Christmas gifts. They buy new cars and trucks at the auto dealerships down the road. If you are implying that somehow rich people just sit on their ass and wait to pay less taxes come April I'm pretty sure you are mistaken. A wealthy person's impact in our economy is in fact magnified and often more significant that what any number of people on this forum or that forum do with their money.

As for Trump being popular, I think this is still tricky. The less popular he is with traditional Republicans (the ones that didn't want to support him anyway) and the more popular he is with Democrats (atleast privately) will likely equal a successful 4 years. If he falls in line with conventional Republican thinking then we will have a new President in 4 years.

[Edited on 12/1/2016 by nebish]


LeglizHemp - 12/1/2016 at 03:44 PM

I guess i'll wait and see how many dollars per job saved Trump is going to spend vs how many dollars Obama spent per job in the auto bailout (keeping in mind a lot of that was payed back)


nebish - 12/1/2016 at 03:57 PM

quote:
I guess i'll wait and see how many dollars per job saved Trump is going to spend vs how many dollars Obama spent per job in the auto bailout (keeping in mind a lot of that was payed back)


One difference that was discussed back during the auto bailout was that if GM would go bankrupt, another company would have to fill the void of cars that GM was producing. Either by buying GM and it's assets and building cars in their existing or by other auto companies upping production to keep the supply chain full of cars that was reduced when GM no longer could do so.

So, it would've been short term pain and lots of it, but many of the laid off workers likely could've found work building cars at the same plant they were previously employed at if another company bought it, or they could relocate to another plant that would likely be adding a 3rd shift to build more cars. And possibly at new plants eventually built by remaining auto companies, again, to fill the void left by GM.

Unless the new cars were going to be built in Mexico, Canada, Japan, Korea, etc at that point we would be down **** creek without a paddle, so it would be imperative for the federal government to take steps to protect auto workers in this country.

In this case, Carrier closes up shop at the Indianapolis, these workers do not have any other job to remain hopeful for. The product is made outside our boarder, the competitors in the field don't need to increase any domestic production so they don't need to hire these laid off workers. The workers will use TRA money and get educated in a field that probably pays less and unfortunately may already be oversaturated with prospective applicants...no hope.

What I'm saying is that I think there is more of a case that if a US company goes bankrupt, and assuming there is still a demand for the goods/services that company offered, eventually those workers can be absorbed back into that same industry. If a US company outsources there becomes little to no natural sequence of events that is going to land them a job comparable to what they had. So then it is almost a better "investment" saving jobs from outsourcing than it is saving them from bankruptcy. One man's opinion.

[Edited on 12/1/2016 by nebish]


LeglizHemp - 12/1/2016 at 04:02 PM

i always appreciate a well reasoned response, they are so rare.


nebish - 12/1/2016 at 04:17 PM

quote:
i always appreciate a well reasoned response, they are so rare.


I watched the first 8 episodes of South Park 20 last night. Going to save the last couple for next week.

But I couldn't help but think about this place with all the internet trolling.

I remember when we used to have lots of good exchanges of ideas here. Remember, I remember, that was great, oh yea, ...I remember....


porkchopbob - 12/1/2016 at 04:52 PM

Interesting thoughtful take, nebish.

[Edited on 12/1/2016 by porkchopbob]


pops42 - 12/1/2016 at 05:16 PM

The devil is in the details. I'm sure whatever deal trump made was unethical, just to look like a hero temporarily. I believe he will leave the office of president in disgrace, sooner rather than later. and pence will be president.

[Edited on 12/1/2016 by pops42]


OriginalGoober - 12/1/2016 at 06:21 PM


Pretty soon it will be time for me to upgrade my ac and I will definitely be quoting a carrier unit and will gladly pay a few bucks more. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2017-2018 year they sell more units.



nebish - 12/2/2016 at 12:32 AM

Here is a run down from the Indy Star

quote:
Trump celebrates improbable Carrier deal

James Briggs and Chelsea Schneider , IndyStar 7:05 p.m. EST December 1, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump waves hello before speaking at Carrier, Thursday, December 1, 2016, about keeping jobs in America. Kelly Wilkinson/IndyStar

When Donald Trump said he would save Carrier jobs, he didn't actually mean it.

President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday shared an anecdote that made it even more improbable — if that's possible — for him to stand in front of hundreds of Carrier Corp. employees who suddenly have a future with the company.

Trump never actually planned to save their jobs.

Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence returned to Indianapolis to celebrate Carrier's surprising decision to keep about 1,000 jobs in the city. A small, hand-picked selection of Carrier's staff enthusiastically greeted Trump and Pence, who thanked them for their hard work and praised Carrier CEO Greg Hayes for changing his plan.

Then Trump revealed one of the most surprising details yet in this story about Carrier's resurrected westside factory: He didn't expect the company to cancel its plan to relocate 1,400 Indianapolis jobs to Mexico. When Trump campaigned on a promise to keep Carrier in Indianapolis, he wasn't talking about Carrier.

"I said Carrier will never leave," Trump said. "But that was a euphemism. I was talking about Carrier like all the other companies from here on in, because they made the decision (to move jobs to Mexico)."

Like experts who followed the Carrier news, Trump said he assumed that "ship had sailed." When he saw a person on the evening news taking his Carrier promise seriously, Trump said he thought, "I didn't mean it quite that way."

INDIANAPOLIS STAR

As Trump touts Carrier deal, others with endangered jobs wonder, 'What about us?'

Yet, here Trump was, flying into town as the president-elect and a savior for hundreds of families who are unexpectedly looking forward to a joyous holiday season and years of livable-wage manufacturing jobs. As part of an agreement with the incoming Trump administration and the state, Carrier has pledged to maintain an average wage of $30.91 an hour for the jobs that are being retained.

Jeffery Blackford, a 25-year Carrier worker who attended Thursday's event, called Trump’s announcement a “Christmas miracle."

"If they actually happen, we got one today," he said. “Hopefully this right here will be a start of a new beginning, where we can stop manufacturing from leaving this country.”

Sam Byrd, who has worked at the plant for 11 years, said he’s not a supporter of politicians in general.

“The reason is because politicians usually promise a lot of things to get in office,” Byrd said. “But once they get in office, they don’t follow through on what they promise. But kudos to Donald Trump. He gained a lot of points with me and respect. Because he campaigned and said these jobs would not be leaving America and today he followed through.”

Byrd said he doesn’t think Trump’s actions on Carrier were for show.

“When a company is going to lose 1,400 jobs and now it’s going to stand to lose maybe 300, the proof is in the pudding,” Byrd said.

Byrd's reference to impending layoffs at the Carrier plant was an acknowledgment that not all is rosy. Neither Pence nor Trump mentioned that Carrier still plans to eliminate hundreds of jobs. A spokeswoman for the company did not immediately respond to questions about how many layoffs there will be and when they will happen.
Vice President-elect Mike Pence is all smiles as heBuy Photo

Vice President-elect Mike Pence is all smiles as he speaks at Carrier during an event at the Indianapolis factory announcing that jobs will stay in the US, Thursday, December 1, 2016. After speaking, Pence introduced President-elect Donald Trump, to whom Pence gave the credit for the good news. (Photo: Kelly Wilkinson/IndyStar)

Pence lauded Carrier's decision to "stay and grow," even though the company's workforce will retract. Trump asserted that Carrier's Indianapolis workforce would be "going to go up substantially" from a pledged retention of 1,069 jobs — but that can't happen until the company cuts down to that level from the 1,400 people it employs.

Trump and Pence also made no mention of the $7 million incentive package Indiana offered Carrier — $6 million in tax credits and $1 million in training grants.

Instead, the president-elect and vice president-elect talked about Carrier's bold decision to stay and the workers who "gave (Carrier) the confidence to double down on the future of this company and the future of the people of this state," as Pence said.

Trump might not have expected to save Carrier's jobs. But he was the undisputed hero among Carrier workers Thursday.

“Too many of our jobs are leaving the country," said Edward Robinson, a 13-year Carrier employee who attended the event, "and it has to stop."

Trump promised just that.

"These companies are not going to be leaving anymore," Trump said. "They're not going to be taking people's hearts out. They're not going to be announcing, like they did at Carrier, that they're closing up and moving to Mexico over 1,100 jobs."

Incentive agreement

The Indiana Economic Development Corporation offered Carrier:

Up to $5 million in conditional tax credits over 10 years based on Carrier’s plan to keep 1,069 jobs with an average wage of $30.91 an hour in Indianapolis.
Up to $1 million in training grants to support workforce development.
Up to $1 million from the Hoosier Business Investment tax credit subject to Carrier’s future investment in its Indianapolis plant.

Source: IEDC


nebish - 12/2/2016 at 12:38 AM

Did anyone watch or listen today? Kind of strange the way it started off, with Trump saying he never promised or expected Carrier jobs in Indy to stay. Trump implied that when he said things like that it meant companies in the future won't be doing that...because the Carrier ship would've already sailed, right?

Trump said he was watching the nightly news (but wouldn't tell us which one because he doesn't like them 'not one bit') and saw a Carrier employee on the news say that he didn't think Carrier would actually close that Indy plant because Trump said they wouldn't. Trump gave that worker (not in the audience, his father was though) the credit for prompting him to pick up the phone and call Carrier's CEO.

The state, congressional members in both Indiana and Indiana reps at the federal level along with Governor Pence's administration had rolled out proposals to get Carrier to stay already. Kind of standard operating procedure for these kinds of things. Carrier had declined those appeals...until now.

So what changed then? Is it as simple as the charasmatic Trump calls the Carrier CEO...is it just his ability to speak on a business level in the vein of "I know what you are facing, but we have to make this thing work"?

I saw a Indiana US Sentate member (D) on with Brian Williams say that it has been speculated that a 35% tariff threat was part of Carrier's change of heart.

Trump did say, rather defiantly that companies will not be leaving the US without consequences. Saying that on the campaign trail is one thing, saying it in front of the CEO of a multinational company that just agreed to keep nearly 1100 out of 1400 workers at a US plant with the world wondering how, why and what's next is another. I was listening on CNBC and needless to say they were worried about such a comment. I loved it.

I think just as important to saving these jobs is that there is supposed to be $16 million dollar improvements made to the plant. Trump implied the Carrier CEO said it could be higher, but was only comfortable saying $16m. Trump of course said "it will be more than that".


nebish - 12/2/2016 at 01:01 AM

I don't think anyone here really knows me. Been happy to met a few of you, but I don't think anyone really knows me. My passion for finding and buying things made in USA to some extent really controls who I am. Try being my wife. Try running an automotive repair shop. Try building a house with that mentality, which we did 2 years ago. Try being the builder that had to work with me. We did have some set backs in terms of finding everything USA, but there were alot of surprising triumphs as well. I'd be more than happy to share any of our experiences on that. If you are looking for made in USA switches, outlets, can lights, plumbing fixtures, you name it...I can help!

I preach buying things made in the USA to friends, family and strangers alike. Preach might be too strong of a word, but I definitely try and get the message out to people.

I want to address one of the biggest misconceptions about things made in USA. That they are more expensive, somebody here in this thread said they wondered if now Carrier prices would be higher for consumers.

I was just at Lowes tonight shopping for some brass pipe fittings, you know for natural gas or propane plumbing or for water lines. So I knew that many of the Watts brand fittings are made in USA, not all, but many. What do I find at Lowes, here they are changing out the Watts line for the Brass Craft. I am familiar with Brass Craft as they make the shut off valves that go under your sinks and toliets - those are made in USA too. So I pick up the Brass Craft package and you can just tell sometimes when an item is imported by the packaging. I mean you pay attention to this stuff and you can tell. It had that more rigid crinkly sounding plastic bag sound as opposed to the smoother feeling plastic bag that often signals a domestic sourced item. So the Brass Craft item was China. Right there on the rack next to the old stock USA Watts fittings. And you know what the price was exactly the same. It's a small example, but I can not tell you how many times I see it over and over.

Don't be fooled into thinking that things made in the USA always cost more. Sometimes it is just the retailer, the distributor or the manufacturer keeping the additional profit. That is probably the biggest sin, that they don't even pass the savings onto the consumer. But I encourage anyone to seek out items that are made in the USA. They are out there in your retail stores and online. And it is really rewarding to find the things you want and having it say Made in USA. Edit - or Assembled in USA, still, better than the alternative.

Obviously I think this is an important issue. When I see Carrier say they are going to keep 1000+ jobs here rather than sending them to Mexico, I get excited. When I see a President say the things that no corporate owned politician would ever say, I get excited. Trump isn't running any more. He doesn't have to fire up the blue collar cast offs any more. So why be combative towards corporate America, why talk tough now? I can only hope it leads to the birth, or rebirth, of American Economic Nationalism. And I'll be the biggest cheerleader.

[Edited on 12/2/2016 by nebish]


nebish - 12/2/2016 at 04:24 PM

Interesting statistics and examples on why manufacturing jobs are important for this country and our workers in bold. More challenges ahead, hope the administration has a team ready to work on this issue and not just a one-and-done Carrier victory lap.

quote:
Trump Saved Jobs at Carrier, but More Midwest Jobs Are in Jeopardy

By NELSON D. SCHWARTZNOV. 30, 2016

In tiny Sellersburg, Ind., just across the border from Kentucky, Manitowoc Foodservice is in the final stages of closing a factory that makes beverage dispensers and ice machines and is laying off 84 workers.

The company is moving production to Mexico.

Just 100 miles away, President-elect Donald J. Trump will appear on Thursday with workers at Carrier’s Indianapolis plant to boast of his success in saving at least 1,000 jobs from moving to Mexico.

The truth across the Rust Belt is that there are more Manitowoc Foodservices than Carriers. The layoffs and closing in Sellersburg follow similar shutdowns by Manitowoc in Ohio and Wisconsin.

“I’ll give Trump his due, but I hope he and the American people and Congress don’t forget about all these other jobs going to Mexico,” said Chuck Jones, the president of Local 1999 of the United Steelworkers in Indianapolis, which represents Carrier. “Down the pike, a lot more are going to be moving out.”

Indeed, Rexnord, the ball bearing factory in Indianapolis where Mr. Jones went to work straight out of high school nearly 40 years ago, said in October it would be moving to Mexico. It is just a mile from the Carrier plant.

The mayor of Indianapolis, Joe Hogsett, and Senator Joe Donnelly, both Democrats, tried to exert Trumplike pressure to force Rexnord to rethink its plans, but so far the company has not shown any sign it will change course.

“On a personal level at Carrier, it is huge,” said Jerry N. Conover, director of the Indiana Business Research Center at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University. “But by itself, the disappearance or retention of 1,000 jobs is a small slice of the total economy in Indiana.”

“I think there will be continued downward pressure on employment in factories because of trends toward automation especially and moving to lower-cost areas for production,” he added.

Carrier, in its official statement on the deal on Wednesday, said that it thought the agreement it negotiated with Mr. Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence “benefits our workers, the state of Indiana and our company.” But it said that incentives provided by Indiana, where Mr. Pence is governor, “were an important consideration.” It added that “the forces of globalization will continue to require solutions for the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. and American workers.”

Those 1,000 Carrier jobs saved represent just 0.2 percent of total manufacturing employment in the state. And despite a rebound since the aftermath of the Great Recession, at just over half a million positions, factory employment in Indiana this year is still down by more than 20 percent since 2000.

The good news is that Indiana has been doing well economically, with an unemployment rate below the national average and steady gains in employment like food service, retail and logistics.

But those service jobs pay well below the $20 to $25 an hour that veteran Carrier employees — with only a high school diploma — can earn building furnaces and fan coils in Indianapolis. The typical manufacturing worker in the state earns $59,000 a year, about $20,000 a year more than the typical service job.

And for less credentialed workers, that margin is the difference between having a shot at a middle-class life, including owning a home and sending children to college, and having to struggle to make ends meet.

“These are truly irreplaceable jobs,” said Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, an advocacy group, and a native of Rensselaer, Ind. “A manufacturing job is one of the only ladders to fulfilling the American dream for a worker without a college degree.”

“A manufacturing worker who loses their job at Carrier will be resigned to facing a lower standard of living and leaner retirement years,” Mr. Paul added.
“Carrier is special because it happened at the right time and the right place and it gained a high profile. But obviously, Donald Trump and Mike Pence can’t intervene every time a plant closes.”

The economic fortunes for this group have been shrinking for years, which is a major reason the story of Mr. Trump and Carrier has resonated so deeply.

In Indiana, in particular, as in other so-called Rust Belt states, there are a lot of people who are less educated: Just 16.5 percent of the state’s residents ages 25 to 64 have a bachelor’s degree, half the rate for the country over all. And while about 30 percent have an associate degree or some college, the bulk of Indiana residents, 44 percent, have only a high school diploma — or less.

Nor has manufacturing remained the sole domain of whites. It provides a crucial source of higher-paying jobs for minorities.

In the popular imagination, the Indianapolis factory where 1,400 Carrier workers build furnaces and fan coils looks like a scene out of “The Deer Hunter” or “Norma Rae.” Blue-collar guys walking through the plant gate, lunch pail in hand, or white women barely getting by after years on the line.

But the reality at the Carrier plant that Mr. Trump will visit on Thursday is very different. About half the workers are African-American, making it a much more diverse workplace than many white-collar settings.

Women account for a substantial portion of the work force as well, but the wages are anything but subsistence: over $20 an hour plus benefits for workers with just a high school diploma. That is an almost unheard-of level of pay for Indiana workers with that level of education in other sectors like food service and retail or even many health care jobs.

Carol Bigbee, 59, who has worked at Carrier for over 13 years, earns $22 an hour. Her daughter has a bachelor’s degree and works in a medical lab, but earns one-third less.

“You have to be really blessed to find a job that pays that kind of money,” she said.


In southern Indiana, where the Manitowoc Foodservice factory will close next year, good-paying blue-collar jobs are just as rare.

But Rich Sheffer, vice president for investor relations and treasurer at the company, said it had little choice but to relocate to Mexico.

“This company has 20 percent excess manufacturing capacity,” he said. A few of the jobs are being transferred to Covington, Tenn., he said, but the Sellersburg plant “would have required a massive investment in automation. And we have to deal with profit margins that are trailing the industry.”

Mr. Sheffer said his company’s situation was different from that of Carrier, which has profitable operations in Indiana but could make more money in Mexico.

“Our motivation is completely different, but,” he added, “we haven’t been contacted by anybody in the Trump administration.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/business/economy/trump-saved-jobs-at-carr ier-but-more-midwest-jobs-are-in-jeopardy.html




[Edited on 12/2/2016 by nebish]


MartinD28 - 12/2/2016 at 05:43 PM

Anyone see the hypocrisy in candidate Trump's own words on the stump versus his intended actions and victory dance as president-elect? Guess he doesn't drink his own medicine. For those on the right, don't criticize the article sources before you read Trumps's own words. Then you can dance around how he campaigned and how he plans on governing.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/indiana-manufacturing-deal-trum p-pence-carrier

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308153-dem-group-trump-car rier-deal-is-exactly-what-he-railed-against


nebish - 12/2/2016 at 08:44 PM

quote:
Anyone see the hypocrisy in candidate Trump's own words on the stump versus his intended actions and victory dance as president-elect? Guess he doesn't drink his own medicine. For those on the right, don't criticize the article sources before you read Trumps's own words. Then you can dance around how he campaigned and how he plans on governing.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/indiana-manufacturing-deal-trum p-pence-carrier

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308153-dem-group-trump-car rier-deal-is-exactly-what-he-railed-against


The consequences part, the retribution part is what I'm really waiting for. Both links quote the same statement and he said consequences. And he said that yesterday. That is where the rubber will meet the road, if a US company is going to be penalized for bringing in finished goods with foreign labor, I assume after given the opportunity to stay here, with tax incentivizes or what have you. If there are no consequences, no teeth, no "stick" none of this can work.

I am personally not bothered by Trump's campaign words vs what has happened with Carrier.

He was right. They do have the money, these companies. They don't need it necessarily. But to ask any company to stay with higher overhead costs and risk losing marketshare or smaller margins is not something any company is going to willingly agree to. Could they accept less profit margin, well yeah, they could, would they? In the final analysis, no, not unless something on the other end of the scale is going to balance it back out, or get it closer to making sense.

This is what I've always said; businesses in general and certainly not large multi-national corporations do not exist so they can provide a place of work for people of this country or that country. They do not exist to provide better lives for their workers. They exist to produce a good or service while seeking financial return on principle and profit for it's owners all while eyeing growth and more ways to be more successful in both sales and profit. That is the what they exist for.

It then becomes the government's job to ensure that business does have the desired positive effect on our citizens employed there and by extension, our society, our communities, our states and ultimately our federal government.

Business is not going to operate in a "what is good for America" philosophy, so it must be the role of our government to do that.

This has sorely been absent in prior Republican and Democrat administrations. This campaign featured two candidates who spoke to the issue like few have before them, both Senator Sanders and Donald Trump and both saw huge popularity for many reasons, but I think this jobs/out sourcing issue was key among them. Of course Senator Sanders was fiercely against corporate welfare, and you have links there that have Donald Trump saying, or pretending he is as well. But at the end of the day, I think it is positive and correct action, IF, we - as in the United States, gets the net result out of it that we want. Are we getting something in the vein of "what is good for America"? If we give the corporations their carrots and we both end up with something we are happy with, then win-win. If the corporations do as they see they must, and we do not end up with what we want then there should be "consequences" and we win, they lose. We win with additional revenue incoming from their levied tax or tariff. We win because the bar has been set, other corporations now have a new thing to consider when outsourcing, will it in the end really be worth it? And we win if it in fact changes behavior, not only for those companies on the fence of outsourcing, but for those companies currently producing outside our border, if they want to come inside, avoid the tax or tariff and enjoy a favorable business environment to produce and sell, in this the best consumer market in the world.

This is just one story, this Carrier issue. And they didn't save as many jobs as I would like. Maybe that is part of the negotiation, and you can't always get what you want. But there is still tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs to try and save still. Companies that we need to stay here, grow here. Some of these companies are facing very big challenges from competitors and are considering moving in order to remain viable, perhaps remain in existence. Others have healthy balance sheets and are still faced with competitive challenges, but need to remain ahead of the curve to stay financially healthy. There are many variables that effect a company's decision to move here or there. Trump said that there will be a team or a group of people who is looking into this issue, implying that he or Pence won't be the only ones involved going forward. This is good news and I will be looking for more out of them. I'm sure the press will be doing the same.


Bhawk - 12/3/2016 at 04:55 AM

quote:
quote:
I started following politics and current affairs when I was 14. I'm now 46. That entire time I've heard the gospel of the sacred sanctity of the free market and government just needs to get of the way and stay out of the way.



In many cases, the government should stay out of the way. Namely (particularly) with needless regulation, affirmative action, red tape, confiscatory taxation, fees, licensing, etc.......Long list. As a business operator, I deal with these issues daily, and can guarantee that much of my time is wasted in non-productive tasks that have NOTHING to do with the profitability or well being of my business, nor my employees.

I fail to see how an effort to keep some jobs here is in quite the same realm as the above. Folks have been complaining about "outsourcing" for years, and as soon as someone starts taking action that's not right, either?







"The free market has been sorting it out and America’s been losing,” Mr. Pence added, as Mr. Trump interjected, “Every time, every time.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/business/economy/trump-carrier-pence-jobs .html

If Biden and Obama said that your head would explode right off your shoulders. Tell me it wouldn't.


OriginalGoober - 12/3/2016 at 01:29 PM

Fair trade, not free trade. For example it would take an importing country 6 or more months of red tape rules and inspection in order to sell a bottle of shampoo in china. China can import that same bottle into the US virtually overnight and ship it to walmart for immediate sale. How is this fair?


nebish - 12/4/2016 at 03:32 PM

Not quite as many jobs saved as we were led to believe. Disappointed! Build those damn coils here!




quote:
To get the higher number, Carrier and Trump are counting 300 jobs that weren't at risk of being shipped to Mexico.

Carrier confirmed to CNNMoney on Friday that it never planned to move 300 administrative and engineering positions. Those jobs are at a different Indianapolis location, separate from the plant with the 1,400 factory worker jobs that has been in the headlines recently.

Under the deal with Trump, Carrier agreed to keep the furnace part of the plant open, saving 800 jobs in Indianapolis. But it's still moving 600 jobs to Mexico to make fan coils.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/02/news/companies/trump-carrier-plant-mexico/


Sang - 12/4/2016 at 05:03 PM

Not sure if it is true, since he hasn't released his taxes, but the news has reported that he has stock in Carrier's parent company. If so, let the conflicts of interest begin!


nebish - 12/4/2016 at 05:20 PM

Well, if anyone owns mutual funds, we probably all have stock in Carrier's parent corp.

But the debate would be, Carrier is arguably less profitable by keeping the jobs in Indy? That's not good for earnings and stock appreciation. Or is the PR they get out of this enough to offset that?

Really this needs to just be the beginning. If there are no other examples of saving jobs at Carrier in the near future or during his Presidency then this whole thing will be just a charade.


MarkRamsey - 12/6/2016 at 02:54 AM

Anyone know what the "consequences" will be for Trump clothes made overseas ?


nebish - 12/6/2016 at 03:58 AM

quote:
Anyone know what the "consequences" will be for Trump clothes made overseas ?


I should be invited to Trump Tower to speak to Mr Trump on this. All of my clothes are made in the USA except for band and college football shirts.

He needs to stand firm on his tariff issue. He needs to find enough Democrats that will support it and flip some Republicans. Hell, Bill Clinton had Democrat congressmen in tears on the floor of the Senate voting against their beliefs to pass NAFTA. He needs to lead on that issue and not let Paul Ryan or other leading Republicans control the narrative.


MarkRamsey - 12/6/2016 at 12:04 PM

Anyone know what the "consequences" will be for Trump clothes made overseas ?


Swifty - 12/6/2016 at 02:00 PM

quote:
Anyone know what the "consequences" will be for Trump clothes made overseas ?


Good question. Should the tariffs only apply to companies that tried to stay in the US and are now considering leaving? Or should the tariffs apply as well to goods produced by companies like Trump's that never even bothered to experiment with US production and simply sought out the cheapest labor market? Or should the tariffs apply to all non US produced goods? Or should Donald Trump get an exception to all rules, regulations and laws?

What about other products like movies or music? Should directors be forced to shoot in America or have taxes added to US runs of their movies? What about music? The Stones new album was recorded in London, yet the band pretty much operates out of the US.

There should be some new kind of sustained effort to create jobs in rural America but the tariff policy could have serious long term reverberations. Foreign companies and investors might ignore the US market entirely and devote their attention to building new markets abroad. Also providing government incentives to companies that are not able to compete without subsidization is simply bad economic policy. Short term it might raise spirits but for these local economies to thrive again people are going to have to stay in school and get retrained.


nebish - 12/6/2016 at 03:50 PM

quote:
quote:
Anyone know what the "consequences" will be for Trump clothes made overseas ?


Good question. Should the tariffs only apply to companies that tried to stay in the US and are now considering leaving? Or should the tariffs apply as well to goods produced by companies like Trump's that never even bothered to experiment with US production and simply sought out the cheapest labor market? Or should the tariffs apply to all non US produced goods? Or should Donald Trump get an exception to all rules, regulations and laws?

What about other products like movies or music? Should directors be forced to shoot in America or have taxes added to US runs of their movies? What about music? The Stones new album was recorded in London, yet the band pretty much operates out of the US.

There should be some new kind of sustained effort to create jobs in rural America but the tariff policy could have serious long term reverberations. Foreign companies and investors might ignore the US market entirely and devote their attention to building new markets abroad. Also providing government incentives to companies that are not able to compete without subsidization is simply bad economic policy. Short term it might raise spirits but for these local economies to thrive again people are going to have to stay in school and get retrained.



I strongly disagree about foreign companies and investors ignoring the US market, I think it would be quite the opposite. Yes there are good consumer markets around the globe, China of course, but the US is either right there or still tops in several categories. Look at Kia, they sell more cars in the US than they do their home country of Korea. Companies can not abandon this market, it is impossible.

If we told Kia they must pay a tariff on cars they build in Korea that they sell here, what do you think would happen? Do you honestly think they will say "screw you USA" and lose annual sales of almost a million cars? Hell no. What company could do that? Instead they would seek a way to avoid the tariff and you know how they do that? They build more cars here.

Same can apply to Ford, GM and Chrysler. We all know they build plenty of vehicles in Mexico and Canada and increasingly Asia. Yep, good old Chevy, as American as apple pie right? Go take a walk on a GM lot, you'll see Buicks made in Korea, Silverado trucks made in Mexico. They must play by the same rules as we implament for foreign companies.

Stay in school and get retrained?

Did you read the quote from the one Carrier worker, she makes more than her daughter who has a bachelors degree and works in the medical field and makes a third less!

There is no better way to create and sustain a middle class living than manufacturing jobs, adding value to a product, creating something from a collection of parts or rare materials.

Retrain people? People who lose the opportunity of a manufacturing job, have those people funnel into a field that pays less? Pay more for the education only to make less. And where are these magic fields of employment that need large numbers of people that don't already have a bottle neck of applicants? Maybe a call center? Service jobs simply do not, in total, create the type of opportunities necessary. Everyone is supposed to go into teaching, or healthcare? We are told that the tech industry is sorely hurting for qualified labor, to the point that they must rely upon foreign workers to fill their positions. Well, this isn't an overnight problem. We've had decades now to teach our kids at high school and colleges and why is there still a shortage of these workers?

The fact remains, that no amount of retraining is going to provide enough work at a substantial enough pay rate to make up for what a manufacturing job can.

Clothes?

Sure Trump's clothing line should be subjected to tariffs.

What about all those textile plants in the south? Maybe they didn't pay great, but isn't a job at one of those facilities better than providing welfare for the people that used to work there and now have limited to no other opportunities. Building furniture, same thing.

Movies and music. Good question and I don't have a thought on that. I have seen DVDs and CDs with a label on them that says "made in Mexico"...why can't we make those here? We absolutely can. Even if it doesn't employ alot of people, sometimes it is just as much about the corporate investment it takes to build a facility, fill it with machinery and providing a tax base for a community as much as it is about the actual job(s) it creates.

I think for too long, we've been taught in economics classes and for too long we've had talking heads on TV and radio say "this is how you do things" - it works in theory and it works for those who own the capital. But how does it work for the individual who seeks employment? The theory that outsourcing can benefit the worker who lost their job in one field because now they can be more productive best utilizing their skills in another field. That just does not work here. If you are building ladders at a Warner Ladder plant and they close and start making those ladders in Mexico, tell me, what are the hundreds of laid off workers supposed to do with no other sources of employment in their town? Move? OK. But many towns face the same challenges. Everyone is supposed to move to the growing parts of the country to seek employment and then what is left behind?

The United States has seriously been hurt by the access that cheap foreign labor and little to no environmental or workplace safety standards that the many countries around the world is offering. Corporations love it, their profits explode. The foreign countries themselves benefit as now their people have jobs, it creates a middle class in other nations...all by taking food off the table of American citizens. We've created a middle class in China at the expense of our middle class.

We all live in different parts of the country so we likely see different things and our first hand knowledge may be limited to what we read or see on the news. Again, you don't think that Donald Trump won Democrat stronghold states like PA, WI, MI because the current trade and economic policy is working do you? Of course not. It has failed those people. The same old wasn't going to cut it any more. For decades now we've been undermining good paying jobs with bad trade deals that benefit the corporations and foreign countries first and foremost. It is about damn time that somebody stands up for those left behind and forgotten workers that have been thrown away.


emr - 12/6/2016 at 05:41 PM

I'm sounding like a broken record; but the biggest impediment to establishing good manufacturing jobs is the tying of health care to employment. The rest of the world wither has universal care or no care. It is the major dollar cost in inequality between nations


Bhawk - 12/6/2016 at 05:43 PM

quote:
Anyone know what the "consequences" will be for Trump clothes made overseas ?


That's but one of the more interesting conflicts-of-interest and anomalies present when it comes to the PEOTUS.


MarkRamsey - 12/7/2016 at 07:23 PM

How about the next time Trump tells a privately owned company how they had better do business, the CEO says "When trump brings all his foreign made clothing lines back here I might take him seriously. Until then he can kiss my ....."


nebish - 12/8/2016 at 01:07 AM

quote:
How about the next time Trump tells a privately owned company how they had better do business, the CEO says "When trump brings all his foreign made clothing lines back here I might take him seriously. Until then he can kiss my ....."


He should be called out for that.

Now he might say something like "the capacity and ability to make this clothing line doesn't exist in the US right now...I wish I could". Which is BS. Bill O'Reilly once said something similar when he was asked why his Factor crap wasn't made in the USA.

You can buy men's suits and women's dresses in the USA. You can buy nice dress shoes made here. All that O'Reilly crap, like ceramic mugs and stuff, hats, you can have all that stuff made here.

I agree, Trump should 100% lead by example on this.


MarkRamsey - 12/8/2016 at 02:55 AM

Obama: You didn't build that.
Trump: I'll tell you how to run that.
Really not much difference.


nebish - 12/8/2016 at 04:27 AM

quote:
Obama: You didn't build that.
Trump: I'll tell you how to run that.
Really not much difference.


Before I say why I think those two statements are quite different, do you want to say why you think they are really not much different?


nebish - 12/8/2016 at 05:01 PM

quote:
quote:
Obama: You didn't build that.
Trump: I'll tell you how to run that.
Really not much difference.


Before I say why I think those two statements are quite different, do you want to say why you think they are really not much different?



I don't want to put words in your mouth, but maybe you are saying that neither one of them knew or knows what they are talking about? Obama from the standpoint of never creating a business and trying to establish and grow it with all the sacrifices and challenges it entails. And for Trump, telling businesses how we wants them to operate while not following his own advice with his own business decisions. That it?


nebish - 12/8/2016 at 05:03 PM

Didn't Obama have to give up his blackberry? Could somebody please take away the twitter account from Trump?

Now he attacks Chuck Jones, Union President representing Carrier employees.


Brendan - 12/8/2016 at 05:20 PM

quote:
Didn't Obama have to give up his blackberry? Could somebody please take away the twitter account from Trump?

Now he attacks Chuck Jones, Union President representing Carrier employees.
No way. He's just keeping it real. Shaking things up. Breaking the mold. He should be neither stifled nor restricted in any way.


Fujirich - 12/8/2016 at 05:33 PM

quote:
quote:
Obama: You didn't build that.
Trump: I'll tell you how to run that.
Really not much difference.
Before I say why I think those two statements are quite different, do you want to say why you think they are really not much different?
They may be different in meaning, but they come from the same distorted view that the President and Federal gov't should have granular control over individual company actions, in what's supposed to be a free market.

I'm all for the elimination of taxes on business (they're a fraud in the first place), and the reduction/simplification of regulation, both with the goal of making conditions for free enterprise as enticing as possible in the US. But beyond setting favorable conditions for all, the individually-targeted incentives or punishment is just a continuation of crony capitalism.


MartinD28 - 12/8/2016 at 05:47 PM

quote:
Didn't Obama have to give up his blackberry? Could somebody please take away the twitter account from Trump?

Now he attacks Chuck Jones, Union President representing Carrier employees.


X2

Seems it's in his makeup to always attempt to get the last word in when someone tests him...facts be damned. Tweets is an easy delivery system for him.

Would rather see him do press conferences than hide behind tweets. I just don't think twitter is the proper way for the pres elect or a pres to communicate with the public.

I'm not convinced that he will be able to conduct a profesional, articulate, substantive, and non-combative press conference. He's done a good job trashing the media which lowers the expectations for his believers. It is the press who serves one role as checks and balances on the exec office. This probably makes him uncomfortable that they would dare question his stances and versions of "facts".


Muleman1994 - 12/8/2016 at 06:41 PM

quote:
Didn't Obama have to give up his blackberry? Could somebody please take away the twitter account from Trump?

Now he attacks Chuck Jones, Union President representing Carrier employees.

___________________________________________________________________________ ____________

Chuck Jones is a union boss (thug) who live in luxury off of the union members dues.
Let's see him move to Mexico.

Donald Trump uses Twitter to beat the corrupt liberal media into the dust where they belong.
By going directly to The People he gets his message out before the media has a chance to misrepresent what he actually says.

Ha ha.


Fujirich - 12/8/2016 at 06:52 PM

quote:
It is the press who serves one role as checks and balances on the exec office.
No longer. Most gave up that duty to play cheerleader for the current administration.


2112 - 12/8/2016 at 08:53 PM

quote:
quote:
Didn't Obama have to give up his blackberry? Could somebody please take away the twitter account from Trump?

Now he attacks Chuck Jones, Union President representing Carrier employees.

___________________________________________________________________________ ____________

Chuck Jones is a union boss (thug) who live in luxury off of the union members dues.
Let's see him move to Mexico.

Donald Trump uses Twitter to beat the corrupt liberal media into the dust where they belong.
By going directly to The People he gets his message out before the media has a chance to misrepresent what he actually says.

Ha ha.



I find it interesting that you find only Republicans worthy of wealth, and they are worthy of that wealth no matter how it was obtained.

But Democrats are never worthy of wealth in your world. Apparently, for whatever reason, in your world there has never been a Democrat who has become wealthy through legitimate means.

Actually, it's only interesting because it is so predictable from you.


MartinD28 - 12/8/2016 at 09:20 PM

quote:
quote:
It is the press who serves one role as checks and balances on the exec office.
No longer. Most gave up that duty to play cheerleader for the current administration.


Interesting. Can you list maybe a half dozen or so of the major media sources / outlets that you feel fit your statement?


Muleman1994 - 12/8/2016 at 09:45 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Didn't Obama have to give up his blackberry? Could somebody please take away the twitter account from Trump?

Now he attacks Chuck Jones, Union President representing Carrier employees.

___________________________________________________________________________ ____________

Chuck Jones is a union boss (thug) who live in luxury off of the union members dues.
Let's see him move to Mexico.

Donald Trump uses Twitter to beat the corrupt liberal media into the dust where they belong.
By going directly to The People he gets his message out before the media has a chance to misrepresent what he actually says.

Ha ha.



I find it interesting that you find only Republicans worthy of wealth, and they are worthy of that wealth no matter how it was obtained.

But Democrats are never worthy of wealth in your world. Apparently, for whatever reason, in your world there has never been a Democrat who has become wealthy through legitimate means.

Actually, it's only interesting because it is so predictable from you.

___________________________________________________________________________ ____________

Your post is your usual load of crap dripping in assumptions not based on any fact.

Or are you speaking of Donald Trump who earned his wealth through hard work or Hillary Clinton and her husband who got their wealth through taking bribes and strong-arming foreign governments and Wall Street?



Fujirich - 12/8/2016 at 11:22 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
It is the press who serves one role as checks and balances on the exec office.
No longer. Most gave up that duty to play cheerleader for the current administration.
Interesting. Can you list maybe a half dozen or so of the major media sources / outlets that you feel fit your statement?
If you don't believe the major media institutions bent over backwards to give the current administration a pass in terms of scrutiny, then no list will satisfy. Think of all the media losers who missed the Trump call and you have your answer.


Muleman1994 - 12/9/2016 at 12:00 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is the press who serves one role as checks and balances on the exec office.
No longer. Most gave up that duty to play cheerleader for the current administration.
Interesting. Can you list maybe a half dozen or so of the major media sources / outlets that you feel fit your statement?
If you don't believe the major media institutions bent over backwards to give the current administration a pass in terms of scrutiny, then no list will satisfy. Think of all the media losers who missed the Trump call and you have your answer.

___________________________________________________________________________ ____________

Exactly right.
To date, only The NYT Publisher and Public Editors have issued written mea culpas.



Bhawk - 12/9/2016 at 12:02 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is the press who serves one role as checks and balances on the exec office.
No longer. Most gave up that duty to play cheerleader for the current administration.
Interesting. Can you list maybe a half dozen or so of the major media sources / outlets that you feel fit your statement?
If you don't believe the major media institutions bent over backwards to give the current administration a pass in terms of scrutiny, then no list will satisfy. Think of all the media losers who missed the Trump call and you have your answer.


When it comes a dereliction in a situation that led to massive loss of life, the media "pass" given during the runup to the Second Iraq War was far more devastating than anything else that has come after it.


Fujirich - 12/9/2016 at 12:29 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is the press who serves one role as checks and balances on the exec office.
No longer. Most gave up that duty to play cheerleader for the current administration.
Interesting. Can you list maybe a half dozen or so of the major media sources / outlets that you feel fit your statement?
If you don't believe the major media institutions bent over backwards to give the current administration a pass in terms of scrutiny, then no list will satisfy. Think of all the media losers who missed the Trump call and you have your answer.
When it comes a dereliction in a situation that led to massive loss of life, the media "pass" given during the runup to the Second Iraq War was far more devastating than anything else that has come after it.
No disagreement here. But in addition, consider all those in Congress who supported it AND had gov't intelligence to aid their decision, Hillary among them.


2112 - 12/9/2016 at 01:44 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Didn't Obama have to give up his blackberry? Could somebody please take away the twitter account from Trump?

Now he attacks Chuck Jones, Union President representing Carrier employees.

___________________________________________________________________________ ____________

Chuck Jones is a union boss (thug) who live in luxury off of the union members dues.
Let's see him move to Mexico.

Donald Trump uses Twitter to beat the corrupt liberal media into the dust where they belong.
By going directly to The People he gets his message out before the media has a chance to misrepresent what he actually says.

Ha ha.



I find it interesting that you find only Republicans worthy of wealth, and they are worthy of that wealth no matter how it was obtained.

But Democrats are never worthy of wealth in your world. Apparently, for whatever reason, in your world there has never been a Democrat who has become wealthy through legitimate means.

Actually, it's only interesting because it is so predictable from you.

___________________________________________________________________________ ____________

Your post is your usual load of crap dripping in assumptions not based on any fact.

Or are you speaking of Donald Trump who earned his wealth through hard work or Hillary Clinton and her husband who got their wealth through taking bribes and strong-arming foreign governments and Wall Street?





Like I said, you are completely predictable, and you just proved my point. Nevermind that Trump got his start from a rich daddy and expanded his empire through fraud and taking advantage of bankruptcy law, if he was a Democrat you would be all overy him. But no, he is a Republican so he automatically gets a pass and gets the Mule distinction of earning it through hard work. I guess fraud is hard work. But Hillary working her way up as an attorney is so disrespectful in Mule's world. Whatever you say.


alloak41 - 12/9/2016 at 02:32 AM

quote:
quote:
It is the press who serves one role as checks and balances on the exec office.
No longer. Most gave up that duty to play cheerleader for the current administration.


They will flip back to the watchdog now that Trump has been elected. Bank on it. Their lack of consistency will further erode their credibility.


Muleman1994 - 12/9/2016 at 02:39 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
It is the press who serves one role as checks and balances on the exec office.
No longer. Most gave up that duty to play cheerleader for the current administration.


They will flip back to the watchdog now that Trump has been elected. Bank on it. Their lack of consistency will further erode their credibility.

___________________________________________________________________________ _____________

A watchdog approach is exactly with the press is supposed to do. They have two responsibilities:
1.) hold the government accountable
2.) report the news to the people.

The hard part for many now is that most of what is "reported" is not the facts, not the news. it is a politically driven opinion.

Oh well. Informed people can separate the facts from the b/s.


pops42 - 12/9/2016 at 04:59 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is the press who serves one role as checks and balances on the exec office.
No longer. Most gave up that duty to play cheerleader for the current administration.


They will flip back to the watchdog now that Trump has been elected. Bank on it. Their lack of consistency will further erode their credibility.

___________________________________________________________________________ _____________

A watchdog approach is exactly with the press is supposed to do. They have two responsibilities:
1.) hold the government accountable
2.) report the news to the people.

The hard part for many now is that most of what is "reported" is not the facts, not the news. it is a politically driven opinion.

Oh well. Informed people can separate the facts from the b/s.


Ah, like Flynn JR. and Pizzagate? you get dumber by the hour mule-fool


pops42 - 12/9/2016 at 05:07 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
It is the press who serves one role as checks and balances on the exec office.
No longer. Most gave up that duty to play cheerleader for the current administration.


They will flip back to the watchdog now that Trump has been elected. Bank on it. Their lack of consistency will further erode their credibility.
Say, hows about some cheese with that [not so fine] Whine!. I wonder who will go to prison first? maybe ill start a pool


MartinD28 - 12/9/2016 at 12:45 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is the press who serves one role as checks and balances on the exec office.
No longer. Most gave up that duty to play cheerleader for the current administration.


They will flip back to the watchdog now that Trump has been elected. Bank on it. Their lack of consistency will further erode their credibility.

___________________________________________________________________________ _____________

A watchdog approach is exactly with the press is supposed to do. They have two responsibilities:
1.) hold the government accountable
2.) report the news to the people.

The hard part for many now is that most of what is "reported" is not the facts, not the news. it is a politically driven opinion.

Oh well. Informed people can separate the facts from the b/s.


Ah, like Flynn JR. and Pizzagate? you get dumber by the hour mule-fool


Saw an interview with General Barry McCaffrey last night. See the highlights below re: General McCaffrey's thoughts on Flynn & son:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/8/1608651/-Gen-Barry-McCaffrey-withdr aws-support-of-Trump-National-Security-Advisor-calls-for-investigation

General Barry McCaffrey tells NBC News that he was initially supportive of Donald Trump’s decision to name Lt. General Michael Flynn as his national security advisor. But, a closer look at Flynn’s social media use shows that he sent out at least 16 different fake (propaganda) news stories via social media and General McCaffrey pulled no punches, bluntly calling the tweets and stories “demented.”

The Trump transition team is also rightly getting criticism for allowing Lt. General Flynn’s son, Michael G. Flynn, to not only take part in the transition team, but to seek out security clearance for him when his own social media has shown him to be prolifically disseminating utterly false and outrageous politically motivated news. (You can watch a smarmy Mike Pence evade Jake Tapper's pointed questions about Flynn, Jr.'s security clearance six different times by clicking here.) One of those fake stories prompted a man to walk into a pizza place and fire his high-powered gun to personally “investigate” the child sex trafficking ring run by Hillary Clinton that Flynn was tweeting about to his followers. Which, of course, wasn’t happening.

General Barry McCaffrey went on to say that “we need to aggressively examine what was going on” with Lt. General Michael Flynn and his son. Hear, hear!

In short, Lt. General Flynn’s outrageous peddling of fake news and/or propaganda should be disqualifying. Period. End story.




Fujirich - 12/9/2016 at 01:48 PM

quote:
In short, Lt. General Flynn’s outrageous peddling of fake news and/or propaganda should be disqualifying. Period. End story.
As we say goodbye to a President who outright lied to the American public on a number of occasions, and hello to the new tactic from the left and major media losers of defining everything they don't like as "fake news" (now that charging everyone as racists and bigots has lost its steam), it's fun to watch these folks squirm. Yes Flynn should be fully vetted and dumped if unqualified, but the entertainment value of all this hypocrisy is worth its weight in gold.


MartinD28 - 12/9/2016 at 03:09 PM

quote:
quote:
In short, Lt. General Flynn’s outrageous peddling of fake news and/or propaganda should be disqualifying. Period. End story.
As we say goodbye to a President who outright lied to the American public on a number of occasions, and hello to the new tactic from the left and major media losers of defining everything they don't like as "fake news" (now that charging everyone as racists and bigots has lost its steam), it's fun to watch these folks squirm. Yes Flynn should be fully vetted and dumped if unqualified, but the entertainment value of all this hypocrisy is worth its weight in gold.


Your generalize quite well when you state, "hello to the new tactic from the left and major media losers of defining everything they don't like as "fake news" (now that charging everyone as racists and bigots has lost its steam), it's fun to watch these folks squirm."

As a start why don't you show where General Flynn's actions with spreading fake news is a left wing tactic. Did he do it or not? You can even quote his son's words. Fake news has become a real issue unless individuals are in denial and choose to bury their heads in the sand because it doesn't fit a narrow minded belief.

Your disdain for Pres. Obama has been noted over the years. Maybe you can cheer as Trump's entire campaign was one lie after another. Beware of what the country just voted in and got bamboozled by. You'll get what you deserve.


LeglizHemp - 12/9/2016 at 03:14 PM

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

Carrier to ultimately cut some of jobs Trump saved
by Chris Isidore @CNNMoney
December 9, 2016: 8:16 AM ET

It sounded like great news when Carrier said last week that it would invest millions in the Indiana plant it decided to keep in the U.S.

The company's deal with President-elect Donald Trump to keep a furnace plant from moving to Mexico also calls for a $16 million investment in the facility.

But that has a big down side for some of the workers in Indianapolis.

Most of that money will be invested in automation said to Greg Hayes, CEO of United Technologies, Carrier's corporate parent. And that automation will replace some of the jobs that were just saved.

"We're going to...automate to drive the cost down so that we can continue to be competitive," he said on an interview on CNBC earlier this week. "Is it as cheap as moving to Mexico with lower cost labor? No. But we will make that plant competitive just because we'll make the capital investments there. But what that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs."

The decision to keep Carrier's furnace manufacturing operations in the U.S. instead of moving them to Mexico will save about 800 jobs out of the 1,400 at the plant, at least in the near term. The company declined to say how many of the plants 800 remaining jobs could be lost to automation, or when.

The threat that automation poses to jobs a big concern for Chuck Jones, president of United Steelworkers union Local 1999, which represents the Carrier workers.

"Automation means less people," he told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day" on Thursday. "I think we'll have a reduction of workforce at some point in time once they get all the automation in and up and running."

Still, automation is the only way that a plant in Indiana that pays about $20 an hour can compete with Mexican plants where workers earn $3 an hour.

The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs in the U.S. has declined sharply thanks in large part to more efficient factories.

"You can't just blame cheap labor [outside the U.S.]," said Dan Miklovic, principal analyst with LNS research. "Certainly many of the jobs that we've lost, especially in more sophisticated industries, it's not so much that they've been offshored, but it has been automation that replaced them. We use a lot more robots to build cars."

All together, U.S. factories are actually producing more products today than they did in the post-World War II era, according to the Federal Reserve's reading on manufacturing output. Output at U.S. factories is up 150% in last 40 years. But U.S. manufacturing jobs have plunged by more than 30% in that same period. And automation is a big reason why.

And it's not a trend that's going to end with Carrier or even with manufacturers.

A recent study by McKinsey & Co. said that 45% of the tasks that U.S. workers are currently paid to perform can be automated by existing technology. That represents about $2 trillion in annual wages.


Muleman1994 - 12/9/2016 at 04:32 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
In short, Lt. General Flynn’s outrageous peddling of fake news and/or propaganda should be disqualifying. Period. End story.
As we say goodbye to a President who outright lied to the American public on a number of occasions, and hello to the new tactic from the left and major media losers of defining everything they don't like as "fake news" (now that charging everyone as racists and bigots has lost its steam), it's fun to watch these folks squirm. Yes Flynn should be fully vetted and dumped if unqualified, but the entertainment value of all this hypocrisy is worth its weight in gold.


Your generalize quite well when you state, "hello to the new tactic from the left and major media losers of defining everything they don't like as "fake news" (now that charging everyone as racists and bigots has lost its steam), it's fun to watch these folks squirm."

As a start why don't you show where General Flynn's actions with spreading fake news is a left wing tactic. Did he do it or not? You can even quote his son's words. Fake news has become a real issue unless individuals are in denial and choose to bury their heads in the sand because it doesn't fit a narrow minded belief.

Your disdain for Pres. Obama has been noted over the years. Maybe you can cheer as Trump's entire campaign was one lie after another. Beware of what the country just voted in and got bamboozled by. You'll get what you deserve.

___________________________________________________________________________ __________

"Trump's entire campaign was one lie after another"

You are very confused son.
The one lie after another was Obama's entire Presidency and the now disgraced Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

That is okay. the American People fixed that for you.


Muleman1994 - 12/9/2016 at 05:31 PM




pops42 - 12/9/2016 at 05:35 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
In short, Lt. General Flynn’s outrageous peddling of fake news and/or propaganda should be disqualifying. Period. End story.
As we say goodbye to a President who outright lied to the American public on a number of occasions, and hello to the new tactic from the left and major media losers of defining everything they don't like as "fake news" (now that charging everyone as racists and bigots has lost its steam), it's fun to watch these folks squirm. Yes Flynn should be fully vetted and dumped if unqualified, but the entertainment value of all this hypocrisy is worth its weight in gold.


Your generalize quite well when you state, "hello to the new tactic from the left and major media losers of defining everything they don't like as "fake news" (now that charging everyone as racists and bigots has lost its steam), it's fun to watch these folks squirm."

As a start why don't you show where General Flynn's actions with spreading fake news is a left wing tactic. Did he do it or not? You can even quote his son's words. Fake news has become a real issue unless individuals are in denial and choose to bury their heads in the sand because it doesn't fit a narrow minded belief.

Your disdain for Pres. Obama has been noted over the years. Maybe you can cheer as Trump's entire campaign was one lie after another. Beware of what the country just voted in and got bamboozled by. You'll get what you deserve.

___________________________________________________________________________ __________

"Trump's entire campaign was one lie after another"

You are very confused son.
The one lie after another was trump's campaign, and now two million more people voted for Hillary Clinton then did for the orange jagoff.

fixed that for you.


Bhawk - 12/9/2016 at 08:42 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It is the press who serves one role as checks and balances on the exec office.
No longer. Most gave up that duty to play cheerleader for the current administration.
Interesting. Can you list maybe a half dozen or so of the major media sources / outlets that you feel fit your statement?
If you don't believe the major media institutions bent over backwards to give the current administration a pass in terms of scrutiny, then no list will satisfy. Think of all the media losers who missed the Trump call and you have your answer.
When it comes a dereliction in a situation that led to massive loss of life, the media "pass" given during the runup to the Second Iraq War was far more devastating than anything else that has come after it.
No disagreement here. But in addition, consider all those in Congress who supported it AND had gov't intelligence to aid their decision, Hillary among them.


I've considered them all, and they were all wrong. Hillary as well. Said it then, I'll say it now. The media was also complicit in the drumbeats of war.

I can remember one guy who didn't vote for it, though.


Bhawk - 12/9/2016 at 08:44 PM

quote:
hello to the new tactic from the left and major media losers of defining everything they don't like as "fake news"


Are you saying there's not completely fabricated "news" that has been appearing all over the place for several months now? I know you are smarter than that, and your lame potshot at "the left" is just you not wanting to acknowledge the existence of something that most certainly does exist.


Muleman1994 - 12/9/2016 at 09:16 PM

quote:
quote:
hello to the new tactic from the left and major media losers of defining everything they don't like as "fake news"


Are you saying there's not completely fabricated "news" that has been appearing all over the place for several months now? I know you are smarter than that, and your lame potshot at "the left" is just you not wanting to acknowledge the existence of something that most certainly does exist.

___________________________________________________________________________ __________

Oh yes there is a lot of fake news.
The NYT, WAPO, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN tried to lie their way to an election to fit their political agenda and they lost.

Ha ha.


IPowrie - 12/9/2016 at 11:26 PM

On the topic of manufacturing, this article sums up the region I live in pretty well

http://reut.rs/2gqM5Td


Muleman1994 - 12/17/2016 at 12:23 AM

Christmas saved: Carrier families thank Trump, count blessings
By Brooke Singman - Published December 16, 2016 - FoxNews.com

Carrier employee: Trump truly wants to keep jobs in America

The Bray kids are counting on Santa Claus comin' to town, and their parents, like more than 1,000 other Carrier employees whose jobs were saved by a dramatic deal negotiated by President-elect Donald Trump, are counting their blessings.

T.J. Bray, 32, whose job at an Indianapolis air conditioner factory was saved after Trump convinced company executives not to move operations to Monterrey, Mexico, is no longer dreading a dismal holiday.
“If you had told me in February this year would end on a good note, I would have told you you’re bat crazy,” the 14-year Carrier production associate told FoxNews.com. “We can all breathe a sigh of relief knowing we can go back to doing what we’ve been doing –doing the best job we can do and going home to take care of our families.”

The Brays, T.J., Amanda, Zane and Jovie, learned 11 months ago that his job was being phased out. (Special to FoxNews.com)

The Brays spent the first 11 months of 2016 on a “roller-coaster," after learning on Feb. 10 the plant was winding down, said T.J.'s wife, Amanda, 32. Although they spared son Zane, 6, and daughter, Jovie, 4, the near year-long anxiety, the Brays told their children the good news on Nov. 30, after getting word that Carrier's parent company had reversed its plans. The decision came after officials met with Trump and got tax incentives from Indiana, where Vice President-elect Mike Pence is still governor.
“My daughter now says ‘Daddy, Donald Trump saved your job!’” T.J.Bray said. “Mommy and Daddy don’t have to worry about anything.”

Amanda Bray said the year was difficult.

“T.J. is my rock; my security blanket –but when he told me the news, I could hear the panic in his voice,” she said. “I knew at that very moment our roles were going to switch, and I would have to be the strong one and lift him up –I never had to play that role.”

The Bray family Christmas tree, (l.), will have presents under it after President-elect Trump, at right visiting Carrier's plant, struck a deal to save jobs. (Special to FoxNews.com, AP)

Her husband acknowledged there was fear behind the brave face he tried to wear for nearly a year.
“It’s a blessing to know you could lose your job a year in advance, but it’s like you’re waiting for your funeral,” he said.

But now, “It’s Christmastime and knowing my job is safe, we can now breathe a bit easier,” he added.
Robin Maynard, who has worked for Carrier for 24 years, said having his job saved has made him even more appreciative of what really matters during the season of caring and charity.

“We’re going to give a little bit more this year than we have in the past,” said Maynard, a Carrier group leader.

His wife, Candy Maynard, is a former sixth-grade teacher who is now on disability due to a decline in health this year. Losing the family income would have hit the couple and their three daughters hard.

“God is in control and we’re so blessed the Lord is taking care of us,” Candy Maynard said. “This made our Christmas so much brighter.”

The same lesson is not lost on the Brays, who say their children were “always going to have a good Christmas,” but that the family has learned time together means more than "extra things.”

“Priorities get put into perspective really quickly,” Amanda Bray said. “We’ve changed our way of life, and I don’t think I’ll go back.”

Amanda Bray said the family drew closer, as they saved whatever extra money they had for experiences and memories, rather than material things. Highlights included their family vacation to the beach, and a trip to New York City to watch the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade.

“We promised we would take the kids on vacations long before the bad news about T.J.’s job, and we made it happen – I didn’t want to disappoint them,” Amanda Bray said.

Spoiler alert: If you are one of the Bray children, stop reading now.

Zane's list has been checked twice, and Jovie is going to get the Barbie Dream House, complete with an elevator. It will come from Santa by way of a single mom Amanda Bray found on Facebook, who offered her own daughter's a gently used version for a fraction of the $149 retail price.

“I’m helping her and she’s helping me; and if my children want something, no matter what, I’ll figure it out," Amanda Bray said. "I think that’s what moms do.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/12/16/christmas-saved-carrier-families-thank -trump-count-blessings.html


nebish - 12/17/2016 at 03:21 AM

quote:
On the topic of manufacturing, this article sums up the region I live in pretty well

http://reut.rs/2gqM5Td


That is a problem. And all the new union hires at the auto plants get hired at a lower tier now, some of that thanks to the auto-bail-out.

What I've always thought is that if more of these jobs were here (either created or "reshored") then companies would have to compete for workers and wages and benefits would have to increase to attract those workers. When there is an over abundance of labor then wages can stay low. Everything has to come together for it all to work out. Business interests want one thing. Workers want another thing. What does the government want and who will they favor? Trump has signaled he will try to balance this, Carrier is just one example. He's got 4 years to make it happen on alot bigger scale than a one instance example. We shall see.

quote:
Christmas saved: Carrier families thank Trump, count blessings
By Brooke Singman - Published December 16, 2016 - FoxNews.com

Carrier employee: Trump truly wants to keep jobs in America

The Bray kids are counting on Santa Claus comin' to town, and their parents, like more than 1,000 other Carrier employees whose jobs were saved by a dramatic deal negotiated by President-elect Donald Trump, are counting their blessings.



Shouldn't a story just written now atleast have the right number of jobs that have been saved? It isn't over 1000 as has been reported.

Time to put this one to bed anyway. How much run do you want from it? I'm happy for it, I've said such in this thread. But what is next? More jobs to save at other companies in Indy. More jobs to save elsewhere in the US. Why haven't more actions similar to what happened at Carrier happened yet?

[Edited on 12/17/2016 by nebish]


MarkRamsey - 12/17/2016 at 11:16 AM

Rome wasn't built in one day. Trump probably still has a lot of work to do getting all those Trump brand clothing lines brought back into this country.


Muleman1994 - 12/17/2016 at 04:22 PM

quote:
quote:
On the topic of manufacturing, this article sums up the region I live in pretty well

http://reut.rs/2gqM5Td


That is a problem. And all the new union hires at the auto plants get hired at a lower tier now, some of that thanks to the auto-bail-out.

What I've always thought is that if more of these jobs were here (either created or "reshored") then companies would have to compete for workers and wages and benefits would have to increase to attract those workers. When there is an over abundance of labor then wages can stay low. Everything has to come together for it all to work out. Business interests want one thing. Workers want another thing. What does the government want and who will they favor? Trump has signaled he will try to balance this, Carrier is just one example. He's got 4 years to make it happen on alot bigger scale than a one instance example. We shall see.

quote:
Christmas saved: Carrier families thank Trump, count blessings
By Brooke Singman - Published December 16, 2016 - FoxNews.com

Carrier employee: Trump truly wants to keep jobs in America

The Bray kids are counting on Santa Claus comin' to town, and their parents, like more than 1,000 other Carrier employees whose jobs were saved by a dramatic deal negotiated by President-elect Donald Trump, are counting their blessings.



Shouldn't a story just written now atleast have the right number of jobs that have been saved? It isn't over 1000 as has been reported.

Time to put this one to bed anyway. How much run do you want from it? I'm happy for it, I've said such in this thread. But what is next? More jobs to save at other companies in Indy. More jobs to save elsewhere in the US. Why haven't more actions similar to what happened at Carrier happened yet?

[Edited on 12/17/2016 by nebish]

___________________________________________________________________________ ____________

With the U.S. having the highest corporate tax rate in the world, a militant union environment and the thousands of regulations imposed on companies over the last eight years many companies, in order to survive, had to relocate the corporate entity and/or manufacturing outside of the U.S.

If a company cannot be profitable in the U.S. it is that company’s responsibility to go where it can continue to operate.

The best chance for that happening right now is Donald Trump.

A renegotiating of the so-called free trade agreements will really help as well. We need free and fair trade agreements which have not been the practice over the last few decades.

This $15/hr "demand" is simply impractical. Automation and common sense has shown it to be a net job loosing idea. Popular doesn't make it work.



Swifty - 12/17/2016 at 09:16 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
On the topic of manufacturing, this article sums up the region I live in pretty well

http://reut.rs/2gqM5Td


That is a problem. And all the new union hires at the auto plants get hired at a lower tier now, some of that thanks to the auto-bail-out.

What I've always thought is that if more of these jobs were here (either created or "reshored") then companies would have to compete for workers and wages and benefits would have to increase to attract those workers. When there is an over abundance of labor then wages can stay low. Everything has to come together for it all to work out. Business interests want one thing. Workers want another thing. What does the government want and who will they favor? Trump has signaled he will try to balance this, Carrier is just one example. He's got 4 years to make it happen on alot bigger scale than a one instance example. We shall see.

quote:
Christmas saved: Carrier families thank Trump, count blessings
By Brooke Singman - Published December 16, 2016 - FoxNews.com

Carrier employee: Trump truly wants to keep jobs in America

The Bray kids are counting on Santa Claus comin' to town, and their parents, like more than 1,000 other Carrier employees whose jobs were saved by a dramatic deal negotiated by President-elect Donald Trump, are counting their blessings.



Shouldn't a story just written now atleast have the right number of jobs that have been saved? It isn't over 1000 as has been reported.

Time to put this one to bed anyway. How much run do you want from it? I'm happy for it, I've said such in this thread. But what is next? More jobs to save at other companies in Indy. More jobs to save elsewhere in the US. Why haven't more actions similar to what happened at Carrier happened yet?

[Edited on 12/17/2016 by nebish]

___________________________________________________________________________ ____________

With the U.S. having the highest corporate tax rate in the world, a militant union environment and the thousands of regulations imposed on companies over the last eight years many companies, in order to survive, had to relocate the corporate entity and/or manufacturing outside of the U.S.

If a company cannot be profitable in the U.S. it is that company’s responsibility to go where it can continue to operate.

The best chance for that happening right now is Donald Trump.

A renegotiating of the so-called free trade agreements will really help as well. We need free and fair trade agreements which have not been the practice over the last few decades.

This $15/hr "demand" is simply impractical. Automation and common sense has shown it to be a net job loosing idea. Popular doesn't make it work.




The salaries of CEO's and higher management have climbed disproportionately over the last 60 years at the expense of worker wages and opportunities. There needs to be a much larger share of the pie allocated to worker wages. Most corporations could continue to operate in the US if they brought corporate compensation down to what it is was in the 1950’s; CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratio has Ballooned 1,000 percent since 1950. How much as minimum wage gone up in this period?

quote:

The Dodd-Frank financial reform law aimed to make it easier for the public to know how much CEOs are getting paid in comparison to their workers. The law includes a provision requiring public companies to disclose their CEO-to-worker pay ratios, but nearly three years after the law passed, the Securities and Exchange commission still hasn’t put the rule in place, thanks in part to business opposition to the proposal, according to ABC News.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who authored the provision told ABC last year: “It might embarrass some companies to reveal that they pay their CEO in the range of 400 times what they pay their typical worker.”

It can be especially embarrassing when the CEO doesn’t perform. Former J.C. Penney head Ron Johnson, whose compensation was 1,795 times the average worker pay, according to Bloomberg, was recently ousted from his post after failing to turn around the struggling company.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/ceo-to-worker-pay-ratio_n_3184623. html

Most of the savings in labor costs achieved through relocation have gone straight into the pockets of higher management and shareholders. Management and shareholders are not going to want to split these profits with workers if they return to the US. The US government would have to subsidize this move as it has promised to do with Carrier.

Moving operations overseas has allowed companies to not only pay workers less but to take advantage of the multiple resources a worker's family has to meet household costs. Many of these companies are based in rural areas and so the daily cost of living is supplemented by keeping small farms. Wages in these areas only make up a percentage of what a worker needs to support a family.

US workers have to be given a wage that would cover a much higher proportion of household expenses. To give the average worker a chance to make a living wage and support a family minimum wage would have to be in the $35 range. This again would have to be subtracted from corporate wages.


Muleman1994 - 12/17/2016 at 11:07 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
On the topic of manufacturing, this article sums up the region I live in pretty well

http://reut.rs/2gqM5Td


That is a problem. And all the new union hires at the auto plants get hired at a lower tier now, some of that thanks to the auto-bail-out.

What I've always thought is that if more of these jobs were here (either created or "reshored") then companies would have to compete for workers and wages and benefits would have to increase to attract those workers. When there is an over abundance of labor then wages can stay low. Everything has to come together for it all to work out. Business interests want one thing. Workers want another thing. What does the government want and who will they favor? Trump has signaled he will try to balance this, Carrier is just one example. He's got 4 years to make it happen on alot bigger scale than a one instance example. We shall see.

quote:
Christmas saved: Carrier families thank Trump, count blessings
By Brooke Singman - Published December 16, 2016 - FoxNews.com

Carrier employee: Trump truly wants to keep jobs in America

The Bray kids are counting on Santa Claus comin' to town, and their parents, like more than 1,000 other Carrier employees whose jobs were saved by a dramatic deal negotiated by President-elect Donald Trump, are counting their blessings.



Shouldn't a story just written now atleast have the right number of jobs that have been saved? It isn't over 1000 as has been reported.

Time to put this one to bed anyway. How much run do you want from it? I'm happy for it, I've said such in this thread. But what is next? More jobs to save at other companies in Indy. More jobs to save elsewhere in the US. Why haven't more actions similar to what happened at Carrier happened yet?

[Edited on 12/17/2016 by nebish]

___________________________________________________________________________ ____________

With the U.S. having the highest corporate tax rate in the world, a militant union environment and the thousands of regulations imposed on companies over the last eight years many companies, in order to survive, had to relocate the corporate entity and/or manufacturing outside of the U.S.

If a company cannot be profitable in the U.S. it is that company’s responsibility to go where it can continue to operate.

The best chance for that happening right now is Donald Trump.

A renegotiating of the so-called free trade agreements will really help as well. We need free and fair trade agreements which have not been the practice over the last few decades.

This $15/hr "demand" is simply impractical. Automation and common sense has shown it to be a net job loosing idea. Popular doesn't make it work.




The salaries of CEO's and higher management have climbed disproportionately over the last 60 years at the expense of worker wages and opportunities. There needs to be a much larger share of the pie allocated to worker wages. Most corporations could continue to operate in the US if they brought corporate compensation down to what it is was in the 1950’s; CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratio has Ballooned 1,000 percent since 1950. How much as minimum wage gone up in this period?

quote:

The Dodd-Frank financial reform law aimed to make it easier for the public to know how much CEOs are getting paid in comparison to their workers. The law includes a provision requiring public companies to disclose their CEO-to-worker pay ratios, but nearly three years after the law passed, the Securities and Exchange commission still hasn’t put the rule in place, thanks in part to business opposition to the proposal, according to ABC News.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who authored the provision told ABC last year: “It might embarrass some companies to reveal that they pay their CEO in the range of 400 times what they pay their typical worker.”

It can be especially embarrassing when the CEO doesn’t perform. Former J.C. Penney head Ron Johnson, whose compensation was 1,795 times the average worker pay, according to Bloomberg, was recently ousted from his post after failing to turn around the struggling company.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/ceo-to-worker-pay-ratio_n_3184623. html

Most of the savings in labor costs achieved through relocation have gone straight into the pockets of higher management and shareholders. Management and shareholders are not going to want to split these profits with workers if they return to the US. The US government would have to subsidize this move as it has promised to do with Carrier.

Moving operations overseas has allowed companies to not only pay workers less but to take advantage of the multiple resources a worker's family has to meet household costs. Many of these companies are based in rural areas and so the daily cost of living is supplemented by keeping small farms. Wages in these areas only make up a percentage of what a worker needs to support a family.

US workers have to be given a wage that would cover a much higher proportion of household expenses. To give the average worker a chance to make a living wage and support a family minimum wage would have to be in the $35 range. This again would have to be subtracted from corporate wages.


___________________________________________________________________________ ________

Your post is just more evidence as to why The American People just wholly rejected obama's policies and Hillary Clinton.

You actually believe the crap the liberals have been feeding their suckers.

BTW - The minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage. To achieve that someone need to get a good education and continue to advance through hard work and dedication.


nebish - 12/18/2016 at 02:13 PM

quote:
The salaries of CEO's and higher management have climbed disproportionately over the last 60 years at the expense of worker wages and opportunities. There needs to be a much larger share of the pie allocated to worker wages. Most corporations could continue to operate in the US if they brought corporate compensation down to what it is was in the 1950’s; CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratio has Ballooned 1,000 percent since 1950. How much as minimum wage gone up in this period?

quote:
The Dodd-Frank financial reform law aimed to make it easier for the public to know how much CEOs are getting paid in comparison to their workers. The law includes a provision requiring public companies to disclose their CEO-to-worker pay ratios, but nearly three years after the law passed, the Securities and Exchange commission still hasn’t put the rule in place, thanks in part to business opposition to the proposal, according to ABC News.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who authored the provision told ABC last year: “It might embarrass some companies to reveal that they pay their CEO in the range of 400 times what they pay their typical worker.”

It can be especially embarrassing when the CEO doesn’t perform. Former J.C. Penney head Ron Johnson, whose compensation was 1,795 times the average worker pay, according to Bloomberg, was recently ousted from his post after failing to turn around the struggling company.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/ceo-to-worker-pay-ratio_n_3184623. html

Most of the savings in labor costs achieved through relocation have gone straight into the pockets of higher management and shareholders. Management and shareholders are not going to want to split these profits with workers if they return to the US. The US government would have to subsidize this move as it has promised to do with Carrier.

Moving operations overseas has allowed companies to not only pay workers less but to take advantage of the multiple resources a worker's family has to meet household costs. Many of these companies are based in rural areas and so the daily cost of living is supplemented by keeping small farms. Wages in these areas only make up a percentage of what a worker needs to support a family.

US workers have to be given a wage that would cover a much higher proportion of household expenses. To give the average worker a chance to make a living wage and support a family minimum wage would have to be in the $35 range. This again would have to be subtracted from corporate wages.



I agree with your assessment on where the profits have gone with outsoucing and overseas operations. And I agree with what you state has happened over the last several decades in terms of CEO vs average worker pay. I know where you are coming from and I'm not too far away from it, although I am generally against higher minimum wages or mandated living wages. I want the process to happen naturally...as in more jobs chasing fewer workers. When more opportunities exist than can easily be filled by the existing labor pool wages will rise organically in a supply - demand of labor equation.

But let me ask you a question, you say increasing average worker pay would have to come from corporate wages (CEO and management). And you also say that the corporation isn't going to accept less profit to pay more in wages.

So then how do you do it? I mean how does it happen?

Let's just say that Washington passed some high wage requirements...ok it is law of the land. What is going to happen? It would only accelerate and expand outsourcing as corporations look to escape the new higher wage requirement to the extent they can. Right, wrong, or otherwise I understand the motives of the corporation and their shareholders. You don't just think that CEO's and upper management willingly will take less pay?

I really think the first step in the process has to be rewarding companies who stay or invest in facilities and people here. And then we must penalize those who take advantage of foreign labor and lower overhead costs to bring their goods and services to market here in the US.

Once that is achieved, and every company who wants to sell product in our market is truly on a level playing field I think the impact on wages will be dramatic. Not in this one-off Carrier example. I'm talking about Samsung building appliances here. I'm talking about more autos being made here. Everything that can be built or assembled here. The opportunities for labor would be outstanding.

Free traders like to say "the world has x number of people and we are only y% of that world population, we can't just buy and sell among ourselves we must sell to the world". Great in theory, but how many of the world population can actually buy our "stuff". How many people in Central America or Africa or even Asia, how many of those people have the income to buy things made here? And who is to say that just because an American company can sell into that market, where is that stuff made? Are we talking about an Apple iphone, made in China and sold globally? Are we talking about Cat earth moving equipment? Because Cat actually employs more people globally than they do in US and their product is built in plants all over the world. Are we talking about a Chevy Cruze that when sold abroad does not get exported from the US production plant, instead it is built in several plants around the globe to satisfy world-wide sales. I mean, there are certainly substantial stuff we export, and in some trade adjustment process I speak of, some of those people may be hurt by new trade law. However, I think as a nation and for our population in general the postitives far outweigh the negatives on balance.


Swifty - 12/19/2016 at 03:09 AM

quote:
quote:
The salaries of CEO's and higher management have climbed disproportionately over the last 60 years at the expense of worker wages and opportunities. There needs to be a much larger share of the pie allocated to worker wages. Most corporations could continue to operate in the US if they brought corporate compensation down to what it is was in the 1950’s; CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratio has Ballooned 1,000 percent since 1950. How much as minimum wage gone up in this period?

quote:
The Dodd-Frank financial reform law aimed to make it easier for the public to know how much CEOs are getting paid in comparison to their workers. The law includes a provision requiring public companies to disclose their CEO-to-worker pay ratios, but nearly three years after the law passed, the Securities and Exchange commission still hasn’t put the rule in place, thanks in part to business opposition to the proposal, according to ABC News.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who authored the provision told ABC last year: “It might embarrass some companies to reveal that they pay their CEO in the range of 400 times what they pay their typical worker.”

It can be especially embarrassing when the CEO doesn’t perform. Former J.C. Penney head Ron Johnson, whose compensation was 1,795 times the average worker pay, according to Bloomberg, was recently ousted from his post after failing to turn around the struggling company.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/ceo-to-worker-pay-ratio_n_3184623. html

Most of the savings in labor costs achieved through relocation have gone straight into the pockets of higher management and shareholders. Management and shareholders are not going to want to split these profits with workers if they return to the US. The US government would have to subsidize this move as it has promised to do with Carrier.

Moving operations overseas has allowed companies to not only pay workers less but to take advantage of the multiple resources a worker's family has to meet household costs. Many of these companies are based in rural areas and so the daily cost of living is supplemented by keeping small farms. Wages in these areas only make up a percentage of what a worker needs to support a family.

US workers have to be given a wage that would cover a much higher proportion of household expenses. To give the average worker a chance to make a living wage and support a family minimum wage would have to be in the $35 range. This again would have to be subtracted from corporate wages.



I agree with your assessment on where the profits have gone with outsoucing and overseas operations. And I agree with what you state has happened over the last several decades in terms of CEO vs average worker pay. I know where you are coming from and I'm not too far away from it, although I am generally against higher minimum wages or mandated living wages. I want the process to happen naturally...as in more jobs chasing fewer workers. When more opportunities exist than can easily be filled by the existing labor pool wages will rise organically in a supply - demand of labor equation.

But let me ask you a question, you say increasing average worker pay would have to come from corporate wages (CEO and management). And you also say that the corporation isn't going to accept less profit to pay more in wages.

So then how do you do it? I mean how does it happen?

Let's just say that Washington passed some high wage requirements...ok it is law of the land. What is going to happen? It would only accelerate and expand outsourcing as corporations look to escape the new higher wage requirement to the extent they can. Right, wrong, or otherwise I understand the motives of the corporation and their shareholders. You don't just think that CEO's and upper management willingly will take less pay?

I really think the first step in the process has to be rewarding companies who stay or invest in facilities and people here. And then we must penalize those who take advantage of foreign labor and lower overhead costs to bring their goods and services to market here in the US.

Once that is achieved, and every company who wants to sell product in our market is truly on a level playing field I think the impact on wages will be dramatic. Not in this one-off Carrier example. I'm talking about Samsung building appliances here. I'm talking about more autos being made here. Everything that can be built or assembled here. The opportunities for labor would be outstanding.

Free traders like to say "the world has x number of people and we are only y% of that world population, we can't just buy and sell among ourselves we must sell to the world". Great in theory, but how many of the world population can actually buy our "stuff". How many people in Central America or Africa or even Asia, how many of those people have the income to buy things made here? And who is to say that just because an American company can sell into that market, where is that stuff made? Are we talking about an Apple iphone, made in China and sold globally? Are we talking about Cat earth moving equipment? Because Cat actually employs more people globally than they do in US and their product is built in plants all over the world. Are we talking about a Chevy Cruze that when sold abroad does not get exported from the US production plant, instead it is built in several plants around the globe to satisfy world-wide sales. I mean, there are certainly substantial stuff we export, and in some trade adjustment process I speak of, some of those people may be hurt by new trade law. However, I think as a nation and for our population in general the postitives far outweigh the negatives on balance.



quote:
When more opportunities exist than can easily be filled by the existing labor pool wages will rise organically in a supply - demand of labor equation.


This labor pool right now is very large and many of them have antiquated skills. Most of these workers will require some retraining. What I suggest below is a way to give companies an incentive to retrain them and then give them good paying jobs by increasing the value of the goods they produce.

quote:
But let me ask you a question, you say increasing average worker pay would have to come from corporate wages (CEO and management). And you also say that the corporation isn't going to accept less profit to pay more in wages.

So then how do you do it? I mean how does it happen?


If you look at most of Trump’s Cabinet, they became billionaires largely by screwing people. Capitalists have never been nice guys and gals. It would seem that this group would never voluntarily ever give anything up for the workers. The best bet would be to demonstrate how workers as consumers can actually function as assets. This type of a system is called Fordism and many see it as a catalyst that helped create the US Middle Class.

Only a short time ago there was a special cachet for goods made in the USA. I lived in Mexico in the eighties and whenever I went back to the US friends would order Levi Strauss jeans, transistors and other products that were made in the USA. I would point out that most of this stuff was available in Mexico at much cheaper prices. They would respond but it’s not made in America and point to the deficiencies of the other products.

The goal of companies that manufacture goods in the US should be to make superior goods for both the US market and the fast growing middle class market abroad. The message should be if you want to buy cheap by elsewhere, but if you want quality buy American. It is really not too late to revitalize an image in the global mindset—similar to that which existed in Mexico and many other countries as recently as the eighties--that American made is synonymous with quality and longevity.

The product line from American companies has been cheapened in a number of ways over the last few decades. The first is Hollywood’s production of low end movies. How does one explain the abundance of movies on Netflix that critics on rotten tomatoes seldom score above 25%? Is it really possible that the majority of US movies are that bad? Are we witnessing the slow degradation of one of America’s premier art forms? Or have movie producers ever eager to capitalize on the continued fascination with American culture begun to cater to the low end of the global market. Anyone who has lived abroad knows that in Asia, Latin America and elsewhere workers being paid little more than subsistence wages brighten their lives by going to the movies, and they don’t like reruns. That is a huge market and it is probably where the most money from American movies is made.

This could sound elitist but Hollywood should return to making the kind of movies that Clint Eastwood always produces. Yes, there will not be as many crappy American movies in circulation at any one time, but the stuff that does get released will carry that special aura of being produced in America. American movies should be as awe inspiring as each Apple iphone release. A lot of American culture is sold abroad through movies and if the presentation is cheapened then so will the value of American goods.

Another way American goods are cheapened is by making them about the brand and not where they are made. As an example LL Bean is using America to elevate its brand. The goods though that LL Bean sells are made outside of the US. As the company looks for cheaper and cheaper manufacturing centers the contrast is between what goods are produced in China or Vietnam and which are inferior and which are superior. Any mention of America is totally absent in the new production cycle. Trump, as an example, could announce his ties and clothes will hitherto be produced in the US and will become Trump products exclusively made in the US. He could encourage other companies to follow him. America first, brand second.

Should workers be paid $35 and upward? Henry Ford believed that there was a benefit in giving workers higher wages in that they were then able to become more avid consumers. Workers who purchase American made goods could become advertising symbols for their own companies and for made in American culture abroad. Investing in workers thus becomes a hidden asset for companies who want to expand their range abroad.

One always tends to see India or China as impoverished but both countries have growing middle classes. One of the defining features of the Middle Class is that it is composed of very eager consumers ever ready to purchase items that would elevate their social status. Superior American made goods would fit right into this growing niche.

The bottom strata would still be served by other companies and they would not be deprived of entertainment or clothes by the above targeted system. Perhaps members of this rank would work harder to rise up economically and be able to purchase American made goods.


Muleman1994 - 12/19/2016 at 02:57 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
The salaries of CEO's and higher management have climbed disproportionately over the last 60 years at the expense of worker wages and opportunities. There needs to be a much larger share of the pie allocated to worker wages. Most corporations could continue to operate in the US if they brought corporate compensation down to what it is was in the 1950’s; CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratio has Ballooned 1,000 percent since 1950. How much as minimum wage gone up in this period?

quote:
The Dodd-Frank financial reform law aimed to make it easier for the public to know how much CEOs are getting paid in comparison to their workers. The law includes a provision requiring public companies to disclose their CEO-to-worker pay ratios, but nearly three years after the law passed, the Securities and Exchange commission still hasn’t put the rule in place, thanks in part to business opposition to the proposal, according to ABC News.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who authored the provision told ABC last year: “It might embarrass some companies to reveal that they pay their CEO in the range of 400 times what they pay their typical worker.”

It can be especially embarrassing when the CEO doesn’t perform. Former J.C. Penney head Ron Johnson, whose compensation was 1,795 times the average worker pay, according to Bloomberg, was recently ousted from his post after failing to turn around the struggling company.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/ceo-to-worker-pay-ratio_n_3184623. html

Most of the savings in labor costs achieved through relocation have gone straight into the pockets of higher management and shareholders. Management and shareholders are not going to want to split these profits with workers if they return to the US. The US government would have to subsidize this move as it has promised to do with Carrier.

Moving operations overseas has allowed companies to not only pay workers less but to take advantage of the multiple resources a worker's family has to meet household costs. Many of these companies are based in rural areas and so the daily cost of living is supplemented by keeping small farms. Wages in these areas only make up a percentage of what a worker needs to support a family.

US workers have to be given a wage that would cover a much higher proportion of household expenses. To give the average worker a chance to make a living wage and support a family minimum wage would have to be in the $35 range. This again would have to be subtracted from corporate wages.



I agree with your assessment on where the profits have gone with outsoucing and overseas operations. And I agree with what you state has happened over the last several decades in terms of CEO vs average worker pay. I know where you are coming from and I'm not too far away from it, although I am generally against higher minimum wages or mandated living wages. I want the process to happen naturally...as in more jobs chasing fewer workers. When more opportunities exist than can easily be filled by the existing labor pool wages will rise organically in a supply - demand of labor equation.

But let me ask you a question, you say increasing average worker pay would have to come from corporate wages (CEO and management). And you also say that the corporation isn't going to accept less profit to pay more in wages.

So then how do you do it? I mean how does it happen?

Let's just say that Washington passed some high wage requirements...ok it is law of the land. What is going to happen? It would only accelerate and expand outsourcing as corporations look to escape the new higher wage requirement to the extent they can. Right, wrong, or otherwise I understand the motives of the corporation and their shareholders. You don't just think that CEO's and upper management willingly will take less pay?

I really think the first step in the process has to be rewarding companies who stay or invest in facilities and people here. And then we must penalize those who take advantage of foreign labor and lower overhead costs to bring their goods and services to market here in the US.

Once that is achieved, and every company who wants to sell product in our market is truly on a level playing field I think the impact on wages will be dramatic. Not in this one-off Carrier example. I'm talking about Samsung building appliances here. I'm talking about more autos being made here. Everything that can be built or assembled here. The opportunities for labor would be outstanding.

Free traders like to say "the world has x number of people and we are only y% of that world population, we can't just buy and sell among ourselves we must sell to the world". Great in theory, but how many of the world population can actually buy our "stuff". How many people in Central America or Africa or even Asia, how many of those people have the income to buy things made here? And who is to say that just because an American company can sell into that market, where is that stuff made? Are we talking about an Apple iphone, made in China and sold globally? Are we talking about Cat earth moving equipment? Because Cat actually employs more people globally than they do in US and their product is built in plants all over the world. Are we talking about a Chevy Cruze that when sold abroad does not get exported from the US production plant, instead it is built in several plants around the globe to satisfy world-wide sales. I mean, there are certainly substantial stuff we export, and in some trade adjustment process I speak of, some of those people may be hurt by new trade law. However, I think as a nation and for our population in general the postitives far outweigh the negatives on balance.



quote:
When more opportunities exist than can easily be filled by the existing labor pool wages will rise organically in a supply - demand of labor equation.


This labor pool right now is very large and many of them have antiquated skills. Most of these workers will require some retraining. What I suggest below is a way to give companies an incentive to retrain them and then give them good paying jobs by increasing the value of the goods they produce.

quote:
But let me ask you a question, you say increasing average worker pay would have to come from corporate wages (CEO and management). And you also say that the corporation isn't going to accept less profit to pay more in wages.

So then how do you do it? I mean how does it happen?


If you look at most of Trump’s Cabinet, they became billionaires largely by screwing people. Capitalists have never been nice guys and gals. It would seem that this group would never voluntarily ever give anything up for the workers. The best bet would be to demonstrate how workers as consumers can actually function as assets. This type of a system is called Fordism and many see it as a catalyst that helped create the US Middle Class.

Only a short time ago there was a special cachet for goods made in the USA. I lived in Mexico in the eighties and whenever I went back to the US friends would order Levi Strauss jeans, transistors and other products that were made in the USA. I would point out that most of this stuff was available in Mexico at much cheaper prices. They would respond but it’s not made in America and point to the deficiencies of the other products.

The goal of companies that manufacture goods in the US should be to make superior goods for both the US market and the fast growing middle class market abroad. The message should be if you want to buy cheap by elsewhere, but if you want quality buy American. It is really not too late to revitalize an image in the global mindset—similar to that which existed in Mexico and many other countries as recently as the eighties--that American made is synonymous with quality and longevity.

The product line from American companies has been cheapened in a number of ways over the last few decades. The first is Hollywood’s production of low end movies. How does one explain the abundance of movies on Netflix that critics on rotten tomatoes seldom score above 25%? Is it really possible that the majority of US movies are that bad? Are we witnessing the slow degradation of one of America’s premier art forms? Or have movie producers ever eager to capitalize on the continued fascination with American culture begun to cater to the low end of the global market. Anyone who has lived abroad knows that in Asia, Latin America and elsewhere workers being paid little more than subsistence wages brighten their lives by going to the movies, and they don’t like reruns. That is a huge market and it is probably where the most money from American movies is made.

This could sound elitist but Hollywood should return to making the kind of movies that Clint Eastwood always produces. Yes, there will not be as many crappy American movies in circulation at any one time, but the stuff that does get released will carry that special aura of being produced in America. American movies should be as awe inspiring as each Apple iphone release. A lot of American culture is sold abroad through movies and if the presentation is cheapened then so will the value of American goods.

Another way American goods are cheapened is by making them about the brand and not where they are made. As an example LL Bean is using America to elevate its brand. The goods though that LL Bean sells are made outside of the US. As the company looks for cheaper and cheaper manufacturing centers the contrast is between what goods are produced in China or Vietnam and which are inferior and which are superior. Any mention of America is totally absent in the new production cycle. Trump, as an example, could announce his ties and clothes will hitherto be produced in the US and will become Trump products exclusively made in the US. He could encourage other companies to follow him. America first, brand second.

Should workers be paid $35 and upward? Henry Ford believed that there was a benefit in giving workers higher wages in that they were then able to become more avid consumers. Workers who purchase American made goods could become advertising symbols for their own companies and for made in American culture abroad. Investing in workers thus becomes a hidden asset for companies who want to expand their range abroad.

One always tends to see India or China as impoverished but both countries have growing middle classes. One of the defining features of the Middle Class is that it is composed of very eager consumers ever ready to purchase items that would elevate their social status. Superior American made goods would fit right into this growing niche.

The bottom strata would still be served by other companies and they would not be deprived of entertainment or clothes by the above targeted system. Perhaps members of this rank would work harder to rise up economically and be able to purchase American made goods.

___________________________________________________________________________ ____________

Another regurgitation of the left-wing talking points and factually wrong as in your line "If you look at most of Trump’s Cabinet, they became billionaires largely by screwing people"

From the loading dock down at the garbage dump that mat be your outlook but demonstrates your lack of experience and understanding of the real world.


nebish - 12/19/2016 at 03:32 PM

Appreciate your well reasoned response Swifty - ah an intelligent exchange of ideas in the Whipping Post. It feels good.

I see the retraining issue as a bottle neck, there simply are not enough opportunities in the "new" economy than existed previously for people who were able to attain middle class status in the "old" economy.

I went to automotive trade school with some people who were laid off a Werner ladder manufacturing plant in PA as the production was shifted to Mexico. But new hire auto techs don't get paid what they used to. Why? Because there is an oversupply of qualified applicants trying to get in the field. So much so that alot of old-time techs, the ones with decades of knowledge are being forced out by new hires because they can pay them less and the employer believes they produce similar results. And I have friends and family in teaching and nursing - both fields are saturated with people looking for work in those areas. The gas and oil work was booming here for a while, but that too has fallen on hard times. There are just so many people trying to find that good paying job and it truly is a bottle neck, too many workers fighting for too few jobs. Atleast in my area of NE Ohio and Western PA there just is not enough well paying jobs or even just enough jobs in general in healthcare, education or other service industries, including building or automotive trades.

I know there are new fields of advanced manufacturing that require new skills that some laid off old manufacturing workers could receive. And I know there are opportunities in tech, depending on where one lives. It just doesn't seem like enough is out there, retrained or otherwise.

I just feel that saying "people need retraining" as kind of an easy way to offer a solution to the problem, when in reality, my opinion, by and large it doesn't even begin to solve the issue. Retraining into what? If 1000 people at a manufacturing plant get laid off, what field of employment is lacking 1000 workers that they need to be absorbed into if they get retrained?

I also want to say that LL Bean does make and sell some things in the USA. I am very very in touch with what is or isn't available made in USA to the extent my life almost revolves around it. LL Bean produces some of their boots in the US as well as blankets for beds. Pretty sure they also sell a heavy fabric (almost canvas) material bag, like one might take to the beach or something that is made in USA. You can get your name on it. LL Bean's catalog, as do other catalogs, state which products are USA or some companies use an American flag or something to identify which products are USA as a selling point.

Which brings me to your largest point.

Many companies have realized that advertising and marketing items as Made in USA can be a selling feature which I am very happy about and I even take time to thank some companies for doing so on their websites or catalogs.

But very very few companies, certainly no large companies, are going to market Made in USA over their brand. I might like that, as it sounds you would. But from a business standpoint, growing and promoting a brand name will always be the primary objective. Companies own their brand, it's who they are and they use it to differentiate themselves from the competition. Nobody owns Made in USA, piling money into an ad campaign to promote a companies products that are Made in USA may net positive results, but it isn't the same as promoting their own brand as being the go to source for quality. If two American companies make a boot in the USA, say Thorogood brand and Danner brand...advertising both as made in USA means less because they are both made in the USA. So then these companies are going to use the good will and reputation of their brand to help the sale. The USA feature cancels out.

I know what you are saying that the quality, or perceived quality of a USA made product is what should be promoted. But I'm sure we both know that the USA has no monopoly on quality. I mean, hell, an Oppo DVD player made in China is one of the best DVD/BuRay/Media players on the market period.

So what is better really? Many Japanese products are of very high quality, in some cases better than US. Is a Toyota branded car engineered and made in Japan better than a Ford branded car engineered and made in the USA? Some would say the Toyota.

If we look at electronics, there are still some very high end audio components made in the US and Japan. Most as we know have gone to China, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. Not really even that many electronics coming out of Korea these days that I see. Seems most of the A/V equipment in my lifetime was first made in Japan, then outsourced to Korea, now outsourced to a host of lower wage Asian companies. But I am getting off track.

When it comes to high end electronics there is a huge price difference from say made in USA Triad Speakers vs imported big box store Klipsch speakers. Put Triad and Klipsch in a store at their representative price points and what will sell more?

Put a 6' long metal shelf assembly, the kind you might buy for your garage, made in China for $85 vs a 6' long shelf assembly made in USA for $135 and what will the sales be? Will the USA one be of higher quality, probably, the fitment and quality control will be likely be higher. But will the consumer value that?

I know your example of people in Mexico wanting made in USA, but if you have an American consumer standing in Home Depot wanting a shelf for their garage, which one will sell more? 8 out of 10 consumer I would suggest will buy the cheaper one. Sure maybe they know it may not be as high of quality, but it might be good enough quality for what they need it for. And they can make their dollar stretch further and buy more stuff. Price controls a majority of purchasing decisions. And alot of times it comes down to what people can afford.

Now I've cited many examples where something made in USA is sold for the exact same price as something imported. I actually see it all the time. And in those cases, people are going to buy a brand they know more often than not. Somebody is likely to buy a Stanley hammer vs an off brand hammer if the price is the same irregardless of where it is made. While buying things made in USA has become more important for people, at the end of the day brand and price are bigger driving factors for the majority of people I find.

My friends and family know how much of a USA freak I am, and they all tell me how important it is to them often giving me stories they think I will appreciate. But then I catch them not following their own practices. My Mom just gave me a made in China Christmas card! My Mom! If anyone is more in touch with my country of origin obsession it would be her. Of course I called her on it and she said she forgot to look. A good friend of mine tells me how much he always buys USA, then I see him wearing shoes that are imported. People often say one thing and do another.

I do not think we are going to get a significant number of US consumers who want to buy on the USA feature first and foremost, at best it may be a 3rd criteria for most people after price and brand. And since I don't see companies abandoning brand promotion in favor of USA promotion, and vast majority of people are always going to buy on price then I don't see your solution being viable. As to the Mexican consumers wanting things made in USA, I'm sure your experience is true. But then I read that people in Korea buy Korean, and in fact there are protests over the importation of US beef that is going to compete with Korean raised beef.

So then, I feel that it can't be left to business to do the right thing and it can't be left to consumers to do the right thing. What is the right thing? The right thing is doing what benefits local communities, states and ultimately the federal government. Financially healthy communities, states and government at the federal level, I feel, is best achieved by having people employed, making good wages with more tax revenue coming in than expenditures going out. Less social program spending as people are more self sufficient.

I believe you and I both want the same net result, we just have different visions on how it could be achieved. I think the only realistic way to achieve my vision is with the hand of the government because I can't see consumers or producers doing what is necessary on their own to achieve the goal.


porkchopbob - 12/19/2016 at 04:22 PM

quote:
So what is better really? Many Japanese products are of very high quality, in some cases better than US. Is a Toyota branded car engineered and made in Japan better than a Ford branded car engineered and made in the USA? Some would say the Toyota.



Toyota, Honda, Kia, Nissan, VW, Hyundai, BMW actually all have manufacturing plants in the US (Toyota and Honda each have 4). Sure, they are engineered abroad, but nice to know some of the work and profits go to US workers.


nebish - 12/19/2016 at 06:22 PM

quote:
quote:
So what is better really? Many Japanese products are of very high quality, in some cases better than US. Is a Toyota branded car engineered and made in Japan better than a Ford branded car engineered and made in the USA? Some would say the Toyota.



Toyota, Honda, Kia, Nissan, VW, Hyundai, BMW actually all have manufacturing plants in the US (Toyota and Honda each have 4). Sure, they are engineered abroad, but nice to know some of the work and profits go to US workers.


Sure they do. An argument could be made that Toyota and Honda are fairly vital to the US economy. And some of the lesser companies who make very limited models in the US an argument could be made they have a net negative impact here. But at the end of the day, I want to get more of these foreign auto companies to build more models here.

In the context we were discussing in terms of made in USA or America representing quality, we can't always claim that. For a couple decades the Japanese have also earned a reputation of quality, unlike the post-WWII perception of Japanese products, which at that time they were more comparable to the China in today's market in terms of quality.

Here is an example of perhaps the Japanese product being of better quality than a US product.

Large tires, the kind that lifted trucks or Jeeps might want to use. Goodyear, Interco, and other US companies make some of these tires with aggressive mud tread. And so do some Japanese companies, such is Nitto (a line of Toyo Tire) and Yokohama tires. The large tires made by US companies are very hard to balance. When it is on a tire balancing machine you can see oscillation in the tread and sides of the tire as it spins. The Japanese tires by comparison balance easier. One reason for this could be the Japanese have better quality molds or they replace their molds more often than US companies.

Swifty said that US companies have let some quality go and that is true with alot of things.

If you can build the bestest highest quality thing possible and priced it accordingly, perhaps nobody would buy it. Perhaps the highest level of quality is overkill if nobody appreciates it and pays for what it costs? Manufacturers try and strike a balance of quality, durability, retail price point and profitability. Some quality may be sacrificed in order to achieve some other goals.

Again, US companies can't be left to themselves to look out for what is best for America. And these companies can't be relied upon to promote the made in USA label as that of the highest quality because frankly these companies have other self interests that do not always align with what the interests our federal government has, or should have.


Swifty - 12/20/2016 at 10:33 PM

quote:
Appreciate your well reasoned response Swifty - ah an intelligent exchange of ideas in the Whipping Post. It feels good.

I see the retraining issue as a bottle neck, there simply are not enough opportunities in the "new" economy than existed previously for people who were able to attain middle class status in the "old" economy.

I went to automotive trade school with some people who were laid off a Werner ladder manufacturing plant in PA as the production was shifted to Mexico. But new hire auto techs don't get paid what they used to. Why? Because there is an oversupply of qualified applicants trying to get in the field. So much so that alot of old-time techs, the ones with decades of knowledge are being forced out by new hires because they can pay them less and the employer believes they produce similar results. And I have friends and family in teaching and nursing - both fields are saturated with people looking for work in those areas. The gas and oil work was booming here for a while, but that too has fallen on hard times. There are just so many people trying to find that good paying job and it truly is a bottle neck, too many workers fighting for too few jobs. Atleast in my area of NE Ohio and Western PA there just is not enough well paying jobs or even just enough jobs in general in healthcare, education or other service industries, including building or automotive trades.

I know there are new fields of advanced manufacturing that require new skills that some laid off old manufacturing workers could receive. And I know there are opportunities in tech, depending on where one lives. It just doesn't seem like enough is out there, retrained or otherwise.

I just feel that saying "people need retraining" as kind of an easy way to offer a solution to the problem, when in reality, my opinion, by and large it doesn't even begin to solve the issue. Retraining into what? If 1000 people at a manufacturing plant get laid off, what field of employment is lacking 1000 workers that they need to be absorbed into if they get retrained?

I also want to say that LL Bean does make and sell some things in the USA. I am very very in touch with what is or isn't available made in USA to the extent my life almost revolves around it. LL Bean produces some of their boots in the US as well as blankets for beds. Pretty sure they also sell a heavy fabric (almost canvas) material bag, like one might take to the beach or something that is made in USA. You can get your name on it. LL Bean's catalog, as do other catalogs, state which products are USA or some companies use an American flag or something to identify which products are USA as a selling point.

Which brings me to your largest point.

Many companies have realized that advertising and marketing items as Made in USA can be a selling feature which I am very happy about and I even take time to thank some companies for doing so on their websites or catalogs.

But very very few companies, certainly no large companies, are going to market Made in USA over their brand. I might like that, as it sounds you would. But from a business standpoint, growing and promoting a brand name will always be the primary objective. Companies own their brand, it's who they are and they use it to differentiate themselves from the competition. Nobody owns Made in USA, piling money into an ad campaign to promote a companies products that are Made in USA may net positive results, but it isn't the same as promoting their own brand as being the go to source for quality. If two American companies make a boot in the USA, say Thorogood brand and Danner brand...advertising both as made in USA means less because they are both made in the USA. So then these companies are going to use the good will and reputation of their brand to help the sale. The USA feature cancels out.

I know what you are saying that the quality, or perceived quality of a USA made product is what should be promoted. But I'm sure we both know that the USA has no monopoly on quality. I mean, hell, an Oppo DVD player made in China is one of the best DVD/BuRay/Media players on the market period.

So what is better really? Many Japanese products are of very high quality, in some cases better than US. Is a Toyota branded car engineered and made in Japan better than a Ford branded car engineered and made in the USA? Some would say the Toyota.

If we look at electronics, there are still some very high end audio components made in the US and Japan. Most as we know have gone to China, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. Not really even that many electronics coming out of Korea these days that I see. Seems most of the A/V equipment in my lifetime was first made in Japan, then outsourced to Korea, now outsourced to a host of lower wage Asian companies. But I am getting off track.

When it comes to high end electronics there is a huge price difference from say made in USA Triad Speakers vs imported big box store Klipsch speakers. Put Triad and Klipsch in a store at their representative price points and what will sell more?

Put a 6' long metal shelf assembly, the kind you might buy for your garage, made in China for $85 vs a 6' long shelf assembly made in USA for $135 and what will the sales be? Will the USA one be of higher quality, probably, the fitment and quality control will be likely be higher. But will the consumer value that?

I know your example of people in Mexico wanting made in USA, but if you have an American consumer standing in Home Depot wanting a shelf for their garage, which one will sell more? 8 out of 10 consumer I would suggest will buy the cheaper one. Sure maybe they know it may not be as high of quality, but it might be good enough quality for what they need it for. And they can make their dollar stretch further and buy more stuff. Price controls a majority of purchasing decisions. And alot of times it comes down to what people can afford.

Now I've cited many examples where something made in USA is sold for the exact same price as something imported. I actually see it all the time. And in those cases, people are going to buy a brand they know more often than not. Somebody is likely to buy a Stanley hammer vs an off brand hammer if the price is the same irregardless of where it is made. While buying things made in USA has become more important for people, at the end of the day brand and price are bigger driving factors for the majority of people I find.

My friends and family know how much of a USA freak I am, and they all tell me how important it is to them often giving me stories they think I will appreciate. But then I catch them not following their own practices. My Mom just gave me a made in China Christmas card! My Mom! If anyone is more in touch with my country of origin obsession it would be her. Of course I called her on it and she said she forgot to look. A good friend of mine tells me how much he always buys USA, then I see him wearing shoes that are imported. People often say one thing and do another.

I do not think we are going to get a significant number of US consumers who want to buy on the USA feature first and foremost, at best it may be a 3rd criteria for most people after price and brand. And since I don't see companies abandoning brand promotion in favor of USA promotion, and vast majority of people are always going to buy on price then I don't see your solution being viable. As to the Mexican consumers wanting things made in USA, I'm sure your experience is true. But then I read that people in Korea buy Korean, and in fact there are protests over the importation of US beef that is going to compete with Korean raised beef.

So then, I feel that it can't be left to business to do the right thing and it can't be left to consumers to do the right thing. What is the right thing? The right thing is doing what benefits local communities, states and ultimately the federal government. Financially healthy communities, states and government at the federal level, I feel, is best achieved by having people employed, making good wages with more tax revenue coming in than expenditures going out. Less social program spending as people are more self sufficient.

I believe you and I both want the same net result, we just have different visions on how it could be achieved. I think the only realistic way to achieve my vision is with the hand of the government because I can't see consumers or producers doing what is necessary on their own to achieve the goal.


What I was proposing in my prior example was a model that could be competitive in a new global space where there are three main players. Right now the US is the dominant force globally in most important areas. China and Russia also have global aspirations but they are both only upstarts when it comes to competing in a global economy. China and Russia in different ways both have historical predispositions that will constrain them as they continue to expand.

President Obama was asked the other day about whether Russia was a serious threat and he said that they really only had a few commodities for sale. Besides oil and gas they sold arms, he said. He also mentioned that they don’t innovate. The Chinese are also for the most part not innovators. Neither Russia nor the Chinese have any kind of cultural system that would allow the new middle class to embrace as they climbed the social ladder in their respective countries. The US cultural system which includes visual and musical creations is totally dominant globally. The US is way ahead of the game in terms of culture and innovation, the two things that people prize most dearly.

The US though needs to be more selective in terms of a market.

quote:
Free traders like to say "the world has x number of people and we are only y% of that world population, we can't just buy and sell among ourselves we must sell to the world". Great in theory, but how many of the world population can actually buy our "stuff". How many people in Central America or Africa or even Asia, how many of those people have the income to buy things made here? And who is to say that just because an American company can sell into that market, where is that stuff made?


From this any reasonable economist might conclude that the world is too scary and say let’s just create a protected economy which produces and consumes its own goods.

First, there are a lot of people in Asia and not all of them are poor. This is from Wikipedia, but there are sources and so you can decide for yourself if it’s credible.

quote:
Standard of living in India varies from state to state. With one of the fastest growing economies in the world, clocked at a growth rate of 7.6% in 2015, India is fast on its way to becoming a large and globally important consumer economy. According to Deutsche Bank Research the estimates are nearly 300 million people for all Middle Class.[1] If current trends continue, India's share of world GDP will significantly increase from 7.3 in 2016 to 8.5 percent of the world share by 2020.[2] In 2011, less than 22 percent of Indians lived under the global poverty line, nearly a 10 percent reduction from 29.8 percent just two years prior in 2009.[3]

According to NCAER, India's middle class population would be 267 million in 2016. Further ahead, by 2025-26 the number of middle class households in India is likely to more than double from the 2015-16 levels to 113.8 million households or 547 million individuals.[4] Another estimate put the Indian middle class as numbering 475 million people by 2030.[5] It is estimated that average real wages will quadruple between 2013 and 2030.[6]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_India " target=_blank> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_India


As well,

quote:
China’s middle class is on fire. According to a study by consulting firm McKinsey & Company, 76 percent of China’s urban population will be considered middle class by 2022. That’s defined as urban households that earn US$9,000 – US$34,000 a year.


http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-middle-class-is-exploding-2016-8 " target=_blank> http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-middle-class-is-exploding-2016-8

For the real purchasing power of the emerging Indian and Chinese Middle Class, one has to factor in remittances from abroad. Over half the applicants to Ivy League schools with really high SAT scores are Asians. The vast majority of them stay in the developed countries to work and they send money back to China and India. These remittances are so prized that India does not tax them.

quote:
Atleast in my area of NE Ohio and Western PA there just is not enough well paying jobs or even just enough jobs in general in healthcare, education or other service industries, including building or automotive trades.


I think we need to be realistic about what constitutes retraining. In any major shift you are going to lose people. When offices went from typewriters to personal computers many secretaries lost their jobs. People are close to retirement, they don’t feel like picking up new skills, they have grandchildren to babysit, or they are burnt out. For the Rust Belt to be truly revitalized there needs to be new opportunities that require fresh enthusiastic mindsets and new skills, which may be very different than old skills.

Nobody is going to be able to reproduce yesterday and create a vibrant economy. Trump claims he can but he is either not being honest or he feels he can sweep through the Rust Belt states and captivate them with his continuous campaigning. I see no choice but to go forward. You might be right Nebish

quote:
I also want to say that LL Bean does make and sell some things in the USA. I am very very in touch with what is or isn't available made in USA to the extent my life almost revolves around it. LL Bean produces some of their boots in the US as well as blankets for beds. Pretty sure they also sell a heavy fabric (almost canvas) material bag, like one might take to the beach or something that is made in USA. You can get your name on it. LL Bean's catalog, as do other catalogs, state which products are USA or some companies use an American flag or something to identify which products are USA as a selling point.


Most of my clothes are from LL Bean and they are all are made abroad. I have no doubt that some of its products are native. The point I was alluding to was that LL Bean was diluting its brand by trying to appeal to too many markets and this was fragmenting its identity. I was at LL Bean in Maine once and there were two groups--one German and one Japanese—making movies about the place. LL Bean sells itself. It is the American part that people need to be reminded of.


I think your main concern was where would the money come from to pay the workers. $10 an hour is not going to cut it in the US at this time. Will the real rich folk give up their hard earned billions to help men support their families and rediscover their dignity? They might if they can be shown that there is an economic rationale for it.


quote:
I believe you and I both want the same net result, we just have different visions on how it could be achieved. I think the only realistic way to achieve my vision is with the hand of the government because I can't see consumers or producers doing what is necessary on their own to achieve the goal.


There is always the invisible hand of the market. American is operating from a position of strength at present. It has a unique identity and people continue to be enthralled by this uniqueness. Middle classes when they first emerge have no real distinctive identity. There could be a match here.

Thanks for the exchange. I've learned quite a bit putting together this economic plan and much of this was trying to respond to your points.


nebish - 12/21/2016 at 02:47 PM

I sincerely appreciate your responses.

Most times we have our positions and aren't going to change another person's mind. What I've always tried to do is to have other people see or understand the reasoning behind my opinions all while also learning the rationale behind those who feel different. It is why I've enjoyed posting here with more people who perhaps feel differently than I do rather than going somewhere for positive reinforcement. I prefer listening to liberal talk radio for the same reasons - I find it much more stimulating...LOL, but true. Your posts responding to mine have been welcomed.

Just to be clear, I do not want to close off the US from the world. I am however cynical about how trading with the world has done more damage to our country and certainly large group of our population through trade imbalances and out sourcing.

You paint the picture of the growing middle class in India and China, which I am not opposed to those people reaching a higher quality of living perhaps with some opportunity to buy American made products. And to be clear, buying an American made product and buying a product sold by an American company are often two very very different things.

I look at China. Our #3 export to them is waste and scrap - as classified by the International Trade Administration. Ag products, Transportation products are 1-2 with drinks and tobacco products being #4. All told we have 10 product categories where we have a trade surplus with the Chinese and 21 with a deficit for a $367b trade deficit in 2015, that was actually the highest defecit in the last 10 years with them.

The trade imbalance with India is $23b in 2015, more than double what it was 10 years ago.

As these countries see a growing middle class, the net trade balance isn't improving for us, it is getting worse.

The government has some pretty good data online for alot of things. You can play around here if you haven't before - http://trade.gov/

The vulnerability for US workers is not limited to those who just work in the rust belt. What if Goodyear decides to close it's Lawton Oklahoma plant, just as an example. Over 2000 people work there. Goodyear has closed US plants before to make tires in other global facilities, which they then bring back to the US to sell on the retail market. What are those people to do in a case like that? It happens quite often, the Carrier example I think highlighted the number of companies currently planning or considering closing down production here in favor of foreign production. And it has happened before in the south with furniture and textile production. I don't talk of trying to save and protect labor in a certain part of the country, I'm trying to do it for everyone nationwide because vulnerabilities exist everywhere on small and large scales.

I see this problem of US companies outsourcing and expansion of foreign companies/countries importing here as such a major problem in the last couple decades contributing to so many of the problems we are facing. Homelessness, drug addiction, crime, shrinking middle class, wealth flowing to the top 1%, state budget crunches, federal budget deficits...the list goes on. I truly see the trade imbalance and trade agreements we have passed as the primary driving factor to all of those problems we try to deal with and fight about here and in Washington. All while we are told by corporate owned members of Congress and higher from the left and right that we need more free trade, more agreements - and the net result is always the same. More trade imbalance with more regions of the world and more suffering here because of it.

As much as I try to be hopeful for Trump's potential to turn the tide, I pray and hope that it isn't just talk. I want to tell you that I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary because of his views on what has happened with these trade deals. The only two major party candidates to get as far as they did to take the positions of trade and making things in the USA. Clearly there are differences in the approach between these two men, and in Trump's case prior practice, but there is agreement that we have made a very wrong turn down a dark path for our nation. And hopefully for Trump it isn't hot air. Getting Democrats to follow a more nationalist economic plan would be much easier than getting Republicans to do it. So how and if we try and correct it, if we can correct it with the reality of politics being what it is makes one wonder what really will change.

I can't control much. But I try to buy as many things made in USA as I can. I search high an low for US made product. That and I talk on this message board about the importance of getting back to making more things here. My friends and family constantly find themselves in conversations with me about it. None of which make a bit of difference at the end of the day, but it is all I can do to take a stand for something I very strongly believe in. I suppose there is a next step I would have to take to try and really have a meaningful impact. I've thought about trying to open a made in USA retail store locally. Not sure how successful it would be. Many online websites exist with that theme.


MarkRamsey - 1/1/2018 at 10:15 PM

Richie Rich the stubby fingered fat boy said there would be "consequences and retribution" for companies that offshored jobs. Anybody heard what the "consequences and retribution" for all those Trump clothing lines made in China, India and Mexico might be ?


nebish - 1/1/2018 at 11:20 PM

He should've ceased the foreign production of his products to align with his political policy position. Gave the opponents a clear and real edge and hurt his own credibility.

Now I would've liked him to do this. But, I have to wonder, if he had brought the production of all his foreign products from foreign countries to the US, wouldn't his critics say he is profiting from his political speech and position, drawing attention to his brand and benefiting from MAGA slogan for his bottom line? It's lose - lose in today's political climate.


2112 - 1/1/2018 at 11:43 PM

quote:
He should've ceased the foreign production of his products to align with his political policy position. Gave the opponents a clear and real edge and hurt his own credibility.

Now I would've liked him to do this. But, I have to wonder, if he had brought the production of all his foreign products from foreign countries to the US, wouldn't his critics say he is profiting from his political speech and position, drawing attention to his brand and benefiting from MAGA slogan for his bottom line? It's lose - lose in today's political climate.



Nah, doesn't matter in the slighest. In the grand scheme of things, where Trump makes his products is way down the list of reasons his opponents dislike him. And his fans will make excuses all day long as to why it doesn't matter (he was right when he said he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Street and not lose any of his voters). In the end it's just politics as usual, and more broken promises that won't hurt him in the end. To his supporters, Trump is a cult of personality and as long as he dislikes the same people that they dislike, that's all that maters.


nebish - 1/2/2018 at 12:08 AM

I've heard 'the supporters' say he is the best President ever...like just recently I literally heard that.

But it might matter. Any or all of this stuff might matter in the end. The die hards on the left and right are one thing, but they don't decide elections right? The far right, or even the mainstream right, isn't what won Trump this election. The people that crossed over and those in the middle, I would think they are watching and their votes will be heard in the future.

I agree, it is just one thing to not like him for, and like you say, it isn't a big reason, but Mark Ramsey brought it up so I addressed my view on it.


2112 - 1/2/2018 at 08:02 AM

quote:
I've heard 'the supporters' say he is the best President ever...like just recently I literally heard that.

But it might matter. Any or all of this stuff might matter in the end. The die hards on the left and right are one thing, but they don't decide elections right? The far right, or even the mainstream right, isn't what won Trump this election. The people that crossed over and those in the middle, I would think they are watching and their votes will be heard in the future.

I agree, it is just one thing to not like him for, and like you say, it isn't a big reason, but Mark Ramsey brought it up so I addressed my view on it.




You have a good point. Trump won the election by a thin margin, based on just a few thousand votes in just a few states. Is Trump going to pick up new voters that he didn't win last time? Not likely. Had some Berne or bust voters in a few states not stayed home, he never would have won in the first place. But Trump lovers will never change their mind. All that matters is that he still hates the same people they do, and in some cases that he kept the only promise that matters to them, and that'a appointing an anti-abortion and anti-gay rights supreme court justice. Trump haters are never going to change their mind. Those who reluctantly voted for Trump last time probably won't again, but who knows. The big question is who shows up at the polls. And very unpolular politicans have been reelected before, sometimes due to third party candidates splitting the vote.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com/

Url of this website:
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=142985