Trump already saving American jobs - Carrier to keep jobs in the US

Totally unsurprising to see Trump supporters pivot from Drain The Swamp! to Business As Usual, this is just another example.

 

I'm against deals like this because of the subsidies involved. The deal is basically the equivalent of requiring the Indiana taxpayers to pay a big chunk of the salary for these 1000 people. I thought conservatives hated these types of socialist policies?

Remember the anti-dumping tariffs applied to Chinese tires a couple of years ago? That decision saved about 1200 tire jobs in the midwest but ended up costing the US consumers $1.1 billion dollars every year. The net result is the US consumers basically ended up paying $900,000 per year per job saved.

 

they do. why do you think otherwise?

 

I'm sure the subsidies cover more than the employees' salaries. The amount beyond the salaries is likely the kind of welfare conservatives love.

 

That decision saved ZERO jobs. Ford originally planned on moving the production of the unpopular Lincoln MKC to from Kentucky to Mexico and transitioning the affected work force to produce more Ford Escapes.

 

I'm also for free trade. This deal with the state taxes was on the table and was already turned down. What changed is apparently Trump made a phone call and mentioned government contracts.

 

But Carrier's not going under. They're moving production to Mexico.

The complaint was whether or not they're all getting the same treatment so I asked whether or not they're in the same situation.

 

and I am responding that if you want a free market, the situation doesn't matter. You asked why republicans would be upset about this, because it appears the government is applying an unfair advantage to a competitor in the marketplace. Read Atlas Shrugged and come back to me in 2 yrs when u finish (long book). Quick question do companies with much fewer employees get the same treatment of the president coming down a negotiating incentives? If not, then how do smaller companies compete with Carrier who get special government treatment? Now as others have said, if Trump convinced them to stay by removing regulatory burdens that would be another story.

The real question Trump should be asking Carrier is 'why it would be financially beneficial for Carrier to do business out of Mexico instead of the US?. Whats the regulations that make this the case?'. then he should try to remedy that.

 

It's obviously labor wage advantages that no amount of flooding the southern states with illegal immigrants can change. Real life is more complicated as the state saw an advantage to having 1000 more jobs that they offered tax breaks. They could recoup those losses elsewhere. Whatever concessions were given and however you feel about free trade you cannot possibly compare it to Obama dumping billions in an entire industry that wouldn't otherwise exist.

 

I said something like that, yes, but going back to your problem, yes the situation it matters; in your own words:

 

that was me explaining that it doesn't matter.... not sure you understood.

you could remove minimum wages laws. especially federal ones. let states that want to have them have them.

 

Child labor laws too.

We could keep a lot of jobs if employers could pay kids 10 cents a day to work in the factory.

 

all that does is increase the draw to illegal immigrants to those states especially if you have open borders and sanctuary cities. Then you might have an increase in "american" jobs but with the remittances all you have actually done is further depress wages artificially.

 

illegal immigration should be shored up, but i have no problem with work going to those who will do it for the least amount. The person who will do the same work for less needs the work more (is more desperate).

if kids are so desperate in this country that 10 cents a day for hard labor is appealing then i'm all for it. Clearly the alternative (starvation) is more devastating or else why would the kids do it? That being said, no kids in this country are that desperate and would never take the work.

 

Or they are willing to do with less because their family lives past a border with lower living expense giving an artificial advantage that is harmful to free markets. That's giving a government advantage to immigrants with families living in Mexico. Your solution is far more harmful than allowing the plant to go to mexico which is far less harmful than subsidizing an entire industry like the leftists promote.

If Carrier can build cheaper products in Mexico you let them go to mexico, but possibly with a plan for the transition to go slower and less painfully. Your plan is to make the USA more like Mexico by dropping the wages Mexican levels.

If you want to get rid of minimum wage laws do so after deporting 25 million Mexicans and securing and I will be completely on board. The free market will bring wages up nicely without any intervention.

 

That's interesting, what exactly did he mention though?
Was it
1) Some kind of wink wink deal in which some future defense contract will go to Pratt & Whitney or UTC Aerospace?
or
2) He threatened to go with a competitor's bid for a defense project even though UTC's offer was superior?

 

Why are living expenses lower in Mexico?

 

many reasons. I really hate rhetorical questions and prefer you just make a point I can actually reply to.

If your point is you want to make the USA more like Mexico you won't have many people agree with you (it sucks there)

 

A better question to ask is why does Japan, S. Korea, and Germany have a much higher % of their workforce in manufacturing? If it's manufacturing you are after.

 

I have lived in Mexico (Ciudad del Carmen) and it does suck. as for your position, I think the money brought in by no minimum wages does far more than the minute damage of money being shipped home.