United Technologies Moving U.S. Plant to Mexico

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ I've caused some of the confusion here: carrier was going to move 1,400 jobs to Mexico. They have announced that 1,000 jobs will remain in the US. No word on if the other 400 will be moved or simply reduced through layoffs or otherwise. Either way, 1,000 blue collar Americans will get to keep their jobs for the foreseeable future and I'm not sure why so many people on here can't acknowledge that's a good thing.

It is a good thing, but what about the other manufacturing jobs being moved overseas every day? Are we going to give massive tax breaks to every company that threatens to move? It sets a bad precedent, like negotiating with terrorists.

First, Trump hasn't given anybody a tax break. He has talked about reforming the business tax code, to modernize it and bring its line with much of the developed world. There is nothing wrong with tax law changes that generally apply to everybody. So get your facts straight.

Second, the state of Indiana does appear like to will give scarier tax breaks, but targeted tax breaks at the state level are completly within the norm in the United States (including in blue states).

Cranky; your closed mindedness makes it impossible for you to even consider the possibility that a man you hate is doing some good. I don't blame you for disliking him, but allowing your hatred to impact your judgment is poor form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ I've caused some of the confusion here: carrier was going to move 1,400 jobs to Mexico. They have announced that 1,000 jobs will remain in the US. No word on if the other 400 will be moved or simply reduced through layoffs or otherwise. Either way, 1,000 blue collar Americans will get to keep their jobs for the foreseeable future and I'm not sure why so many people on here can't acknowledge that's a good thing.

It is a good thing, but what about the other manufacturing jobs being moved overseas every day? Are we going to give massive tax breaks to every company that threatens to move? It sets a bad precedent, like negotiating with terrorists.

Also, your post betrays a basic lack of understanding with respect to taxes:

Simple question: Malik's you rather have a company that employs Americans and gets massive tax breaks or a company that employs citizens of other countries but does get tax breaks? Which is better for the country?

The real problem is that don't want to accept the fact that corporate entities are tax collectors, not tax payers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ I've caused some of the confusion here: carrier was going to move 1,400 jobs to Mexico. They have announced that 1,000 jobs will remain in the US. No word on if the other 400 will be moved or simply reduced through layoffs or otherwise. Either way, 1,000 blue collar Americans will get to keep their jobs for the foreseeable future and I'm not sure why so many people on here can't acknowledge that's a good thing.

It is a good thing, but what about the other manufacturing jobs being moved overseas every day? Are we going to give massive tax breaks to every company that threatens to move? It sets a bad precedent, like negotiating with terrorists.

First, Trump hasn't given anybody a tax break. He has talked about reforming the business tax code, to modernize it and bring its line with much of the developed world. There is nothing wrong with tax law changes that generally apply to everybody. So get your facts straight.

Second, the state of Indiana does appear like to will give scarier tax breaks, but targeted tax breaks at the state level are completly within the norm in the United States (including in blue states).

Cranky; your closed mindedness makes it impossible for you to even consider the possibility that a man you hate is doing some good. I don't blame you for disliking him, but allowing your hatred to impact your judgment is poor form.

Awesome personal attacks. I really try to remain civil on here and even ask thoughtful questions of others who may disagree with me to try to see both sides of a situation. But... looks like my gut instincts are, in fact, to be trusted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't every CEO in America now call the president-elect and say 'we're considering a move to Mexico unless...well...make me an offer'

yes, they should all play that game.

oh, and love the part where he's backtracking yet again, this time on levying tariffs for goods manufactured overseas by American companies. Another promise broken.

Not backtracking, he's toning down the rhetoric.

Second, as Trump has plainly stated, many of his positions are meant to establish negotiating posture. He can and will compromise where desirable to meet his goals. This is how business gets done. Maybe it's just 1000 jobs, but when was the last time any president lifted a finger like this to help Americans? Usually it is an impersonal attempt to accomplish things through policy. This guy actually got involved. To paraphrase the current First Lady, first time I've been proud of a president since Bush was at ground zero.

Um, Obama and the auto bailout...over the objections of Rs who felt we did not need an auto industry in the US.

[Anonymous]

Here's the thing, I actually have nothing against industrial policy. I thought Obama should have been more aggressive about it, though the reality is the WH had to dance around the issue because Republicans in Congress would never have gone along.

But it's not clear to me that what Trump is doing is part of a thought out industrial policy designed to move us into the future. It seems one-off and backward looking. Instead of helping and incentivizing companies to build next generation technologies, we're softening regulations like fuel economy standards to keep the decaying technologies we already have. Detroit fought for weaker standards before, and the result was losing the entire small and mid-size vehicle sector to the Japanese and now also Koreans. With the rest of the world, if not the US, poised to take more aggressive action on climate, strong fuel efficiency standards *are* what's going to make the US automakers more competitive in the long run.

In this area, I'm willing to give Trump some latitude, but so far what I'm seeing is far more interest in looking like he's doing something than in actually doing something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't every CEO in America now call the president-elect and say 'we're considering a move to Mexico unless...well...make me an offer'

yes, they should all play that game.

oh, and love the part where he's backtracking yet again, this time on levying tariffs for goods manufactured overseas by American companies. Another promise broken.

Not backtracking, he's toning down the rhetoric.

Second, as Trump has plainly stated, many of his positions are meant to establish negotiating posture. He can and will compromise where desirable to meet his goals. This is how business gets done. Maybe it's just 1000 jobs, but when was the last time any president lifted a finger like this to help Americans? Usually it is an impersonal attempt to accomplish things through policy. This guy actually got involved. To paraphrase the current First Lady, first time I've been proud of a president since Bush was at ground zero.

Um, Obama and the auto bailout...over the objections of Rs who felt we did not need an auto industry in the US.

Auto bailout started under Bush and was expanded by Obama, but that was a policy response, not a direct engagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Auto bailout started under Bush and was expanded by Obama, but that was a policy response, not a direct engagement.

I think maybe you don't understand how policy, especially policies like a bailout, are made.

[Anonymous]

Or, PP thinks it's better if our economy is run by the President threatens companies personally instead of adopting general policies that lead to good outcomes?

[Anonymous]

I think the saddest part is his supporters likely don't care how it gets done. They aren't big thinkers. They want "their" jobs back. They aren't concerned with the "how" Andy they aren't concerned about the rest of the country or our standing in the world.

[Anonymous]

and not Andy. ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or, PP thinks it's better if our economy is run by the President threatens companies personally instead of adopting general policies that lead to good outcomes?

These responses are hilarious. The Obama admin ignored existing BK law and screwed over secured creditors in the GM BK in order to bail out Union employees. The response to the BP oil spill was basically strong arm tactics 101. But now you guys are worried about even application of the rule of law and our international standing?

The hilarious part about this is that president elect Trump is promising to reform the business climate through general policies and UTI is publicly stating that that a part of why they are choosing to keep these jobs in Indiana. It's like you guys get your fake news talking points and then ruling with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or, PP thinks it's better if our economy is run by the President threatens companies personally instead of adopting general policies that lead to good outcomes?

These responses are hilarious. The Obama admin ignored existing BK law and screwed over secured creditors in the GM BK in order to bail out Union employees. The response to the BP oil spill was basically strong arm tactics 101. But now you guys are worried about even application of the rule of law and our international standing?

The hilarious part about this is that president elect Trump is promising to reform the business climate through general policies and UTI is publicly stating that that a part of why they are choosing to keep these jobs in Indiana. It's like you guys get your fake news talking points and then ruling with it.

The Carrier plant in Mexico is already built. One thousand jobs are going there in the next year. How long do you really think those remaininng jobs are staying in the US after this press play?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or, PP thinks it's better if our economy is run by the President threatens companies personally instead of adopting general policies that lead to good outcomes?

These responses are hilarious. The Obama admin ignored existing BK law and screwed over secured creditors in the GM BK in order to bail out Union employees. The response to the BP oil spill was basically strong arm tactics 101. But now you guys are worried about even application of the rule of law and our international standing?

The hilarious part about this is that president elect Trump is promising to reform the business climate through general policies and UTI is publicly stating that that a part of why they are choosing to keep these jobs in Indiana. It's like you guys get your fake news talking points and then ruling with it.

The Carrier plant in Mexico is already built. One thousand jobs are going there in the next year. How long do you really think those remaininng jobs are staying in the US after this press play?

The tax breaks from the state of Indiana will almost certainly require Carrier to keep the jobs there for a minimum amount of time. Do you really think these types of things can't be negotiated? Posters in this thread remind me of Obama: no clue how business deals get negotiated.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r2Z9TT6mVig&feature=youtu.be