Trump to intervene to keep U.S. jobs at home on 'day-by-day' basis, Pence says - Polidicks

[quote]President-elect Donald Trump, fresh off a deal to keep nearly 1,000 U.S. jobs in the country, will decide whether to intervene with other companies to keep them from moving jobs overseas "on a day-by-day basis," Vice President-elect Mike Pence said on Sunday. Pence said the deal Trump reached last week to keep Carrier, a unit of United Technologies Corp, from shipping jobs to Mexico from an Indiana air conditioner plant showed the incoming administration would confront U.S.-based firms when needed and use a carrot-and-stick approach to keep them from offshoring jobs.[/quote] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-jobs-idUSKBN13T0QZ[/url] welcome to the free market :downs:

[QUOTE=Judas;51476932][url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-jobs-idUSKBN13T0QZ[/url] welcome to the free market :downs:[/QUOTE] I don't get it, all of a sudden [I]now[/I] everyone is a strict free market capitalist? Weird how opinion shifts. Can someone explain why this is such a bad deal? $700/year per job seems pretty fantastic but if someone can explain why this is bad I'd be happy to get educated.

[QUOTE=srobins;51476962]I don't get it, all of a sudden [I]now[/I] everyone is a strict free market capitalist? Weird how opinion shifts. Can someone explain why this is such a bad deal? $700/year per job seems pretty fantastic but if someone can explain why this is bad I'd be happy to get educated.[/QUOTE] its not taht everyone is, it's that republicanism is strongly rooted in free market capitalism and donald trump has already completely gone against those basic republican ideals

[QUOTE=srobins;51476962]I don't get it, all of a sudden [I]now[/I] everyone is a strict free market capitalist? Weird how opinion shifts. Can someone explain why this is such a bad deal? $700/year per job seems pretty fantastic but if someone can explain why this is bad I'd be happy to get educated.[/QUOTE] Paying companies to stay here isn't exactly what people had in mind when they said the free market was imperfect.

[QUOTE=srobins;51476962]I don't get it, all of a sudden [I]now[/I] everyone is a strict free market capitalist? Weird how opinion shifts. Can someone explain why this is such a bad deal? $700/year per job seems pretty fantastic but if someone can explain why this is bad I'd be happy to get educated.[/QUOTE] Republicans don't want government intervention on markets. And that's exactly what's going on.

[QUOTE=Judas;51476966]its not taht everyone is, it's that republicanism is strongly rooted in free market capitalism and donald trump has already completely gone against those basic republican ideals[/QUOTE] Trump's entire presidency is an affront to the Republican party, I don't really know what you expected, nor why you would upset that he's violating the tenets of a party you clearly don't care for.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/8TbP1a5.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51476973]Paying companies to stay here isn't exactly what people had in mind when they said the free market was imperfect.[/QUOTE] But can you explain to me how it's a bad deal? I'm not asking to be smarmy, I just don't really get the outrage. The only argument I can see here is the slippery slope argument where companies threaten to outsource in order to receive some kind of cut, but if every cut is as good of a deal as this, I'm not sure that's even a bad thing? I mean like I said, $700/year per job? I'm positive those people will use that job to contribute more than $700 in income taxes alone, nevermind their general contribution to the economy with the money they have to spend, so what is the issue? [editline]5th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Code3Response;51476974]Republicans don't want government intervention on markets. And that's exactly what's going on.[/QUOTE] Well the Republicans can suck it then?

[QUOTE=srobins;51476989]But can you explain to me how it's a bad deal? I'm not asking to be smarmy, I just don't really get the outrage. The only argument I can see here is the slippery slope argument where companies threaten to outsource in order to receive some kind of cut, but if every cut is as good of a deal as this, I'm not sure that's even a bad thing? I mean like I said, $700/year per job? I'm positive those people will use that job to contribute more than $700 in income taxes alone, nevermind their general contribution to the economy with the money they have to spend, so what is the issue? [editline]5th December 2016[/editline] Well the Republicans can suck it then?[/QUOTE] this isn't a good deal, that's the thing

[QUOTE=srobins;51476962]I don't get it, all of a sudden [I]now[/I] everyone is a strict free market capitalist? Weird how opinion shifts. Can someone explain why this is such a bad deal? $700/year per job seems pretty fantastic but if someone can explain why this is bad I'd be happy to get educated.[/QUOTE] The issue is that this brand of "keeping jobs in the US" doesnt really make anyone happy, even socialists and communists that aren't in favor of laissez-faire economics. It's the same brand of corporate backroom deals that people harshly criticized Clinton for and wanted out of our government, and here Trump is making those same shady backroom deals to keep jobs in the US. Here's the thing. With the economic system the US and the global economy that we operate in functions, those jobs aren't coming back, and likely never will unless every country in the planet adheres to stricter and more worker-friendly labor standards. As long as people can be exploited for less than they're worth, jobs will flock there for bigger profit margins in order to compete. That's the unfortunate nature of globalized free market capitalism that socialists typically criticize. Trump MUST offer some sort of incentive to keep those jobs, and that can only come in the form of these deals that nobody except the big executives will be happy with It's obvious that either A. Trump didnt think about actually fulfilling his wild and impossible promises of bringing back our lost jobs or B. He actually planned this from the start and was in the pocket of corporations all along Neither are particularly ideal.

[QUOTE=Judas;51477002]this isn't a good deal, that's the thing[/QUOTE] Okay, why? Like I said, I'm coming to this thread with an admitted lack of understanding so if someone can educate me on why this is bad I'll be happy to join you guys in the outrage.

It's also just that individual deals like this really don't solve problems, they're just bandaids. The US is just going to have to let these sorts of jobs go and take care of the people and provide education to open them up to new jobs. We most certainly aren't going to survive as a manufacturing powerhouse anymore, it's just not economically feasible in a global economy to pretend that we can.

Apparently jobs were already coming back to the US because some companies realized that its less effective for the industry their in to outsource that work and import it back in. [url]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-flips-the-script-on-jobs-reshoring-finally-outpaced-offshoring-in-2014-2015-05-01[/url]

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51477006]The issue is that this brand of "keeping jobs in the US" doesnt really make anyone happy, even socialists and communists that aren't in favor of laissez-faire economics. It's the same brand of corporate backroom deals that people harshly criticized Clinton for and wanted out of our government, and here Trump is making those same shady backroom deals to keep jobs in the US. Here's the thing. With the economic system the US and the global economy that we operate in functions, those jobs aren't coming back, and likely never will unless every country in the planet adheres to stricter and more worker-friendly labor standards. As long as people can be exploited for less than they're worth, jobs will flock there for bigger profit margins in order to compete. That's the unfortunate nature of globalized free market capitalism that socialists typically criticize. Trump MUST offer some sort of incentive to keep those jobs, and that can only come in the form of these deals that nobody except the big executives will be happy with It's obvious that either A. Trump didnt think about actually fulfilling his wild and impossible promises of bringing back our lost jobs or B. He actually planned this from the start and was in the pocket of corporations all along Neither are particularly ideal.[/QUOTE] The only thing I can draw as a negative about this deal based on this post is that "nobody except the big executives" will be happy with this, which I don't really agree with nor even necessarily care about. I think the people who kept their jobs are fairly happy about the deal, and so are plenty of other people who believe this deal was a good idea. But either way I don't really see how people disliking the deal somehow makes it bad.

[QUOTE=srobins;51476962]I don't get it, all of a sudden [I]now[/I] everyone is a strict free market capitalist? Weird how opinion shifts. Can someone explain why this is such a bad deal? $700/year per job seems pretty fantastic but if someone can explain why this is bad I'd be happy to get educated.[/QUOTE] companies are already milking the system by not paying much federal tax, local tax, and state tax. Now the Don says he's going to start paying them our tax dollars to stay here when they threaten to leave. People wanted protection and penalties not corporate welfare of this caliber

[QUOTE=Sableye;51477078]companies are already milking the system by not paying much federal tax, local tax, and state tax. Now the Don says he's going to start paying them our tax dollars to stay here when they threaten to leave. People wanted protection and penalties not corporate welfare of this caliber[/QUOTE] Yeah but can you explain how this is actually a bad deal without just saying "he's giving them our money!"? I've already laid out my own little napkin math explaining why I think this seems like a decent deal, where am I wrong?

[QUOTE=srobins;51477049]The only thing I can draw as a negative about this deal based on this post is that "nobody except the big executives" will be happy with this, which I don't really agree with nor even necessarily care about. I think the people who kept their jobs are fairly happy about the deal, and so are plenty of other people who believe this deal was a good idea. But either way I don't really see how people disliking the deal somehow makes it bad.[/QUOTE] half the factory is getting laid off, another 2000 people in similar factories in the local area are getting laid off, and while the text of the deal is not out (nor do i believe there was an actual written deal) there's probably nothing saying they have to keep those jobs there more than a year or so.

I mean, if he gave a company $100 and they gave him back $1,000,000, you can still say "he gave them our money!" but if the net effect was positive, there's not really an issue is there? Taxpayer money is spent on much more frivolous and useless deals, in much greater quantities and with much greater frequency, so of all things to spend $7,000,000 on, this seems pretty worthy. [editline]5th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;51477087]half the factory is getting laid off, another 2000 people in similar factories in the local area are getting laid off, and while the text of the deal is not out (nor do i believe there was an actual written deal) there's probably nothing saying they have to keep those jobs there more than a year or so.[/QUOTE] If that turns out to be true then I'll agree it's a bad deal, but blind speculation isn't really enough for me to get riled up about.

[QUOTE=srobins;51477049]The only thing I can draw as a negative about this deal based on this post is that "nobody except the big executives" will be happy with this, which I don't really agree with nor even necessarily care about. I think the people who kept their jobs are fairly happy about the deal, and so are plenty of other people who believe this deal was a good idea. But either way I don't really see how people disliking the deal somehow makes it bad.[/QUOTE] The government playing favorites and giving incentives for keeping jobs here sets a bad precedent and is, like lurker said, just an ill-conceived band-aid that wont fix the root of the problem. Do you really think that it's sustainable for the US to give billions of dollars in tax breaks to every single corporation to keep them from automating or taking their labor elsewhere?

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51477093]The government playing favorites and giving incentives for keeping jobs here is, like lurker said, just an ill-conceived band-aid that wont fix the root of the problem. Do you really think that it's sustainable for the US to give billions of dollars in tax breaks to every single corporation to keep them from automating or taking their labor elsewhere?[/QUOTE] If all of those tax breaks result in a net positive effect, why not? It would just shift from a one-off band-aid to a solid policy at that point.

How is this any different than what Obama and the democrats have been pushing for? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bring_Jobs_Home_Act[/url]

[QUOTE=srobins;51477099]If all of those tax breaks result in a net positive effect, why not? It would just shift from a one-off band-aid to a solid policy at that point.[/QUOTE] yes that good policy of every company now having tax dollars incentives to move half of their jobs out of the US. lol why not do it? you're getting tax breaks and you pay half of your employees way less. what company wouldn't do it? [QUOTE=EliteGuy;51477102]How is this any different than what Obama and the democrats have been pushing for? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bring_Jobs_Home_Act[/url][/QUOTE] these would be actual jobs coming back. trump is giving tax incentive to keep 50% of the jobs of a company moving OUT of the US. if you can't see the difference well, you're blind.

[QUOTE=EliteGuy;51477102]How is this any different than what Obama and the democrats have been pushing for? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bring_Jobs_Home_Act[/url][/QUOTE] 1.) I dont think Obama had anything to do with it 2.) Republicans voted that bill down, LOL [editline]5th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mechanical43;51477117] these would be actual jobs coming back. trump is giving tax incentive to keep 50% of the jobs of a company moving OUT of the US. [/QUOTE] So there difference is one is blanket policy and the other is targeted? is that the only difference?

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51477117]yes that good policy of every company now having tax dollars incentives to move half of their jobs out of the US. lol why not do it? you're getting tax breaks and you pay half of your employees way less. what company wouldn't do it? these would be actual jobs coming back. trump is giving tax incentive to keep 50% of the jobs of a company moving OUT of the US. if you can't see the difference well, you're blind.[/QUOTE] Why does any company keep any jobs in the US? If outsourcing is a magic path to free money, what is stopping any company from simply sending 100% of their jobs elsewhere? If a relatively small tax break motivates those that are intending to outsource to keep jobs in the US, why is that a bad thing? Keep all of your employees in the US and you receive a bigger tax break.

[QUOTE=Flameon;51477127]1.) I dont think Obama had anything to do with it 2.) Republicans voted that bill down, LOL [editline]5th December 2016[/editline] So there difference is one is blanket policy and the other is targeted? is that the only difference?[/QUOTE] holyshit READ the damn page [QUOTE]The Bring Jobs Home Act (S. 2569) is a bill that would amend the Internal Revenue Code to [B]grant business taxpayers a tax credit for up to 20% of insourcing expenses incurred for eliminating a business located outside the United States and relocating it within the United States[/B], and [B]deny a tax deduction for outsourcing expenses incurred in relocating a U.S. business outside the United States.[/B][/QUOTE] get a tax break to get jobs back that were already out of the US. deny tax break to jobs going OUT of the US. literally the opposite of what trump is doing.

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51477150]holyshit READ the damn page get a tax break to get jobs back that were already out of the US. deny tax break to jobs going OUT of the US. literally the opposite of what trump is doing.[/QUOTE] Okay? So I want a 20% tax break, I "hire" a workforce in India for pennies and then say I'm "bringing back" the jobs and collect my tax break. What's to stop me?

[QUOTE=srobins;51477137]Why does any company keep any jobs in the US? If outsourcing is a magic path to free money, what is stopping any company from simply sending 100% of their jobs elsewhere? If a relatively small tax break motivates those that are intending to outsource to keep jobs in the US, why is that a bad thing? Keep all of your employees in the US and you receive a bigger tax break.[/QUOTE] because that was a one time deal trump has done with Carrier. it's not established policy. and 700$(edited) per job is kinda a big tax break. americans, not for social welfare, but oh boy corporate welfare? give them more of that shit they love it edit: srobins, the wording of the law I'd guess. conditions like how many years a company has been around. I'm not for the bill btw. i'm just trying to make you see that's really not the same thing as what trump has done with carrier

[QUOTE=srobins;51477099]If all of those tax breaks result in a net positive effect, why not? It would just shift from a one-off band-aid to a solid policy at that point.[/QUOTE] those tax brakes will only further increase the deficit and will almost certainly end up being shouldered on the middle and lower classes. Trump talks about wanting to lower our corporate tax rate but there's a reason why almost every company in this country is incorporated in Delaware. What we need is tax reform as well as actual penalties for closing profitable plants in the US to increase profitability. The carrier plant made billions last year, the move was only to improve their profit margins by dramatically slashing wages.

[QUOTE=Water-Marine;51476983][img]https://i.imgur.com/8TbP1a5.png[/img][/QUOTE] What a fantastic way to erode the United State's economic power. He realizes that this puts our producers at an extreme competitive disadvantage, right?

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51477164][B]1. [/B]because that was a one time deal trump has done with Carrier. it's not established policy. [B]2. [/B]and 7000$ per job is kinda a big tax break. [B]3. [/B]americans, not for social welfare, but oh boy corporate welfare? give them more of that shit they love it[/QUOTE] 1. I don't get what you mean. Are you replying to my asking why companies don't outsource more, or why this is a bad deal? Because I don't understand how this answers either question. 2. $7,000,000 over ten years to keep 1,000 jobs. That's $700 per year, per job. I guarantee each of those jobs will generate more than $700 in income tax, not to mention market spending, that wouldn't exist otherwise, so how do you determine this is too big of a tax break? 3. You don't have to be a dick. I'm arguing from ignorance but that doesn't mean I'm an idiot, I'm entirely open to someone proving me wrong so long as they can act like a big boy while they do it. [editline]5th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;51477169][B]those tax brakes will only further increase the deficit[/B] and will almost certainly end up being shouldered on the middle and lower classes. Trump talks about wanting to lower our corporate tax rate but there's a reason why almost every company in this country is incorporated in Delaware. What we need is tax reform as well as actual penalties for closing profitable plants in the US to increase profitability. The carrier plant made billions last year, the move was only to improve their profit margins by dramatically slashing wages.[/QUOTE] Based on what? You don't just get to say things and have them become true, you need to have at least some kind of reasoning or explanation behind them.