World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Blu]

The Carrier gig is a farce, saving 1,000 jobs so that in return, Carrier will receive a tax break and subsidies. Who pays this tax break? You guessed it, the taxpayers of Indiana, given that the current governor, Mike Pence, was involved in the negotiations. Carrier is just a partial amount of United Technologies revenues.

You'll have plenty of companies who will now use MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars when they threaten to uproot. It just reinforces this narrative. It is certainly not a free market, it's exploitative by these MULTIBILLION dollar companies to ensure they can get what they want. It similar to how the autobailout happened. We kept jobs, but wages will continue as they were, and meanwhile profit margins continue to rise without any shred of trickle-down effect. It's only the beginning, too.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... erica.html

[Exhuminator]

Who pays this tax break? You guessed it, the taxpayers of Indiana

At least they will still have jobs to pay the tax break.

You'll have plenty of companies who will now use MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars when threaten to uproot.

Pure speculation at this point.

[Blu]

Do you realize how much those jobs cost in the form of tax breaks, Ex? I don't think you do. It's around $400,000 a job in taxpayer dollars going from the hands of Indiana citizens, in the form of subsidies that Carrier/United Technologies receives, to keep them there.

Another company across town is poised to leave as well, risking another 1,000 jobs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... b167295757

It's not speculation. You can only look at recent history to see how taxpayers have been financing corporations. Get your head out of the sand. The auto bailout cost an estimate 9.3-16.6B to taxpayers (an aside, how on earth do we accept that wide of a margin for estimations across sources) We paid out 79B dollars for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. We received from the auto companies around 63.1-70.4B of it back. So at a conservative estimate, $9.3 billion dollars was siphoned away from taxpayers. We tolerated it then, so why wouldn't we tolerate it a couple more times?

That doesn't cover around 13 TRILLION dollars the Fed floated all the big banks in order to keep them from insolvency when the market crashed. The TARP with regards to the big banks is a drop in the bucket when to consider how much banks actually received.

Americans have reaped the benefits of capitalism so much, it's only now that they're on the receiving end of its exploitative nature that they're not enjoying it so much. You cannot tell me that this is speculation when I'm seeing similar practices from less than a decade ago happening again.

I think it's interesting that we'll see capitalism die in our lifetimes, just as we saw communism die as well.

[Exhuminator]

Americans have reaped the benefits of capitalism so much, it's only now that they're on the receiving end of its exploitative nature that they're not enjoying it so much. You cannot tell me that this is speculation when I'm seeing similar practices from less than a decade ago happening again.

I think it's interesting that we'll see capitalism die in our lifetimes, just as we saw communism die as well.

What do you think is the answer to keeping manufacturing jobs from leaving the USA? How would you improve the production side of the economy if you were president? How would you balance tax breaks, tax incentives, and tariffs to facilitate growth while minimizing loss?

[prfsnl_gmr]

I am not against state and federal governments providing incentives for companies to keep jobs in (or move jobs to) a specific area. I think that the positive externalities associated with those jobs often justifies the cost of the incentive.

These incentives undoubtedly create "expectations" by businesses, however, and if an area does not want to provide them in perpetuity, it will have to take other actions to entice and keep businesses. I am not sure that some areas can do this; so, these incentive programs may end up operating like a Band-Aid that, despite keeping some jobs, also hides the deeper issues. (Frankly, some areas have literally nothing to offer businesses. They do not have skilled work force; they aren't located near either markets or major transportation infrastructure; it isn't desirable to live there; etc. These areas can "race to the bottom" with incentive programs, but those programs really aren't going to help those areas in the long term.)

What do you think is the answer to keeping manufacturing jobs from leaving the USA? How would you improve the production side of the economy if you were president? How would you balance tax breaks, tax incentives, and tariffs to facilitate growth while minimizing loss?

In my view, it is not the government's role to determine what types of jobs should remain in the U.S. (That is, the government should not be picking winners and losers.)

Also, there are proven ways that governments can drastically boost production, wages, living standards, etc. Specifically, they can invest heavily in infrastructure and education, and they can make it easier for people to move between jobs. (Tax breaks, tax incentives, tarriffs, etc. won't do it. Those measures serve only to concentrate wealth and entrench existing businesses.) All of these efforts take money, however, and our government has been generally unwilling to spend it. (Interest rates of government debt are essentially negative right now, and IMO, there really hasn't been a better time to invest in these things. Some of Trump's advisers understand this, and it will be interesting to see if traditional "deficit hawks" change their feathers in light of his election.)

[MrPopo]

Americans have reaped the benefits of capitalism so much, it's only now that they're on the receiving end of its exploitative nature that they're not enjoying it so much. You cannot tell me that this is speculation when I'm seeing similar practices from less than a decade ago happening again.

I think it's interesting that we'll see capitalism die in our lifetimes, just as we saw communism die as well.

What do you think is the answer to keeping manufacturing jobs from leaving the USA? How would you improve the production side of the economy if you were president? How would you balance tax breaks, tax incentives, and tariffs to facilitate growth while minimizing loss?

You either lower the minimum wage or you accept that manufacturing is just not a thing for the US to be doing anymore. And you focus on getting people to accept that the mill isn't coming back and find new employment, which might require moving instead of digging in your heels and petulantly whining about how you don't want to have to change.

[prfsnl_gmr]

You either lower the minimum wage or you accept that manufacturing is just not a thing for the US to be doing anymore. And you focus on getting people to accept that the mill isn't coming back and find new employment, which might require moving instead of digging in your heels and petulantly whining about how you don't want to have to change.

You said it meaner than me. Nothing makes my wife and I more furious than efforts by our state government to "protect" (i.e., give tax dollars to) family farms. We are both descended from the people that didn't inherit the family farm (and, therefore, had to move, get different jobs, etc.). Why should our tax dollars go to the descendants of the people that did inherit the farm so that they "can maintain their way of life"? If they can't run their family farm profitably without government subsidies, maybe they shouldn't be farming any more...

EDIT: Also, this is how our government truly failed in the wake of its various trade agreements (which were, and remain, a benefit to our society). We knew, before entering into those agreements, that while they would benefit everyone, they would hurt a few people a lot. Part of the deal was providing benefits, training, etc. to workers that would be disproportionately affected by these agreements, and our government completely failed on that front.

[marurun]

I don't know that it is worth it to try to keep manufacturing jobs in the US. Manufacturing is expensive in countries that value air and water quality and a decent quality of life. And putting high tariffs on imports simply pushes up the prices on all manufactured goods. This is a version of the Walmart problem. Walmart's push for low prices made them popular, but also drove down pay in the retail sector and pushed out small businesses. The result is that folks in retail get paid less and can only afford the kinds of prices Walmart charges. If manufactured goods prices spike, sales will drop, hurting both domestic and foreign manufacturers, raising manufacturing costs and further reducing sales of manufactured goods. It could create and even more dire death spiral for domestic manufacturing while also hurting retailers and consumer spending on the whole.

Like it or not, our economy doesn't exist in a bubble, and if we don't leverage the US higher education system for skilled jobs (and improve dramatically primary, secondary, and adaptive vocational education for other labor types) we will simply decline economically until we are competitive again.

The sad thing is, I can't imagine a bright future for unskilled labor in the US. Service jobs tend not to pay well, and lack of apprenticeships has reduced participation (and quality, but not price) in skilled trades. There will always be food products and some basic goods manufactured here, but other countries have much better arranged infrastructure for complex goods like electronics. I don't know what the answer is, but I know it won't be easy, and that there will be a lot of pain to get there. And Trump's plans (what we think we know of them) simply won't do the job.

As for the TARP and Freddie Fannie bailouts, according to ProPublica, while only $390 bil has been repaid of $621 bil invested, loaned, or paid out, interest on repayment and investment returns have added up to an additional $303 bil, meaning the Fed has actually realized a $71.9 bil profit on that initial bailout. And with repayment continuing and investment returns ongoing, there is additional govt profit to be had. That means those bailouts not only helped banks and the auto industry, they were also a boost to the Federal budget, not a drain on taxpayers. I don't, however, think this includes the cost of closed car dealerships (more would have closed without TARP) or homeowners losing their homes (a problem that created the need for bailout, not a result of the bailout).

[Blu]

Funny you don't have any retort to what I've shared. Let that realization sink in for you a little while more, that's fine. Maybe those facts will anger you a little more. Because it's not only Obama who manipulated citizens trust, Bush did it too. But you can continue to scapegoat our current and past presidents for the true responsible parties. As a preface, Prfsnl_Gmr and Marurun covered a lot of my talking points.

As for your prompts:

First, I'd outlaw practices allow for the use shell companies and the corporations that use them for unethical purposes. There are certain instances where it is helpful, such as operatives needing discreetness abroad, safeguarding some R&D secrets, but the practices of offshoring money as a means to reducing tax burden, would be the first thing to go, with some necessary discretion.

I'd automate more and more of the production-related manufacturing jobs. That's what really has been killing off American manufacturing jobs. Automation has really done that, and will continue to as long as our tech improves. So in return, I'd provide incentive for further R&D to make costs low for companies, and keep prices low. I likely don't see manufacturing jobs returning to this country. Because we wouldn't work for the wage that companies are currently paying their foreign workforce, plain and simple.

In return, have said companies actually improve our infrastructure without it being ponied up solely on the taxpayers backs. You love being an American company? Prove it by paying your fair share towards green technology, improving our railways, roadways, and powergrid, for starters. Our physical infrastructure on many things is long overdue for upgrades. Additionally, our cyber security on power plants, the power grid, etc is outdated and extremely vulnerable to foreign threats. You could put good people to work on these improvements, and have a portion of them remain to assist with the maintenance and upkeep, having learned a skill.

I'd nix programs that promote, abuse, and drive the military industrial-complex. A nation's security is important, but not to the tune that the F-35 has cost 1.5 Trillion dollars for Lockheed Martin research, develop, and manufacture. Currently there's not a balance between what our assessed needs for defense really are, versus what the companies driving the complex tell us they are.

Those are all pie in the sky programs though right, and I'd need like-minded folks in national, state, and local governments to see the purpose of these things. I'd liken these stances to someone like Eisenhower. Right now we're seeing a textbook Dick Cheney play coming off of the Carrier deal, which does nothing in the long term, and is a band-aid solution that other companies will look to take advantage of on the basis of existing precedent.

[Exhuminator]

You either lower the minimum wage or you accept that manufacturing is just not a thing for the US to be doing anymore.

What marketable business strategies should the US be focusing on rather than manufacturing?

Funny you don't have any retort to what I've shared. Let that realization sink in for you a little while more, that's fine.

Let this realization sink in; if you're going to be snide then I won't care to converse with you. Asking you further questions about the issues doesn't mean I agreed with you. It's just me seeking further clarification on your perspective.