• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Who do you think are making the hats.....ties and shirts with the Trump brand? Americans? BONK! Wrong.....try again.

It would appear you have no clue how many people are involved in making hats and shirts. Just making up stuff again.

Noted.
 
Allow me to simplify this, so you can understand.

No, I don't think so. I get enough patronizing insult on this website as it is.

Unsurprisingly, you're seeing what you want to see.

Right. I see liberals normally mentioning Obama as the Messiah of the auto industry without ever mentioning the tens of billions of dollars in stop-gap funding provided by the Bush Administration until the incoming Obama Administration could make a decision about the company's fate.

We've been in transition from manufacturing to services for over 60 years now. This did not start with NAFTA. And of course, you're ignoring China (no trade agreements), automation, increased productivity, jobs created by exports....

I get that our economy is evolving. What I don't get is why our government seems so hellbent on assisting companies in speeding up the process of moving jobs out of the country. And, yeah, I've mentioned China repeatedly on this site over the years, specifically their targeting of critical industry, theft of intellectual property and technology, and the requirement that foreign entities assume minor stakes in joint ventures and share technology in order to enter the Chinese market, as well as other non-tariff barriers to entry. I mean, I'm glad we have companies with six employees sporting billion dollar-plus market caps that make their stockholders filthy rich, but we also need companies that actually employ working stiffs for more than peanuts.

The smart people realize that trying to force manufacturing to stay in the US is a vain attempt to fight the market, which always causes more problems than it fixes.

Sometimes the market isn't healthy for our own security. In 1919, the market wanted to sell critical technology owned by General Electric to Britain's Marconi Company, but two smart naval officers by the names of W. H. G. Bullard and Stanford C. Hooper met with GE executives and persuaded them that GE and the United States would be better off creating an American-owned entity to buy the American Marconi Company and keep the technology here. GE agreed, and the new GE-owned entity became known as the Radio Corporation of America (RCA), which went on to dominate communications technology world-wide for most of the 20th Century (https://www.britannica.com/topic/RCA-Corporation). I can assure you that people in Washington haven't gotten smarter since then, except when it comes to lining their own pockets.
 
sigh

Allow me to simplify this, so you can understand.

- Almost all of the lost manufacturing jobs were due to the financial crisis/recession
- If nothing else, Obama's policies helped stop the massive losses (especially with the auto bailout), and has stabilized manufacturing jobs
- We haven't seen a ~3 million increase in manufacturing jobs for decades -- in fact, not since Carter
- Ironically, Obama's trajectory isn't too much different than Reagan's -- a big loss at the start and a slight increase



Unsurprisingly, you're seeing what you want to see.

Again, in raw numbers -- not adjusted for population growth -- manufacturing employment peaked in 1980. In terms of a percentage of the workforce, it peaked in 1950.

We've been in transition from manufacturing to services for over 60 years now. This did not start with NAFTA. And of course, you're ignoring China (no trade agreements), automation, increased productivity, jobs created by exports....



:roll:

The smart people realize that trying to force manufacturing to stay in the US is a vain attempt to fight the market, which always causes more problems than it fixes.

Let's look at a real-world example. A few years ago, China's domestic construction industry slowed down, and China was left with a massive surplus of steel and capacity. They slashed the price of steel dramatically, and started dumping it on foreign markets (including the US... some of which was used in some of Trump's construction projects btw).

Needless to say, US and EU steel makers pitched a fit, and after a few years, Obama -- yes, a so-called smart person -- signed massive tariffs on Chinese steel into law,, starting in late 2015. The latest was a 500% tariff imposed in May 2016.

So, what happened? Lots of fun stuff.
• The cost of Chinese steel went up
• The cost of US-made steel went up too, because they knew they could charge more
• The higher cost of the steel was passed on to consumers, as it's used for buildings, appliances etc
• Foreign-manufactured goods that used steel weren't hit by the tariffs, so those stayed cheap
• China continues to dump cheap steel
• China is allegedly shipping their cheap steel through Vietnam and other countries to avoid the tariffs
• China has, of course, retaliated with its own punitive tariffs
• American steel workers are in the same state as before the tariffs, i.e. steel workers are still getting laid off, benefits for the remainder are getting cut, etc
• Surprise! US Steel is still in deep trouble.
• Surprise! Demand for steel is still down.


I hate to break it to you, but most of what the Trumpets are telling you is pure bull****.
• Protectionist measures do not work. We've seen this over and over and over again. Someone, probably the US consumer, has to pay for the inefficiencies it creates.
• If we force manufacturers to come back to the US, they will just raise prices and/or slash US worker wages and benefits and/or automate the process.
• There is no way to slash enough taxes, and clear out enough regulations, to reach parity with foreign labor (even given higher levels of US productivity)
• Manufacturing jobs kind of... suck. Most are repetitive, dead-end, difficult, dangerous, and without unions (which Trump and the Republicans want to completely kill) it doesn't pay well.
• I can't stress this enough: we no longer need lots of people to manufacture goods. Demanding labor that companies no longer want or need, is like making horse-pulled buggies cheap, in an attempt to get rid of Uber.

In other words, the smarty-pants -- mostly conservatives by the way -- understand that chasing lost causes produces bad outcomes. We are much better off adapting to the new economic circumstances, and training people to do the jobs we need (like programming computers or providing health care).

Unfortunately, we will spend the next 4+ years chasing idiotic policies based not on economic realities, but on emotional demands for the entire world to privilege American workers. No wonder you're so happy with a bit of political theater, poorly engineered by a President who forgot that he made the promise in the first place.

I just wanted to say I really liked this. Very well written and presented. People really don't realize that automation will continue to devour jobs and there will never again be more jobs than people. It's time to adapt and rethink the way we do things.
 
sigh

Allow me to simplify this, so you can understand.

- Almost all of the lost manufacturing jobs were due to the financial crisis/recession
- If nothing else, Obama's policies helped stop the massive losses (especially with the auto bailout), and has stabilized manufacturing jobs
- We haven't seen a ~3 million increase in manufacturing jobs for decades -- in fact, not since Carter
- Ironically, Obama's trajectory isn't too much different than Reagan's -- a big loss at the start and a slight increase



Unsurprisingly, you're seeing what you want to see.

Again, in raw numbers -- not adjusted for population growth -- manufacturing employment peaked in 1980. In terms of a percentage of the workforce, it peaked in 1950.

We've been in transition from manufacturing to services for over 60 years now. This did not start with NAFTA. And of course, you're ignoring China (no trade agreements), automation, increased productivity, jobs created by exports....



:roll:

The smart people realize that trying to force manufacturing to stay in the US is a vain attempt to fight the market, which always causes more problems than it fixes.

Let's look at a real-world example. A few years ago, China's domestic construction industry slowed down, and China was left with a massive surplus of steel and capacity. They slashed the price of steel dramatically, and started dumping it on foreign markets (including the US... some of which was used in some of Trump's construction projects btw).

Needless to say, US and EU steel makers pitched a fit, and after a few years, Obama -- yes, a so-called smart person -- signed massive tariffs on Chinese steel into law,, starting in late 2015. The latest was a 500% tariff imposed in May 2016.

So, what happened? Lots of fun stuff.
• The cost of Chinese steel went up
• The cost of US-made steel went up too, because they knew they could charge more
• The higher cost of the steel was passed on to consumers, as it's used for buildings, appliances etc
• Foreign-manufactured goods that used steel weren't hit by the tariffs, so those stayed cheap
• China continues to dump cheap steel
• China is allegedly shipping their cheap steel through Vietnam and other countries to avoid the tariffs
• China has, of course, retaliated with its own punitive tariffs
• American steel workers are in the same state as before the tariffs, i.e. steel workers are still getting laid off, benefits for the remainder are getting cut, etc
• Surprise! US Steel is still in deep trouble.
• Surprise! Demand for steel is still down.


I hate to break it to you, but most of what the Trumpets are telling you is pure bull****.
• Protectionist measures do not work. We've seen this over and over and over again. Someone, probably the US consumer, has to pay for the inefficiencies it creates.
• If we force manufacturers to come back to the US, they will just raise prices and/or slash US worker wages and benefits and/or automate the process.
• There is no way to slash enough taxes, and clear out enough regulations, to reach parity with foreign labor (even given higher levels of US productivity)
• Manufacturing jobs kind of... suck. Most are repetitive, dead-end, difficult, dangerous, and without unions (which Trump and the Republicans want to completely kill) it doesn't pay well.
• I can't stress this enough: we no longer need lots of people to manufacture goods. Demanding labor that companies no longer want or need, is like making horse-pulled buggies cheap, in an attempt to get rid of Uber.

In other words, the smarty-pants -- mostly conservatives by the way -- understand that chasing lost causes produces bad outcomes. We are much better off adapting to the new economic circumstances, and training people to do the jobs we need (like programming computers or providing health care).

Unfortunately, we will spend the next 4+ years chasing idiotic policies based not on economic realities, but on emotional demands for the entire world to privilege American workers. No wonder you're so happy with a bit of political theater, poorly engineered by a President who forgot that he made the promise in the first place.

Excellent post.

The people who rail on about increasing manufacturing jobs are not realizing they are hell bent in dragging us back to the 20th century, making the rest of the world a much more attractive place to retain skilled talent in the service industry, which is the future (and frankly, the present).

This nostalgia to bring the US back to 1955 is just silly.
 
sigh

Allow me to simplify this, so you can understand.

- Almost all of the lost manufacturing jobs were due to the financial crisis/recession
- If nothing else, Obama's policies helped stop the massive losses (especially with the auto bailout), and has stabilized manufacturing jobs
- We haven't seen a ~3 million increase in manufacturing jobs for decades -- in fact, not since Carter
- Ironically, Obama's trajectory isn't too much different than Reagan's -- a big loss at the start and a slight increase



Unsurprisingly, you're seeing what you want to see.

Again, in raw numbers -- not adjusted for population growth -- manufacturing employment peaked in 1980. In terms of a percentage of the workforce, it peaked in 1950.

We've been in transition from manufacturing to services for over 60 years now. This did not start with NAFTA. And of course, you're ignoring China (no trade agreements), automation, increased productivity, jobs created by exports....



:roll:

The smart people realize that trying to force manufacturing to stay in the US is a vain attempt to fight the market, which always causes more problems than it fixes.

Let's look at a real-world example. A few years ago, China's domestic construction industry slowed down, and China was left with a massive surplus of steel and capacity. They slashed the price of steel dramatically, and started dumping it on foreign markets (including the US... some of which was used in some of Trump's construction projects btw).

Needless to say, US and EU steel makers pitched a fit, and after a few years, Obama -- yes, a so-called smart person -- signed massive tariffs on Chinese steel into law,, starting in late 2015. The latest was a 500% tariff imposed in May 2016.

So, what happened? Lots of fun stuff.
• The cost of Chinese steel went up
• The cost of US-made steel went up too, because they knew they could charge more
• The higher cost of the steel was passed on to consumers, as it's used for buildings, appliances etc
• Foreign-manufactured goods that used steel weren't hit by the tariffs, so those stayed cheap
• China continues to dump cheap steel
• China is allegedly shipping their cheap steel through Vietnam and other countries to avoid the tariffs
• China has, of course, retaliated with its own punitive tariffs
• American steel workers are in the same state as before the tariffs, i.e. steel workers are still getting laid off, benefits for the remainder are getting cut, etc
• Surprise! US Steel is still in deep trouble.
• Surprise! Demand for steel is still down.


I hate to break it to you, but most of what the Trumpets are telling you is pure bull****.
• Protectionist measures do not work. We've seen this over and over and over again. Someone, probably the US consumer, has to pay for the inefficiencies it creates.
• If we force manufacturers to come back to the US, they will just raise prices and/or slash US worker wages and benefits and/or automate the process.
• There is no way to slash enough taxes, and clear out enough regulations, to reach parity with foreign labor (even given higher levels of US productivity)
• Manufacturing jobs kind of... suck. Most are repetitive, dead-end, difficult, dangerous, and without unions (which Trump and the Republicans want to completely kill) it doesn't pay well.
• I can't stress this enough: we no longer need lots of people to manufacture goods. Demanding labor that companies no longer want or need, is like making horse-pulled buggies cheap, in an attempt to get rid of Uber.

In other words, the smarty-pants -- mostly conservatives by the way -- understand that chasing lost causes produces bad outcomes. We are much better off adapting to the new economic circumstances, and training people to do the jobs we need (like programming computers or providing health care).

Unfortunately, we will spend the next 4+ years chasing idiotic policies based not on economic realities, but on emotional demands for the entire world to privilege American workers. No wonder you're so happy with a bit of political theater, poorly engineered by a President who forgot that he made the promise in the first place.

Excellent post.

The people who rail on about increasing manufacturing jobs are not realizing they are hell bent in dragging us back to the 20th century, making the rest of the world a much more attractive place to retain skilled talent in the service industry, which is the future (and frankly, the present).

This nostalgia to bring the US back to 1955 is just silly.
 
Love the marketing of the media and leftwing economists. You actually believe Obama saved the auto industry by taking over GM? That is a very naïve, poorly informed attitude as you know nothing about business nor does Krugman

Posting Krugman was not helpful to you ... just keep that in mind if you're ever inclined to do it again.
In this Carrier v Detroit comparison, exactly how are they the same?

Please post your credentials on economics so that we may judge them for ourselves.

And before you ask me to do the same, note that I am doing the proper thing and deferring to those who know more than I do. You didn't.
 
:lamo

Now this is comedy!

You saying Hillary didn't run on the Obama record and wouldn't have been a third term? that is the comedy, your inability to use rational thought without the use of a chart or graph
 
You saying Hillary didn't run on the Obama record and wouldn't have been a third term? that is the comedy, your inability to use rational thought without the use of a chart or graph

I'm saying Obama didn't run because he already won twice. Carry on with your alternate reality.
 
Please post your credentials on economics so that we may judge them for ourselves.

And before you ask me to do the same, note that I am doing the proper thing and deferring to those who know more than I do. You didn't.

As a Liberal you always look for other people to do your work for you so you can discount it. Looking up the information will stick with you. Obama took controlling interest in GM by paying $52 per share to gain controlling interest in the company. He did it with taxpayer dollars. Now tell me the Carrier deal is the same thing? Tax credits are lot different than giving the company money through the purchase of stock
 
I'm saying Obama didn't run because he already won twice. Carry on with your alternate reality.

You are right as usual and a legend in your own mind. Hillary ran on the Obama record and lost. Obama lost the House in 2010, failed to regain it in 2012, lost the Congress in 2014, and the Democrats lost the WH in 2016. Is there going to ever come a time when you realize that you just aren't always right and that you support a failed ideology?
 
Where's all the tough deals he promised to force companies to stop offshoring? Where are the penalties? All he's done is show companies that if they want free tax breaks just threaten to offshore. How does this help America?
Well...he's not president yet, so what are you on about? You jumped the gun :) What do your propose we do as automation continues to take jobs?
 
It would appear you have no clue how many people are involved in making hats and shirts. Just making up stuff again.

Noted.

LOL.....what....do you think that Trump and his kids are hand making the hats themselves? Where do you think his shirts and ties are manufactured? I'll give you a clue....its not the USA.
 
As a Liberal you always look for other people to do your work for you so you can discount it. Looking up the information will stick with you. Obama took controlling interest in GM by paying $52 per share to gain controlling interest in the company. He did it with taxpayer dollars. Now tell me the Carrier deal is the same thing? Tax credits are lot different than giving the company money through the purchase of stock

So in other words, you have no economic credentials. You also have no problem with lying.
 
So in other words, you have no economic credentials. You also have no problem with lying.

What exactly have I lied about? Maybe you and Disney ought to get together, do some research and post where my data is wrong?
 
Obama lost the House in 2010, failed to regain it in 2012, lost the Congress in 2014, and the Democrats lost the WH in 2016.

The only accurate statement is in bold. Obama wasn't running for House Rep or Senator.
 
So in other words, you have no economic credentials. You also have no problem with lying.

Oh, ok, so we all can only comment on what we are formally trained in, got it.....Tell us, what is it that you do? So that we may begin making the list of subjects we can tell you to push off from because you aren't qualified to hold opinions on?
 
LOL.....what....do you think that Trump and his kids are hand making the hats themselves? Where do you think his shirts and ties are manufactured? I'll give you a clue....its not the USA.

You claimed Trump sent more than 1,000+ jobs out of the country. It would appear you just grabbed that number out of thin air.

Credibility = :bomb:
 
Please post your credentials on economics so that we may judge them for ourselves.

And before you ask me to do the same, note that I am doing the proper thing and deferring to those who know more than I do. You didn't.

hmmm, you appear to be overly defensive of Paul Krugman ... it's surely not his batting average... perhaps it's his penetrating ax-murderer stare that has you so captivated, I dunno ... you'll have to learn to manage that crush on your own.

One way to begin to do that might be to answer what I asked ... In the Carrier v Detroit comparison which the Krugster made and you gobbled up, exactly how are they the same?
If you find that there is no real comparison, you may be on your way.
 
Well...he's not president yet, so what are you on about? You jumped the gun :) What do your propose we do as automation continues to take jobs?

I never said he was president, but if he's going to try to take credit for the Carrier "deal", then he deserves the criticism for it as well. Offering corporations large sacks of cash to only export or kill most of their jobs and not all of them is not a solution. If we continue on that path we'll just have a race to the bottom on corporate taxes and regulations, and we'll never be able to outdo the third world.

As automation takes more jobs, we need to seriously consider a basic income guarantee. I used to scoff at it as fantasy socialist nonsense but I think it's the only solution to the inevitable conclusion that we can't continue to tie a person's survival to their ability to find a job when there aren't enough jobs. What happens to the 10 million person truck driving industry when we do perfect self driving vehicles? Who's going to pay a human to do something a machine will do? Why should a human do work a machine could do? With a basic income guarantee you're kept just above the poverty line and have the freedom to follow work that ignites your own passions and don't have to be tied into your **** job because you can't survive a month without it.
 
sv2rnq.jpg


But I thought all you guys on the right are against "crony capitalism"......
 
Oh, ok, so we all can only comment on what we are formally trained in, got it.....Tell us, what is it that you do? So that we may begin making the list of subjects we can tell you to push off from because you aren't qualified to hold opinions on?

I have the ability to admit that I defer to people who actually know what the hell they're talking about instead of pulling stuff out of my ass. Can you do the same?
 
I have the ability to admit that I defer to people who actually know what the hell they're talking about instead of pulling stuff out of my ass. Can you do the same?

i have seen no evidence of that as you point to Krugman, now you have been asked how the Carrier v Detroit deals compare and you have yet to answer. Maybe you ought to ask Krugman to give you the answer.
 
Right. I see liberals normally mentioning Obama as the Messiah of the auto industry without ever mentioning the tens of billions of dollars in stop-gap funding provided by the Bush Administration until the incoming Obama Administration could make a decision about the company's fate.
I have no problems crediting Bush for several of the steps he took, at the end of the term, to prevent the economy from complete meltdown. Including loaning the auto industry about $17bn.


I get that our economy is evolving. What I don't get is why our government seems so hellbent on assisting companies in speeding up the process of moving jobs out of the country.
Yeah, that's because... it doesn't.

Corporations do not get special tax breaks or tax incentives to outsource jobs or production. They don't get state or federal grants either. Presidents, including Obama, have frequently criticized companies that move. Obama, along with Congress, has tried to dampen inversion.

In fact, many states are elbowing each other with tax breaks and other incentives to entice corporations to move to their states -- often just moving from one state to another.

The federal government has basically just gotten out of the way of companies doing what they want to do. Ironically, this is what conservatives, Republicans, pro-capitalists and free marketers ought to want. Now, they will have to deal with a federal government that in one breath says it wants to remove regulations, and in the next threatens them and demands to micromanage their factory locations.

I wonder, what would happen if a big company wants to move from Texas to California? Does Greg Abbott now have the option to call up Trump, and demand that he stop the move, because it will benefit a Democratic state and hurt a Republican one?

If Ford announced that they're going to lay off 10,000 workers, is Trump going to Tweet at Ford not to fire anyone, or else they will suffer the consequences? How should Ford react?

Is it the tax code? Perhaps, but probably not. Attempts to fix corporate taxes in the US (whose effective rates are already quite low) invites disaster. One issue is that obviously, if effective tax rates go even lower, then our revenues will decline, and we're exacerbating the deficit. (Normally this causes Republicans and conservatives to scream bloody murder... but only when Democrats are in office.) The other issue is a race to the bottom. If the US was able to cut taxes low enough to entice other companies to move in or move back, then other nations may have an incentive to cut their tax rates for the same reason, with an end result of every company moving its HQ to the Cayman Islands and paying a 0.01% corporate tax.


I mean, I'm glad we have companies with six employees sporting billion dollar-plus market caps that make their stockholders filthy rich, but we also need companies that actually employ working stiffs for more than peanuts.
If that's the case, then I suspect you are not going to like the future very much.

We are getting better and better, every day, at automating jobs. Today we have 3.5 million truck drivers; in 10 years, that entire profession will be all but obsolete. Self-driving trucks will probably be faster, safer, cheaper and more efficient than human drivers. Should we not have cheaper goods and safer roads, because we want to keep humans employed? Should we pass laws against self-driving trucks, based not on safety, but on a desire to keep those drivers employed in the same jobs they've done for years?

What happens when 200 million Americans want to work, and there's only enough jobs to employ 150 million Americans? Or 100 million?

The fact that we need (or merely want) people to have jobs is not sufficient to create those jobs.


Sometimes the market isn't healthy for our own security.....
Yeah, not really sure how GE/RCA is really an example of that. Unless you're suggesting that Britain jeopardized its national security by not having its own electronics behemoth, auto industry capable of producing every car, sufficient agricultural capacity to put a steak on every plate every night?
 
He admitted to paying no taxes. He knows how to manipulate the system so that he pays nothing while someone making 25K a year pays more than he does.

I said he paid all he owes. If he owes none he pays none. That's fair.
I don't think someone making 25K pays any income taxes.
 
Back
Top Bottom