Carrier To Close Indiana Plants, Move 2,000 American Jobs to Mexico

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Feb 15, 2016.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    Thanks, President Clinton, for NAFTA. And thank you, Obama, for trying to reward your Asian friends with American jobs.

    Prepare for the same if Obama's Asian Free Trade deal goes though.

    God help us. Only Trump or Bernie can save America now!
     
  2. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #2
    The best way for liberals in government to keep control of the individual is to be the provider of all services, including jobs. Export jobs and the numbers of unemployed increase, and your base goes up...

    Yes, it's all part of a plan to destroy America.
     
  3. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #3


    Do you really want the Federal Government telling private corporations how to run their businesses?

    The US economy is adding almost 200,000 jobs per month. Unemployment is at its lowest level since 2008. Wages are finally starting to tick upwards. And the US economy is currently the strongest in the industrialized world.

    Clamping excessive Government controls on American business would reverse that almost immediately.
     
  4. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    already signed IIRC.
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/06/29/trade-here-s-what-president-signed-law

    so much for democrats looking out for American yobs.
     
  5. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #5
    I'm confused.

    So, it's Obama's (or the Democrats?) fault that 2,000 people have lost their jobs, and because they are now jobless they're going to vote for the same people who allegedly caused them to lose their jobs, just because now they would rather be on unemployment instead of actually working? Is that what you're saying?

    I'm assuming you think that conservatives can make all this right and bring jobs back, and all of that. Why wouldn't these unemployed people want to vote for them?
     
  6. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #6
    The TransPacific Trade Partnership has yet to be ratified - so its not legally in force, either in the US or Mexico.

    Its pretty hard for me to understand why you are blaming Barack Obama for a US company closing its factory because of a trade deal that hasn't taken effect yet.

    The situation vis-a-vis Carrier is complicated. Carrier used to have all its manufacturing in Connecticut, but moved to Indiana several years ago. It claims it is moving to Mexico now because many of its competitors and - more importantly - its suppliers are there too.

    Despite moving its manufacturing operations to Mexico, with the consequent losses of jobs; its not all bad news. Moving assembly to Mexico allows Carrier to compete internationally - and compete for the rapidly growing Asian markets. (Which is what the TPP is supposed to be all about.) That means more jobs for the US engineers, salespeople, marketers, etc. who work for Carrier. It also means thousands of jobs for the HVAC contractors who work in every town and city in the country installing air-conditioning units that - thanks to relentless cost-cutting (which includes off-shoring assembly) now are not only much more efficient than units produced a few years ago - but they are also cheaper.

    International trade inevitably means some loss of some jobs. But by growing the overall economy and economic activity - we end up with a net benefit, in terms of jobs, profits, taxes, efficiency - and comfort - that we would otherwise lose.

    Protectionism has never worked in the past. It won't work under Bernie Sanders and it won't work under Donald Trump.
     
  7. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #7
    Right there's better than building a wall.
     
  8. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #8
    One thing I've noticed is that some of the more hardcore conservatives, such as yourself, don't base your ideas around sound policy, but rather as a means of defense against some they that's out to destroy America. These days, it's The Liberal, and it's always them pulling some clandestine, but ultimately overly cartoonish ploy out to control the hearts and minds of the average person.

    Reality isn't on your side on this one, Witt. But then again, I could be a brainwashed drone.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 15, 2016 ---
    One thing that doesn't make sense to me is that it's always the liberals (though in truth they're almost always bipartisan affairs) who push for these bills that allow our corporations to sell our jobs off overseas, but never the fault of the corporation itself for taking advantage of it, and screwing us over to save a buck on cheap labor in China or Mexico.

    ...doesn't it take two to tango? How can someone fight for the right for a business to have the freedom to hire how it wants, who it wants, where it wants, for the sake of its shareholders, but rails against the federal process that allows it as part of an evil ploy to weaken America?
     
  9. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #9
    But what will I fight against if there are no evil communists who wish to make me work on their collectivist farms?
     
  10. samiwas macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #10
    Alright...who told this righty about our plans to destroy America? We have an entire book of concisely written instructions on how to destroy America. We've been honing down the details for years. How did you know!?
     
  11. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #11
    I think you'll find American protectionism in the nineteenth century (and a lot of the twentieth) is what gained the US it's position as the worlds largest manufacturer something it achieved to take that title from Britain which was pro free trade for much of that time.
     
  12. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #12
    The evil capitalist factory owners who profit off our labors. :mad:
     
  13. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #13
    NAFTA and TPP were on the news ;)
     
  14. einmusiker macrumors 68030

    einmusiker

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #14
    Perhaps they should work harder and get a better education and thus a better job? Are they too lazy to stop sucking off the corporate welfare tit?
     
  15. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
  16. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #16
    I'm still aghast at that story, not just for the layoffs, but for Disney's blinkered belief that workers would take care in training their replacements.

    "Sorry, we tried to train these guys, but they're all a bunch of dumbasses." And, "It's not that we just told them a bunch of nonsense and took four-hour lunches, they're bad at this."
     
  17. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #17
    I'm not aware of any source that would suggest that.

    The US did not surpass Britain in industrial output until 1890. At a time when the US population (roughly 66 million) was twice that of Britain.

    It certainly is true that the US had periods of high tariffs in the 19th century. But these were mainly a used as a source of Government revenue, rather than as a form of protectionism. We should also keep in mind that European nations also maintained high tariffs, including Germany (to protect its industry) and the Britain, which rigorously maintained tariffs as a means of protecting its industry and their markets in Empire countries -specifically India.

    US manufacturing got its biggest boost in the 19th century from mainly Government-sponsored projects - starting with the building of the Erie Canal; followed by the Civil War and then the construction of the Transcontinental railroad. Along with the founding of the public land-grant Universities (which provided a steady stream of engineers, scientists, accountants, etc.) - and the rapid growth of population fueled by immigration from Europe - the US was by 1900 not just the largest manufacturer, it was also the largest market.

    In the age of sailing ships, it was both costly and time consuming to ship goods internationally. This, by itself, acted as a strong barrier to trade. Only the most costly and rare goods were therefore imported.
     
  18. thermodynamic, Feb 15, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2016

    thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #19
    Liberals again, really? Everyone says Clinton had to sign what George H W Bush started, and everyone else says "Clinton was the best president Republicans ever had". Either way, you're really stretching it big-time by claiming Liberals want companies to move to Mexico. Either which way, if Clinton were the anti-business socialist you want him to be, he would have signed something far different to NAFTA.

    But shareholders will see big profit increases as a result of this move. Thank NAFTA for that.

    If you're so certain that is what is going on, how come you've not acted like Craven Bundy or whatever his name is?

    So, you're not so certain, are you?
    --- Post Merged, Feb 15, 2016 ---
    But you don't mind businesses telling government how to run it (with lobbyists)?

    Okay... government is by, of, and for the people. Corporations are by, of, and for themselves as they see fit. Why should there be lobbyists in there to begin with? I don't know and freely admit ignorance. But if you know why they have more power than individuals when neither a republic nor democracy would allow such unevenness, please edify us.


    Which is fantastic! Pity about all those articles with graphs and figures showing wages have not kept up with inflation, higher costs of living, the decades old means to calculate unemployment (where it's easy to not be accurately counted), and so on...

    After 35 years of deregulation, I don't think re-regulation is going to happen overnight.

    And if the working class is screwed either way, then why do you want companies threatening you with scare tactics while overlooking the lobbying and corporate welfare and tax refunds on money they never paid in to begin with and bailouts they get?

    (and, no, I'm not so certain either...)
     
  19. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #20
    The real issue here is the cost of living in the US vs cost of living in other nations. There's so many cost built into our system in order to keep things afloat that we can no longer compete.

    Everything from cost of housing, education, government, etc... all add up to a situation where a business has much cheaper options outside the US.

    If they don't leave the US, they won't be able to compete with those that do leave.

    There's another trend that isn't talked about and that's businesses that never start in the US to begin with. The business birth rate in the US has gone neg for the 1st time since they've started tracking it.

    Mexico gave nearly 100 million to Kia to build a factory there. Mexico is buying factories and the US is not.

    What Disney did should be a crime. We tell people to get educated and get a better job, then those jobs are filled with H1B Visas. Those are the jobs that pay more and end up with more tax money.

    We need to reduce the costs of living in the US. We need to stop those dam H1B Visas and replace them with on the job training for Americans.

    We need to expose Disney for what they're doing and boycott their products.

    We're in a race to the bottom and we're not going to win unless we reduce our costs of living.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 15, 2016 ---
    The people have more control over businesses than they have over government. With a business, you simply stop buying the product. The problem is that it's too hard for people to exert their power. The consumers need more choice and need to work together.

    Imagine if 20% of the people stopped buying Disney products, the stock would drop.

    It's the threat of going out of business that keeps things in check.

    The people killed Blockbuster Video, they are killing Sears and many other giants of the past. The rewards companies the people want and kills off those they don't like. It's quick and effective.

    When the government does this, they have huge overhead and always end up being bought off.

    Look at California's high speed train, the contract went to the husband of a sitting senator. Look at Flint's water deal. Look at contracts for schools.

    The people need to be aware of what's going on and need to stop buying products from these companies before the US consumers have no more power.

    Government control over business can end up like a failed socialist country.
     
  20. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #21
  21. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #22
    This should make some wonder why Obama supports TTP. It'll completely screw what is commonly thought of as his base, the middle class workers. Just like NAFTA did and it was passed by Clinton.

    Hillary then comes out and says she didn't support it, when she did. Just like gay rights, Hillary was against it then for it. She was for NAFTA then says she was against it.

    They really are playing both sides and most of the people don't see it. Even when the Dems in congress are against TTP, the people still see Obama backing it and can't see a contradiction.

    The US is on the edge of economic failure and people just don't see it. Very few saw the DotCom bubble or the housing bubble until it was too late.
     
  22. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #23
    Boy, what a difference a few decades make. I can recall in the 1980s, suggesting that protectionism might help jobs would get you instantly labeled a heathen and burned at the stake of free trade. Free trade was the magical policy that was going to make us all rich.

    Not that totally controlled trade is the answer either. But in addition to what you mentioned, protectionism is what made Japan such a powerhouse during that time. The barriers were so strong that while Japan was flooding us with TVs and cars, it was almost impossible to get permission to sell anything American over there. I recall one particular instance in which a Japanese regulatory agency told an American ski manufacturer that their product was not suitable for the Japanese market because their snow was different from ours.

    One thing that is not a factor is some sort of liberal plot to make everyone dependent on government. The only people who believe that are Rush Limbaugh's brain-damaged followers. (Liberals controlling people by making them totally dependent on government is a constant theme with him.)
     
  23. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #24
    When is Carrier moving their headquarters out of Connecticut? I'm sure it's only a matter of time.

    Our Governor Dan Malloy is a peice of work. GE recently decided to move their HQ to Boston. A lot of other companies have left (or failed). In fact, CT has the biggest population efflux than any other state. We have one of the worst economic recoveries too.

    Obviously, businesses will go where ever the incentives take them. That might mean taking themselves out of the state or the country. It's up to the government to balance the incentives.

    But I digress...
     
  24. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #25
    There's a long list of companies that have left California. Toyota, Nissan, and many, many others. Nissan said after it left, it was like it's workers got a 20% raise. Now we have massive poverty. California is so overprice and over regulated that businesses just don't want to be here. The only ones making it work is high tech.
     

Share This Page