The company got a sweetheart deal with customized benefits in exchange for not sending the jobs to Mexico.
It’s crony capitalism at its finest.
3 Likes
How did the company get back more than they gave up?
None the calculations above include the welfare payments not paid out to a big proportion of these people, or the increased crime and social problems that burden the state.
Not to mention the increased economic activity of spending 16M locally on infrastructure.
This is idiotic, but in any event, the company wouldn’t be paying these things if it moved.
1 Like
Not that its nothing, but 16M is a token amount when it comes to industrial improvements in a company the size of Carrier or UTI. That could just be a couple of new process improvements.
1 Like
They’re getting $7M in tax breaks to not move, which would cost them 10s of millions of dollars…
How do you know a big portion of these people aren’t already of welfare?
Conjecture aside, do you think the federal government should subsidies a business to reduce crime/social problems?
That’s really not a whole lot. We’re building a relatively small addition to one of our facilities next year that is $11M. Plus, you don’t actually know who or where that $16M will be spent. It would be pretty funny is they got their building materials from Mexico.
It is, no question.
States & cities do it ALL THE TIME though, and have been for awhile. It’s in large part the explanation of the shift from corporations paying large % of revenue to the people paying it. (Well that an use of partnerships, s-corps and LLC’s.) Which is a bonus from Federal revenue perspective as well as state.
Company’s stay, people work. That means more voters who like you, and vote for you again. Plus bigger tax base, and more kids to fill up your schools, which you can use to guilt the same people into property tax raises appeasing your teacher union buddies.
(I’m joking in there.)
But yeah, there are a lot of peripheral things that go into the choice, and I get why it’s made.
Note this post is not condoning the action as much as just talking about it
Yup, I totally get it. I just don’t agree with it. 
I would love to hear any rational explanation on where the non college education class is supposed to earn a living that will indeed support a family.
- Computers and automation have decreased workers needed for same levels of output.
- We have turned loose of entire industries to overseas production - both high tech (which we are told our populace is not able to assemble) and low tech (which gets made on the most automated equipment in the world)
- We have more or less allowed every functionally illiterate soul that is plucky enough to get over here, every inducement to come here & bring all of their family they could, while doing every menial tasks they can uncover and keeping wages at poverty level through oversupply
- College educated can look forward to making far less (if able to find white collar work) due to importation of cheap imported labor or services being fulfilled overseas through the internet.
Really - anyone wants to complain about the next guy actually keeping his livelihood, while we have bled 80% of the population to death? I don’t comprehend the mindset.
1 Like
1 Like
Do you think the bottom 80% is doing that great as owners of the wealth of this country in the last 35 or so years? We can start putting up stats and charts to bolster our perspective sides ;7)
I am happy to keep every position that we can in house and out of the hands of foreigners, both educated and illiterate. You know I feel that way. When every guy has a job, then we can advertise for help.
Thinking about it more it doesn’t matter who got the better deal between the two, what matters is: is America and Indiana better off making this deal than not:
To summarize
-
the taxable income from the number of jobs saved > than 7M in uncollected taxes
-
16M of infrastructure investment. Significant relative to the 7M but not relative to company size
-
savings on welfare payments by the state (amount unknown). Probably will be difficult for most of these folks to find new jobs as their skills are becoming decreasingly marketable
-
avoid uptick in crime (amount unknown)
It’s not so much being anti people working, it’s anti government playing favorites and propping up business, whom in the big picture might be better off making the moves they would without the government interference.
It’s a principle vs reality thing.
Take the taxation argument. One side says it’s theft, the other “the price to live in a civilized society”. I’m firmly in the theft camp. That said, I know in reality, given the complexity of modern life and the size of the US, taxation isn’t going anywhere whole sale, so the fight is in limiting it, not eliminating it.
Same thing here. You want companies to stay for organic reasons, not social engineering though government manipulation.
1 Like
Depends on what you mean by “great”? Average income in the US is about $50,000/year. The average income globally is about $1,500/year. In some parts of the world you could be killed by a dinosaur when fetching water. Here, it’s piped directly into your government provided house if you’re “poor”.
Creative destruction… Capitalism won’t work if we don’t let it work.
The best way to help the poor is to do away with the law that prevents employers from using aptitude tests. Companies use to be able to hire smart people with or without a college degree without fear of discrimination lawsuits
Yup…
I should clarify.
I don’t like the government giving to some and not to others - been there in a retail business I owned when Lowes moved into town.
But our government has not allowed its populace to play with the same rules as the rest of the world - That’s why Trump got voted in. Maybe his promises are empty, naive, corrupt, whatever. But at least he has addressed that our society in sinking, and voices that he would fight it.
My biggest point in diatribe was that working guys in my country deserve a shot before I give one to the guy from somewhere else. And I can’t understand a mindset that doesn’t agree to that.
Depends on the way the stats are laid out on this.
I grew up on foodstamps, and now out earn my parents combined, on my own… Add in my wife’s salary and we smoke the living shit out of them. Depending on which numbers you’re using, I’m out of the 80% now. Based on articles on people my age and younger, and their ability to save I’m in the .1% camp.
What I’m getting at is dont’ look at those graphs like Bernie Sanders. Look at them for what they are, a distribution. The person at the top in 1996 might be at the bottom now, and vise versa. What’s relevant is how much better off each person is relative to themselves over that time. And under that measure, I’d say that most are significantly better off because of cheap technology.
This biggest issue is were in the “pain” time of globalization. In a couple of generations when the Indians and Chinese have revolted against their oppressive governments and joined Western Civ in the modern world, and their workers all want the same benefits we take for granted, the world itself will be so incredibly richer for it. But it’s going to hurt a bit getting there is all. Sucks it’s us hurting, I get that. But feather fletchers were pissed when our Lord and Savior the Firearm became the weapon to have, and horse shoers weren’t happen with Henry Ford…
2 Likes