Trump Reaches Deal to Keep Carrier Factory, Jobs in Indiana: Report

a reply to: Indigo5

Yeah, another skewed CNN statistic. They decided not to include the worst year of his presidency. His first year. If you include that you take away a third of what he 'created'.

So what happens when you start the clock on Obama's first day of office? If you do that, Obama can only take credit for 10.8 million new jobs. He also looks a bit worse compared to Reagan and Clinton. Some make the case that the Obama jobs clock should start in February 2009 since the president only takes office on January 20 and that was a terrible month for job losses. Starting in February yields 11.5 million new jobs created under Obama. "It's obviously a political question, because it's a judgment about whether he was responsible for any or all of those 4.3 million jobs lost during his first 13 months in office, or just for the 15 million jobs added thereafter," says Lakshman Achuthan, co-founder of the Economic Cycle Research Institute. Achuthan doesn't take a stance on which method is better. The Obama administration says the job gains clock shouldn't start until 2010 because it took time for the president's policies to take effect to get the country out of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Trump is not even in office and he has 'saved' jobs.

Let's do some basic math here. Quoting an earlier figure of ~2000 jobs that were going to Mexico, that alone would have been a loss of income tax revenue by the state of ~$3,335,112 based on the median income in Indiana from 2015 of $50,532 and an income tax rate of 3.3%. By cutting that loss to 1000, the loss of income revenue by the state is reduced to $1,667,556. With the previously stated tax incentive of $700,000/yr., that loss is increased to $2,367,556. Therefore, the state has maintained ~$967,556 in revenue that was previously guaranteed lost. Whether that $967,556 covers the welfare costs of the 1000 displaced workers, I do not know. Point being, the losses were mitigated. That's not to say they were negated, but it's a step in the right direction. Is there someone here smarter than me who can explain why it would have been better to say goodbye to all of the jobs?

a reply to: matafuchs

He is not even in office and already pay to play big time right in our face. There are other states that need help with jobs. That is why he should be trying to make laws to benefit all.

a reply to: MOMof3

Can you explain the pay to play?

a reply to: matafuchs

Link it or delete it please. I don't respond to un-cited cut and paste.

a reply to: Eraynatch

It is 700k per year for 10 years...
You are assuming all of those 1000 employees would never work again or find work in 10 years? You are doing tax revenue math assuming those laid off workers will never work again...and assuming those workers are paying the full State tax rate.

But more concerning is the idea of blackmail...A US company just threatened to move jobs to Mexico and got a 7M dollar payout in taxpayer funds to not do so.

Because government controlling what a business can and can't is always great...

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: MOMof3

Can you explain the pay to play?

It's corporate blackmail...And in this case it is using taxpayer funds for Trumps PR win.

Now that carrier threatened to move jobs and got a 7M payout...who comes next?

Actual law and policy to keep jobs here would benefit all and not involve one-off corporate blackmail pay-offs....but Trump wanted the bragging rights at the taxpayers expense.

originally posted by: kamebard
Because government controlling what a business can and can't is always great...

It is now...Libertarian think tanks are already asking WTF on this deal.

a reply to: Indigo5

It's not like Indiana is paying Carrier $7,000,000. They're foregoing $7,000,000 in revenue that would have come from Carrier. Will there still be revenue coming into the state from the Carrier facility? Even if the $700,000/yr is what Carrier was paying, there's still fees collected by the state from the trucking companies moving goods to/from the facility, the taxes on the employees and very likely several vendors that supply the facility. None of that is figured into the most basic calculations I presented. If the plant was closed entirely, there was almost certainly more losses than just the taxes paid by the employees and Carrier.

a reply to: Indigo5

yea man I am sorry but a lot of jobs were created by working 2 part time jobs instead of one full time job. That is considered 1 job gain in the obamaconomy.

And zerohedge has some data for you
employment gains by race

and then to top it off.

they source their data and graphs off the bureau of labor statistics, bls.gov

Yup immigrants and H1B's are doing okie doke. for your average citizen not so well.

The economy is so strong it is frightened of a Fed reserve rate of 1.0%. Until that rate hits market levels there has not been a recovery.

a reply to: jellyrev

You realize the article you linked to was written by "Tyler Durden" of Fight Club?...

You might start to examine why people accuse Zero Hedge of being BS.

a reply to: Indigo5

It was YOUR link....I guess you did not read the whole article and just found what you thought fit your narrative...

a reply to: Eraynatch

Looks like this is why they played ball...

Mr. Trump, while offering a carrot through the state incentives, also held an implicit stick: the threat of pulling $5 billion to $6 billion in federal contracts from Carrier’s parent, United Technologies. Mr. Trump and his team were well aware that the amount United Technologies stood to lose in those contracts dwarfed the estimated $65 million Carrier sought to save by moving to Monterrey from Indiana.

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: jellyrev

they source their data and graphs off the bureau of labor statistics, bls.gov

It doesn't bother you that Whites, Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics constitute over 110% of the workforce in this graph?



www.zerohedge.com...

ETA: Notice that the same vertical scale is used for two different types of measurement. This is a classic way to lie with statistics. Because the other groups had smaller shares of the job market, their gains would look much smaller if graphed correctly. A 10% increase over 10% is only 1% of the total job market!

a reply to: matafuchs

Nahhh... No way would Trump do anything like that. He's known for his upstanding and ethical business dealings. Ask any of the subcontractors that worked on his properties.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Indigo5

It was YOUR link....I guess you did not read the whole article and just found what you thought fit your narrative...

No...I just didn't read your post and excerpt of it...I look for links when people paste large chunks of stuff..You didn't give one.

You should link when you cut and paste.

a reply to: DJW001

I doubt he is bothered by the mathematically impossible graph he posted when he borrowed the graphic from an article authored by "Tyler Durden" with Brad Pitts face as an icon that was posted on site that is widely panned as sharing Russian Propaganda and Fake News..

a reply to: Indigo5

It was YOUR link man. What part do you not understand? All you are saying is you pick and choose. You should learn comprehension.

a reply to: matafuchs

Oh no doubt...he promised Carrier's parent who is a military contractor some cushy contracts in addition to the 7M payout. Of course that would be illegal as it hurts competitive bidders and taxpayers and the GSA would get sued by other military contractors along with Trump once he takes office and FOIA requests are filed forcing the new Admin to disclose the full details of the pay-off he gave them. Expect this Carrier deal to be an emerging issue year one.