Carrier

Paul48

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/trump-to-announce-carrier-plant-will-keep-jobs-in-us/ar-AAkW0NP?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Mike

I wonder what jobs are staying in Indy? The factories are already running in Mexico.

nicholas bonham-carter

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/29/news/economy/trump-carrier-deal/index.html

This interesting article points out that this situation creates a precedent in which any manufacturer can threaten to move jobs to Mexico, if it does not receive some taxpayer subsidies to stay here.
Probably the remaining Carrier jobs will be that of a few design engineers, with many low level warehouse, and distribution minimum wage types.--NBC

Paul48

No precedent being set with that move. Companies have been doing that, for at least 20 years.

John Mills_5

Over the weekend Bernie gave a speech saying threaten UTX with loss of government contracts in defense as a bargaining too. Probably what happened.

Trump can take credit but sounds like Pence did the work. Didn't get it done before when first announced though.

Brewbeer

I wonder how much of the largesse at the taxpayer's expense is going to the employees at the plant, and how much of it went to the CEO, the board of directors, and the stockholders?

Paul48

I wonder how much that will save the taxpayers, by not having them join the ranks of the unemployed? Trump has bad hair. I'll just keep posting that, every time his administration does something good, or keeps a campaign promise.

NY_Rob

Didn't Trump (during his campaign) threaten to levy a 35% import tariff on Carrier products made in Mexico and then imported for sale in the USA?

Maybe that helped too?

Brewbeer

Paul48 said:

I wonder how much that will save the taxpayers, by not having them join the ranks of the unemployed?

Ultimately that is the crux of the matter: were the tax concessions that were given to the corporation more or less costly to the taxpayers than the unemployment and related costs of the the lost jobs? Not being an economist I don't know the answer, but I hope that someone has looked at this issue carefully, and where the money goes (e.g., factory workers vs. CEO/shareholders). Is it wrong to ask for this sort of fiscal accountability from our elected representatives? The corporation's shareholders will certainly be making that analysis from their perspective.

EBEBRATT-Ed

At least Trump is trying to do something and.....he's not even president yet. Saved 1000 Carrier jobs & kept 1 Ford assembly line. No one else has done squat.

Paul48

Companies have been screwing state and local governments, on these kind of deals for years. If Trump and his team could not get a good deal for us, with this "tiny" deal, we're in trouble. It is directly related to getting jobs returned to America. It does not cost the taxpayers money for them to cut corporate taxes, when the government currently gets "zero" from a company that's moved offshore.

KC_Jones

EBEBRATT-Ed said:

At least Trump is trying to do something and.....he's not even president yet. Saved 1000 Carrier jobs & kept 1 Ford assembly line. No one else has done squat.

huh? Ford wasn't ever closing an assembly line in the US. The current plant can't keep up with production of all the models. They are planning a new plant and moving production of the lowest volume Lincoln model to that plant. Now they will just move something else. In the grand scheme nothing has really changed with the Ford situation.

Paul48

It was GM

Paul48

The assembly line is being resurrected by a Chinese billionaire. He will sell the vehicles produced (by American workers) in China. He was hard to understand, but I think he said, "Fords are shirt".

hot_rod

Brewbeer said:

Paul48 said:

I wonder how much that will save the taxpayers, by not having them join the ranks of the unemployed?

Ultimately that is the crux of the matter: were the tax concessions that were given to the corporation more or less costly to the taxpayers than the unemployment and related costs of the the lost jobs? Not being an economist I don't know the answer, but I hope that someone has looked at this issue carefully, and where the money goes (e.g., factory workers vs. CEO/shareholders). Is it wrong to ask for this sort of fiscal accountability from our elected representatives? The corporation's shareholders will certainly be making that analysis from their perspective.

The devil is in the details, if the conditions of the deal are not made available it's no different than un-released tax returns...anyones guess.

Now if a Trump hotel suddenly shows up on Carrier Circle??

I'm certainly willing to give the president elect a chance to make good on his promises. 50,000 illegals/ criminal leaving our country per day, as promised will be a good thing. More jobs, less crime and drugs.

Paul48

"I'm certainly willing to give the president elect a chance to make good on his promises. 50,000 illegals/ criminal leaving our country per day, as promised will be a good thing. More jobs, less crime and drugs".

This is the stage we are at. We've been waiting for decades, for positive change. Let him conduct the business of the United States, and we'll see what happens. A fine woman WILL become President of the United States. That woman is not Hillary Clinton. She may wind up in jail, after Obama is out of office.

SlamDunk

yeah well, if all the jobs are going to mexico, why stay here?

BigRob

To employ his voters, Trump needs to create 10x more factories than were lost because the modern automated factories don't need as much labor. This doesn't even consider all the service level jobs that will be lost due to kiosks and fast food automation. The $15 minimum wage will just accelerate that sector's demise. Self driving cars will eventually take more jobs. It's time for bold action. In my opinion energy is the key. We need to fire up the nukes in two civilian / military nuclear cities, one on the West and East coasts, that are protected by a brigade, each. We plummet the price of electricity, tighten up efficiency and green standards with Federal law, and attract manufacturing in designated free development zones and cheap power. We let oil and gas float. Bye bye PG&E. We need manufacturing back. No more exporting our technology base and jobs for CEO bonuses. For you controls guys: we need some serious derivative gain to suck the factories back. PI won't cut it.

hot_rod

BigRob said:

To employ his voters, Trump needs to create 10x more factories than were lost because the modern automated factories don't need as much labor. This doesn't even consider all the service level jobs that will be lost due to kiosks and fast food automation. The $15 minimum wage will just accelerate that sector's demise. Self driving cars will eventually take more jobs. It's time for bold action. In my opinion energy is the key. We need to fire up the nukes in two civilian / military nuclear cities, one on the West and East coasts, that are protected by a brigade, each. We plummet the price of electricity, tighten up efficiency and green standards with Federal law, and attract manufacturing in designated free development zones and cheap power. We let oil and gas float. Bye bye PG&E. We need manufacturing back. No more exporting our technology base and jobs for CEO bonuses. For you controls guys: we need some serious derivative gain to suck the factories back. PI won't cut it.

I don't see how manufacturing jobs come back with the wages and health insurance $$ needed to support a family these days? The numbers just don't pencil out.

Same with re-opening the coal mines, just not enough market left for that product anymore, with the glut of NG, nobody will build new, or update old coal power plants.

We need to turn more towards a technology economy.

Maybe on the nukes? if it could be done safely and cost effectively, currently regulations, permitting and cost over runs prohibit it.

Be nice to get a handle on the nuclear waste we currently house in temporary vaults, some of them leaking, across the US before we create more of it.

Paul48

Keep in mind, that only this country has given their manufacturing jobs away. There are plenty of countries that have plenty of manufacturing jobs that pay well. Also.....keep in mind, we taught the world how to manufacture. Every industry in the US, knows which policies were employed that screwed them. It's a matter of systematically undoing the damage that has been done. You have to take steps to "right the ship". Perhaps our politicians should subscribe to the part of the Hippocratic Oath that says "Do no harm".

hot_rod

Keep in mind, that only this country has given their manufacturing jobs away. There are plenty of countries that have plenty of manufacturing jobs that pay well. Also.....keep in mind, we taught the world how to manufacture.

I don't agree with this, completely. Look how man automotive giant has moved production out of their homeland. Pretty much every brand has or is building assembly plants in Mexico. BMW and Toyota assemble in the US, plenty in Canada also.

Europe had done a fine job of "learning how to manufacture" Much of our engine manufacturing and assembly technology has been borrowed from Japan and Germany.

I don't see that as the problem.

I'm not convinced tax payers should continue to pay to keep manufacturing in the US. Seems like that is what happened with Carrier. Tax payers in Indiana got hit twice, state tax revenue going to Carrier and federal tax dollars. AND they keep their
lucrative government and defense contracts which are tax dollars.

How many more corporations will line up for these sweetheart deals? Isn't it a thinly disguised taxpayer bailout?

Time will tell if the gamble pays out to keep those jobs here.

As you mentioned in an earlier thread Paul, the top tier benefits the most from these deals.

Was that Carrier plant losing money, or just not "profitable enough" that they wanted to move it to Mexico?

If the tax payer dollars are used just to increase the bottom line, to an already profitable facility, that is like a second kick to the tax payers.

Maybe they could have raised the cost of every product built their and let the consumer, not the tax payer take the hit.

This is the oldest shell game around, it didn't change with a new incoming administration, it just went further underground if the deals are hidden from the taxpayers funding them?

Paul48

"I don't agree with this, completely. Look how man automotive giant has moved production out of their homeland. Pretty much every brand has or is building assembly plants in Mexico. BMW and Toyota assemble in the US, plenty in Canada also".

They are building plants in Mexico because of NAFTA.

"Europe had done a fine job of "learning how to manufacture" Much of our engine manufacturing and assembly technology has been borrowed from Japan and Germany".

That is not manufacturing, and confuses the issue. That is engineering. You mean the robots used on an assembly line, created by Henry Ford?

"I'm not convinced tax payers should continue to pay to keep manufacturing in the US. Seems like that is what happened with Carrier. Tax payers in Indiana got hit twice, state tax revenue going to Carrier and federal tax dollars. AND they keep their
lucrative government and defense contracts which are tax dollars".

Tax payers, and employees are one and the same.

"How many more corporations will line up for these sweetheart deals? Isn't it a thinly disguised taxpayer bailout"?

As I said in an earlier post.....Corporations have been doing it on a state and local level for at least 20 years. The deals at those levels have been poorly thought out by politicians and amounted to giving money away. We can only hope that a business-like approach will garner better results.

In answer to the rest of your post...........NAFTA

hot_rod

Again, I hope his formula, whatever it may be works better. It may take years to see results.
The campaign promise was to tariff off shoring, not entice them with tax dollars and giveaways that are rarely tracked.

Some in my town are currently applauding NAFTA because it is paying they collage fees to retrain after their companies moved their jobs south of the border. Is the glass half full or half empty?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll-corporations.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&

Zman

Has anyone seen any actual details on the deal?
In today's "fiction based" political landscape, it is impossible to form an opinion without some facts.....

Paul48

That's like congratulating the fire department for saving the foundation. Of all the folks I know personally, that have lost their jobs, none have been thrilled to be re-trained. In a system that is pumping out college graduates, that can't find work.....what fields do you suggest they be re-trained in?

hot_rod

Paul48 said:

That's like congratulating the fire department for saving the foundation. Of all the folks I know personally, that have lost their jobs, none have been thrilled to be re-trained. In a system that is pumping out college graduates, that can't find work.....what fields do you suggest they be re-trained in?

Certainly not coal mining or bending sheetmetal

I'd start over, if I could with a degree related to nano technology, anything to do with cyber security technology, anything related to energy storage, computers, software.

Or if you think politician are going to solve our pressing problems, get a law degree and become one, or a lobbyist.


Personally I like "dirty jobs" A tradesperson should never be out of work. Mechanics, HVAC, refrigeration, automation, even construction, or construction management jobs if you don't like dirty.

Just learn how to price your services correctly.

Help wanted signs are everywhere in our industry, at the supply housed, painted on the back and sides of service vehicles, on billboards, online, in newspapers, etc. Show up willing, clean, sober, and drug free and you have a job.

I know a few shops that pick up high school students every day after school to work in their shops with the promise of a job and defined salary when they are ready to commit. That is where you need to look for the next generation of dirty job employees. Maybe even at the grade school level?

DanHolohan

HR, I could listen to you all day. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. What you say makes so much sense.

Paul48

From my experience.....the only people that could afford to take advantage of the re-training, were the ones still living under mommy and daddy's roof. They don't pay your mortgage, utilities, or put food on the table. Did you know, that if you own a home and apply for food stamps, you have to put the house up as collateral to ensure you pay it back. You're not describing options that are in any way realistic for a mature displaced worker, or his/her family. Could you quit your job and go back to school? Even if someone paid for the schooling. I suggest that those that were applauding are clueless politicians or union officers.

hot_rod

Could you quit your job and go back to school? Even if someone paid for the schooling. I suggest that those that were applauding are clueless politicians or union officers.

These are actually educated former Watts employees, none are clueless or union, by the way. I believe they were given a severance and offered positions at other locations if possible.

If my job was out sourced and my choice was an offer to be retrained under the program, or become homeless and move to a shelter, I certainly know what I would do.

Most Americans I know are resourceful and will make it happen. Yeah maybe you do move back home, in with a friend, get a RA position at the school, live in an RV for a few years, work part time for while until you get a degree. Isn't this what many students currently do?

There are help wanted ads all over this country. It may not be what you want to do, but no willing able bodied person should be without a job. Although some chose to take the path of woe is me, the govt will take care on my needs.

I've lived with 5 roommates in a small rental when I was starting out on my own after high school. It wasn't exactly what I wanted, but it got me to the next level.

I certainly would not squander the opportunity to be retrained and give up on life because my job was moved to Mexico. Would you or any of the friends in your circle?

ps If my job does get out-sourced can I move in with you?

BigRob

I work in tech in SF (don't shoot me) and agree we need to focus on technology, but we also need to build physical objects. Not everyone in the US should be developing marketing automation software. In general, I believe in free trade, but as most of you know, this country was sold out by people wanting to make a quick buck in the 80's & 90's. We are in the midst of the outsourcing hangover where we've enabled our main competitor for cash with the hopes they'd open up. NOT. We trained Taiwan and Japan; they trained China, then we gave China even more free tech just to play in their market. Just stupid. I've been fortunate to travel the world and the American culture is an amazing combination of innovation and practicality when left alone. How we could just abandon our manufacturing core without a managed transition is just insane. No more hyper capitalism. Markets are evil and selfish. We'll wind up moving to partially managed economy at some point. The world is just too complex to leave to market forces. Personally, I'm a commanding heights technologist, meaning I believe the "utilities" of a country should be master planned. This doesn't really play nicely with the traditional federalist system in the US, namely state's rights. My main view is that energy is the key. We have the technology to create abundant and cheap energy. Once we have it we desal water for ag, charge our electric cars, generate liquid fuels at night, export them during the day, and create a huge incentives for manufacturing and jobs through low energy costs. Energy is the limiting factor and the key to the second version of the American dream.

DanHolohan

HR, you can move in with me. ;-)

hot_rod

My main view is that energy is the key. We have the technology to create abundant and cheap energy. Once we have it we desal water for ag, charge our electric cars, generate liquid fuels at night, export them during the day, and create a huge incentives for manufacturing and jobs through low energy costs. Energy is the limiting factor and the key to the second version of the American dream.

Now we're talking. Energy! hopefully a big focus on renewables, less on burning rocks!
All the above and rebuilding our own infrastructure.
AND it involves a lot of "dirty jobs" trades to make it happen.

The new plant in Carlsbad desalinates 50 million gallons a day. Built largely by the pipe trades and could employ the likes of everyone that gathers here.

STEVEusaPA

In one of Dan's newsletters (few years ago) was an article about 2 MIT grads, both Americans, who designed a brand new nuclear power plant (I'm trying to remember the facts). This new plant would use all the stored waste from all the other nuclear power plants, would be virtually immune to a nuclear meltdown, and could run for something like 250 years just burning already created nuclear waste.
Sounds like something at least worth exploring, but was it ever given a chance?
Instead, our new president is gung ho to continue fracking, which will destroy the watershed and the water table (many smart countries ban it). And when that's gone, so are we.

We could've put solar panels on every home in America cheaper than the cost of both Iraq wars...and Afghanistan.

In the last 2 days, the price of heating oil on the commodities market is up close to 20 cents just on the rumor that OPEC will cut production. That will keep the price up for a few months when we find out that they lied and cheated. Then the price will go down for a day or 2, then OPEC will announce that they are 'really' going to cut production, and the price will go back up through winter.

Cheap energy isnt the answer today, with destroying the planet for the future. America never really had, and won't now, an energy policy.

Ok, more than my 2 cents (wish I could find that article).

BigRob

Thorium is the best current way forward, without a doubt. No R&D or hopes and dreams, just engineering. The unpressurized reactors are very safe. All the current waste dumps are fuel waiting to be used. Solar needs to improve on energy density by orders of magnitude. Seems unlikely to be a major player, but important none the less. Uncle Sam should require wind turbine land leases to get farm subsidies, then profit share with the farmers.

Imagine the good jobs from a nuclear industrial complex, alone. Civilization has made huge gains with each transition to more and more energy dense fuels. Wood to blubber, then coal, to oil. Thorium is the next step. If people want a Jetsons world, thorium is the key.

Paul48

And I see metered electricity going the way of the dinosaurs. I see the grid sitting idle. I see someone solving the electro-magnetism puzzle that Einstein wasn't able to finish. As long as we're dreaming.

BobC

@BigRob Boiling water reactors are inherently UNSAFE, running a reactor at hundreds of pounds of pressure is lunacy. Liquid sodium based reactors run at low pressure and are walkaway safe, if something goes wrong they shut themselves down without pumps or external coolant.

If you fuel them with thorium then you have a fuel that is safe and cannot be used to make bombs. This type of plant throws off about 3% waste vs the 97% waste that a boiling water reactor does.

The Thorium program was shut down when tricky **** decided he wanted the research money spent in California not in Tennessee. The companies making uranium fuel pellets are making a killing and their lobbyists will do anything to keep that gravy train rolling.

Nuclear power is the way to go but it should be liquid sodium based not solid fuel pellets. We could have liquid fueled reactors in a decade if Washington would get their heads out of you know where. It's all about the money and it's only going to get worse.

Bob

BigRob

Pressurized reactors are a terrible design, yet they are still very safe when you look at the safety record compared to coal mining, deep sea oil, tankers, CO2 costs, etc. I think we are on the same page there. Using unpressurized reactors are the way to go to make safety as close to a non-issue as possible. I don't like sodium coolants- too reactive. There are some great videos about the sodium reactors built in Southern CA. I also don't like solid fuel and gas coolants. I like the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) designs the most. Online refueling and online waste removal is the way to go, plus we'd have so much fuel for spacecraft. Not to mention a crap-ton of helium. Image the birthday parties of the future... : )

Thorium fuel cycles with liquid salt coolants are the way to go. Carrier, are you listening?

Zman

STEVEusaPA said:

In one of Dan's newsletters (few years ago) was an article about 2 MIT grads, both Americans, who designed a brand new nuclear power plant (I'm trying to remember the facts). This new plant would use all the stored waste from all the other nuclear power plants, would be virtually immune to a nuclear meltdown, and could run for something like 250 years just burning already created nuclear waste.
Sounds like something at least worth exploring, but was it ever given a chance?
Instead, our new president is gung ho to continue fracking, which will destroy the watershed and the water table (many smart countries ban it). And when that's gone, so are we.

We could've put solar panels on every home in America cheaper than the cost of both Iraq wars...and Afghanistan.

In the last 2 days, the price of heating oil on the commodities market is up close to 20 cents just on the rumor that OPEC will cut production. That will keep the price up for a few months when we find out that they lied and cheated. Then the price will go down for a day or 2, then OPEC will announce that they are 'really' going to cut production, and the price will go back up through winter.

Cheap energy isnt the answer today, with destroying the planet for the future. America never really had, and won't now, an energy policy.

Ok, more than my 2 cents (wish I could find that article).

I remember that one and can't find it either. I think it was a Ted Talk with some MIT Grad students. Perhaps @Dan Holohan could repost.

STEVEusaPA

Zman said:

I remember that one and can't find it either. I think it was a Ted Talk with some MIT Grad students. Perhaps @Dan Holohan could repost.

See Dan...we are reading them

I save them all, searched different ways in my email, but had no luck. Originally, the newsletters weren't posted on the website and were subscription only. Which is unfortunate because I think they would generate a lot of discussion.

DanHolohan

I don't recall that one, Steve, but how about this?

https://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wilson_my_radical_plan_for_small_nuclear_fission_reactors

STEVEusaPA

I think this is the article, but I can't find it in the original newsletter.
https://www.technologyreview.com/lists/innovators-under-35/2013/pioneer/leslie-dewan/