Featured Carrier just showed corporations how to beat Donald Trump

Funny that Obama is less willing to have government intervene in free enterprise than Trump is. This unwillingness is basically what the guy in Rob's posted video was talking about.

Anyway, I'm failing to see what Obama's statement has to do with the legitimacy of government to meddle in business affairs.

 

Sorry, it was a generic statement not particularly against BB members.

However, concerning the BB members, the 1 year history of the primary and presidential election campaigns are packed with ad hominems (from both conservative and liberal members) of BB and presidential candidates and in particular one BB member who has been banned.

HankD

 

I think the tax incentives given to Carrier should be enjoyed by all manufacturers.

 

But the Carrier tax incentives originate with the state of Indiana.

Just lower the federal corporate tax rate. That would be fair to everyone and should stop many companies from leaving the U.S. This is stated policy by the Trump administration and I look forward to it being passed by the Republican controlled Congress.

 

Oh your just bin to hard on pumpkin head.....you gotta give him time to settle in. At least he knows how to get half a loaf! That makes him a Winner

 

So sorry you consider a call against radically given unwarranted pessimism and negativity and a plea to put away this unhealthy mindset for chance to take some joy and see some optimism in the new direction in store for our country as nothing more than “Ad hominem” personal attack against you.

 

What else would a neutral observer call this, but an accusation that I'm depressed?

 

I agree completely with the second statement. I'm not sure if Trump had absolutely nothing to do with the first.

 

I guess if the shoe fits you I might as well let you take it personally then...

 

According to Trump he had forgotten all about his pledge to save the jobs at Carrier until he saw a news item on TV recently. He said when he gave a speech in Indiana last spring he was talking in generic terms about saving manufacturing jobs, not jobs specific to Carrier.

 

That could have been part of the conversation. Trump has said he wants to build up the military "so they'd be so strong that no one would mess with them", so the promise of future contracts not coming United Technologies way could have been in the conversation.

 

The shoe doesn't fit. I'm doing great, thank you.

And how else am I supposed to take it when you quote me and then say I'm in an unhealthy state of mind and am dissatisfied with life in general?

 

you are just revealing whats going on is all....no worries with me brother.

• BTW... have you checked out Mike P job status lately....apparently he is staying in office as Indiana gov in addition to his other vp duties.

 

Give Benjamin some slack. He went to the Lucy van Pelt School of Psychiatry.

 

Your problem with that twisted defense (strawman) is that my post which is the only place I used those words (#6) doesn't quote anyone and certainly doesn't have your name in it. Seems to me you simply went to your closet and picked out your own shoes...

 

Ya know, if you want to address the OP, specifically, "Anybody want to enlighten me why it's OK to do this now, but when Obama was doing it in Great Recession it was wrong?" you can go ahead and do that and quit picking at this scab of a side issue.

 

Just who is saying its OK?!? I mean just who provides the tax incentives? Was it Pense with the approval of the state (of Indiana) legislature? If so, what then did Trump have to do with it? Like I said, "Mr VP" has chosen to stay in his Governor office to manage this whole Carrier thing. That's right, in addition for all his other VP/ Trumpie duties! I mean really, whats going on?

 

United Tech CEO: Trump's Carrier Deal Means Fewer Jobs, More Automation

Greg Hayes, CEO of United Technologies, Carrier's parent company, spoke with CNBC's Jim Cramer:
-----------------

The result of keeping the plant in Indiana open is a $16 million investment to drive down the cost of production, so as to reduce the cost gap with operating in Mexico.

What does that mean? Automation. What does that mean? Fewer jobs, Hayes acknowledged.

From the transcript (emphasis added):

GREG HAYES: Right. Well, and again, if you think about what we talked about last week, we're going to make a $16 million investment in that factory in Indianapolis to automate to drive the cost down so that we can continue to be competitive. Now is it as cheap as moving to Mexico with lower cost of labor? No. But we will make that plant competitive just because we'll make the capital investments there.

JIM CRAMER: Right.

GREG HAYES: But what that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs.

The general theme here is something we've been writing about a lot at Business Insider. Yes, low-skilled jobs are being lost to other countries, but they're also being lost to technology.

Everyone from liberal, Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman to Republican Sen. Ben Sasse has noted that technological developments are a bigger threat to American workers than trade. Viktor Shvets, a strategist at Macquarie, has called it the "third industrial revolution."

Hayes said in the same interview that United Technologies was focused on how to "train people for the jobs of tomorrow."

In the same breath, he seems to be suggesting the jobs it is keeping in Indiana are the jobs of yesterday.

http://www.businessinsider.com/unit...ail&utm_term=0_d392970603-de54cceb89-99517193