Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Nope. Carrier wasn't faced with bankruptcy. They were faced with a reality that they could generate higher profits for their owners, by producing in Mexico.
The auto companies were circling the drain (thanks to liberal policies and unions). That's why not all auto companies needed bailouts.
Apples and oranges.
"You can't be for one and not the other"
Creating a pro-business environment that applies equally to everyone, is not giving bailouts to anyone. We aren't there yet. But that would be different.
But you have a point, I can't disagree. But the incentives given to Carrier were not for the purposes of keeping them solvent. It was done to keep jobs here.
|
It was done to keep that business unit solvent. W/o that incentive (or whatever you want to call it) that business unit would not have been able to survive in Ind. Lending $ to an auto manuf. so they can retool and bc more efficient is basically the same as lowering someone's taxes so their cost structure is lower. W/o the incentive the financials would have made no sense to stay in Ind and thus the jobs would have eventually gone away (according to Carrier).
Manuf. jobs are leaving and soon when UBER starts w/driverless cars, those jobs are gone. Eventually Coke/Pepsi's trucks will be driverless and those jobs are gone. McDonald's order taker jobs will be gone in a few years also. Amazon's warehouse jobs will eventually be gone. And when Amazon starts delivering packages with drones, Fed Ex jobs will go away also.
Threaded Mode