Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

All that is necessary is for government to stop punishing employment.

Zero business tax % would increase employment, raise wages, and lower welfare. Ultimately the government would have a net positive in income vs outlay. IOW, prosperity.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Couldn't agree more. At the same time cut spending. Make government freebies harder to qualify for. Quit rewarding destructive behavior. Because of my estimated income possibly going above what I estimated I actually stopped working for two months to avoid having to pay 1). Obamacare more and 2). working tax wise for the government. I know exactly where you are coming from.

pafret Loc: Northeast

They will appeal to Obama and he will save their jobs or get them new ones as community organizers. After all if a private citizen can save 1100 jobs surely a sitting president can save 300. Especially a sitting Presiident with so much experience creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Piece of cake!

pafret Loc: Northeast

He showed them that the advantage they thought they would get by moving to a cheaper labor force and less regulations was ephmeral. The tariffs would make their product non-competitive in the target market. Better financial interest dilemma resolved. Plus, he promised an elimination of onerous regulations not money. He plans on tax cuts for all businesses.

mongo Loc: TEXAS

For some strange reason, I don't think working the counter at McDonalds or Taco Bell is what they had in mind!

SEMPER FI

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

The lay off were to begin in 2017 and take 3 years to complete. If Carrier reorganizes like other business, those people you are concerned over will be given preferential treatment in other positions throughout the company. So, what happens is they are absorbed through attrition. In every large company, you have people retiring, quiting for various reason, and even dying almost everyday, some of those positions are not filled, and those positions that are necessary, the position is offered to qualified employees before it is recruited in the public. In the end, the company will lay off perhaps 100 people and those people are the low performers; every company has the late for work, the unmotivated line worker, the unwilling to transfer, or the trouble makers and the ones who are ineffective in their jobs who would be terminated or would voluntarily quit. Only in a communist country would the president guarantee life long work situations.... and last I checked, the government is not responsible for ensuring you have a job. However, our government (state and federal) is responsible for doing all they can to encourage companies from leaving, and our newly elected president did just that. Which is more than obama has done in 8 years. In fact, General Electric, Caterpillar, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Chevron, Cisco, Intel, Stanley Works, Merck, United Technologies, and Oracle —  cut their workforces by 2.9 million people over the last decade while hiring 2.4 million people overseas. I did not see any threads about those individuals.....how about those families and their Christmases? Why were these job losses okay, but because our president could not arrange for every last individual working at this one plant be saved..... you become concerned.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Good question. I don't believe there is a limit. If I was running a business in this era, I'd certainly want to garner any advantage I could over my competition by benefiting from cuts in taxes and regulation, not to mention a little blackmail income on the side. Our new President is about to find out the hard way that giving perks and advantages to one without including the others is a short order recipe for disaster.

In a few short weeks, he is going to stand up and swear on the Holy Bible that he will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, in the knowledge that he has already violated that oath with this unethical and quite likely illegal act.

What he should have done was to assure Carrier and everyone else in the US that the economic environment is about to be amended to be much more friendly to business and economic activity in general and let it go at that. Instead we have this disastrous precedent that is almost certainly going to come back and bite him where it hurts.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Please specify the laws which he has broken. The election is over -- these unfounded smears are getting tiresome. You make the claim he is unethical in his dealings with Carrier then prove it. He broke the law specifically the constitution -- then cite the articles he violated. You are just breaking wind and telling us it is perfume!

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I'd like to know what's illegal about a state offering incentives to business also. Hell everyday on T.V. I see advertisement's offering businesses all kinds of tax payer goodies to move to New York.

Nickolai

The labor Party in England has promised if they win in the next election they will pass a law that says all companies are free to continue as they have. But if they want to sell to another company, close their doors , or move to a cheap wage country they have to give their employees first refusal. For the Employees right to buy the company and the Government will provide the capital until they get on their feet. The wages will go up when the profit goes up and will go down when the profit goes down, And these fluctuations will be reported on the nightly news and the investors will be taken into the back room and have the return on their investment negotiated one at a time. It looks like the capitalist economic system America inherited from Britain is starting to piss them off

Nickolai

The company should be owned by the employees not a bunch of parasitic non productive old leaches sitting on their ass making money off their money while their unions are being busted and the workers stiffed.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

The labor party just got spanked big time in England. Why don't you move over there and straighten em out.

Nickolai

because the stock holders should have known better than invest in GM's stock. If they want to invest in an inefficient bureaucratic miss managed piece of crap they take their chances. Government owes them nothing

mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

This deal didn't cost us $80 billion. This is keeping money in the US with minimal loss.

The $7 million has a five year payback from not losing $1.4 million in annual income tax revenue.

Carrier Corp. said it would shutter its Indianapolis plant employing 1,400 workers and move its manufacturing to Mexico. The plant's workers would be laid off over three years starting in 2017 (Various).

Chris Jones, president of United Steelworkers Local 1999, represents 1,300 union workers at the Indianapolis plant whose wages average about $23 an hour (Indianapolis Business Journal.com). This means that the average salary for an hourly factory worker is approximately $47,800 and that the loss of Carrier’s hourly factory jobs alone would cost the state's economy about $62 million annually.

Carrier said in a statement that more than 1,000 jobs were saved, though that figure includes headquarters and engineering staff that were likely to stay in Indiana. Doing some quick math ( 1400 employees – 1300 hourly workers = 100 headquarters and engineering staff ) means more than 900 hourly jobs were saved out of 1300 factory jobs.

While it may yet be unclear what has happened to those less than 400 factory jobs, it remains to be seen that at least 900 jobs and $43 million HAVE NOT been lost. Adding the multiplier effect means that another almost $57 million output from other sectors WILL NOT be lost.

As for the other less than 400 jobs being lost, those may be through attrition such as early retirement. The plant's been there since 1952 if I remember correctly so there may be that many close to retirement.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

More to the point, please specify where in the constitution the ability to provide financial incentives inducing business to act in a given manner is granted. The tenth amendment clearly states that all powers not delegated are reserved to the states or the people; therefore if it is not delegated it is illegal.