I'm sorry but NAFTA, GAT, and all these other trade agreements do more damage to the middle class than anything else either party does. (well except maybe the pit that education has become)..





http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/12/vi...ing-mexico

Quote:Carrier Corp. announced this week that it will close down a plant in Indianapolis in favor of opening a facility in Mexico.

The move by the heating and cooling company will mean 1,400 of its employees will lose their jobs over the next three years.

The footage (above) of employees learning the news was posted on YouTube yesterday.

"The best way to stay competitive and protect the business long-term is to move production from our facility in Indianapolis to Monterrey, Mexico," a company spokesman is heard saying.

I'm guessing it's wage related?

This should not be blamed on NAFTA. NAFTA may be the reason they chose Mexico over Asia. But they were leaving the US in any event. We just aren't a competitive place to make things, unless there are significant resource or other advantages. You can make air conditioners anywhere in the world, so make them where the economics are more favorable. NAFTA--and transportation--make Mexico more favorable than, say, Thailand. But it's US domestic policies, not NAFTA, that make both Mexico and Thailand, and almost anywhere else, more favorable than the US.

If we wanted to reverse the trend, a consumption tax would be a good place to start.

(02-12-2016 11:49 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I'm guessing it's wage related?

Im sure the formula includes wages and regulations.

I can't tell if BIE is trolling? Are you blaming NAFTA or the Unions?

the only reason I'm in missippy is b/c unions forced a private business in PA to relocate to a non union state and hired my pops to run it back in '74

this shite ain't that hard to figure out...

you have to build things competitively to support and survive...

corruption/greed/envy coupled with an over-inflated dollar having to support the worthless is the residual effect 0'day

fk'n idiots....it's depressing at this point....

Meanwhile the stock holders in Carrier will make off like bandits. It's this giant sucking sound of jobs going elsewhere and a collection of wealth into the upper 5%?

That upper 5% buys of our elections due to Citizens United.

Find the right social issues and other wedge issues to divide us and the game keeps on going.

(02-12-2016 11:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This should not be blamed on NAFTA. NAFTA may be the reason they chose Mexico over Asia. But they were leaving the US in any event. We just aren't a competitive place to make things, unless there are significant resource or other advantages. You can make air conditioners anywhere in the world, so make them where the economics are more favorable. NAFTA--and transportation--make Mexico more favorable than, say, Thailand. But it's US domestic policies, not NAFTA, that make both Mexico and Thailand, and almost anywhere else, more favorable than the US.

If we wanted to reverse the trend, a consumption tax would be a good place to start.

I'm Fitbud and I approve this message.

but stink those jobs in Mississippi in 20 years will be going elsewhere too. My buddy's company is looking into Mexico because labor costs are 2 dollars an hour. Even Mississippi can't compete with that. Our standard of living is going down the shythole.

(02-12-2016 12:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I can't tell if BIE is trolling? Are you blaming NAFTA or the Unions?

I was wondering myself if the move is Union related.

(02-12-2016 12:51 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Meanwhile the stock holders in Carrier will make off like bandits. It's this giant sucking sound of jobs going elsewhere and a collection of wealth into the upper 5%?

That upper 5% buys of our elections due to Citizens United.

Find the right social issues and other wedge issues to divide us and the game keeps on going.

Those unions hold a good bit of stock. Most Americans hold stock through pensions or 401(k)s if not directly.

(02-12-2016 11:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This should not be blamed on NAFTA. NAFTA may be the reason they chose Mexico over Asia. But they were leaving the US in any event. We just aren't a competitive place to make things, unless there are significant resource or other advantages. You can make air conditioners anywhere in the world, so make them where the economics are more favorable. NAFTA--and transportation--make Mexico more favorable than, say, Thailand. But it's US domestic policies, not NAFTA, that make both Mexico and Thailand, and almost anywhere else, more favorable than the US.

If we wanted to reverse the trend, a consumption tax would be a good place to start.

it can't be said enough....

I'm all in on the consumption tax. I also like the built in incentives. It's way too easy to cheat our current system.

(02-12-2016 12:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I can't tell if BIE is trolling? Are you blaming NAFTA or the Unions?

Why so limited Mach, it's probably a bit of both.

(02-12-2016 11:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This should not be blamed on NAFTA. NAFTA may be the reason they chose Mexico over Asia. But they were leaving the US in any event. We just aren't a competitive place to make things, unless there are significant resource or other advantages. You can make air conditioners anywhere in the world, so make them where the economics are more favorable. NAFTA--and transportation--make Mexico more favorable than, say, Thailand. But it's US domestic policies, not NAFTA, that make both Mexico and Thailand, and almost anywhere else, more favorable than the US.

If we wanted to reverse the trend, a consumption tax would be a good place to start.

I also mentioned GAT and could have picked out a few dozen other "free trade" agreements.

(02-12-2016 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This should not be blamed on NAFTA. NAFTA may be the reason they chose Mexico over Asia. But they were leaving the US in any event. We just aren't a competitive place to make things, unless there are significant resource or other advantages. You can make air conditioners anywhere in the world, so make them where the economics are more favorable. NAFTA--and transportation--make Mexico more favorable than, say, Thailand. But it's US domestic policies, not NAFTA, that make both Mexico and Thailand, and almost anywhere else, more favorable than the US.

If we wanted to reverse the trend, a consumption tax would be a good place to start.

I'm Fitbud and I approve this message.

As I have said. If we did away with the income tax I would be 100% with a consumption tax.

I'm completely for tariffs. Bring them on!

The U.S. needs to take a stand for our manufacturing base, which is so vital to our national interests.

I don't buy one word of any person that tells you the U.S. just isn't competitive or this is just globalization. 9 times out of 10 they simply make their money by selling others out.

(02-12-2016 12:51 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Meanwhile the stock holders in Carrier will make off like bandits. It's this giant sucking sound of jobs going elsewhere and a collection of wealth into the upper 5%?

You do know there is probably a lot of 401K money in Carrier right?

A companies responsibility to it's owners is to be profitable. Would you, Mach, buy stock in a company which was losing market share and money every quarter?

Quote:That upper 5% buys of our elections due to Citizens United.

Not what Citizens United was about but just keep selling the lie.

(02-12-2016 01:16 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm all in on the consumption tax. I also like the built in incentives. It's way too easy to cheat our current system.

yes.....it is

It's not a lie and I'm sure in the hell not selling it.

They have got people like you so twisted up on social issues you vote against your economic interests, but feel free to keep starting up threads about banning tariffs and keep voting for the party of free trade. It's beyond scizophrenic at this point.