9 ms·

I wonder what Trump's concessions would be for this plant. He criticized apple directly in his campaign, and this plant would be a big win for him.

astrodust 10y ago
If it's anything like the Carrier "deal" he'd throw them bags of cash to create a handful of jobs.
- adventured 10y ago
  Your information is wrong. Carrier didn't get bags of cash to create a handful of jobs. It's a thousand jobs at an average of $31 per hour in wages, not to mention benefits. It's up to $7m in incentives spanning ten years. The jobs are worth about $850 million to $1 billion in total compensation over ten years. The $7 million represents less than 1% of that value. The income taxes, sales taxes, local spending, etc, etc, etc. is worth drastically more to that community and the state than the tiny $700k per year incentive.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - astrodust 10y ago
    It's all smoke and bullshit. Hype up the "creation", completely ignore the general strategy of Carrier to shift jobs out of the country. Even Forbes thinks it's bullshit: http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/12/04/trumps-carrier-deal-means-nothing-for-future-jobs/#32ac08394c7b http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/12/04/trumps-ca...
    - agildehaus 10y ago
      Not to mention Carrier plans to use the money to further automate the plant: http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/united-tech-donald-trump-carrier-jobs/2016/12/07/id/762633/ http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/united-tech-donald...
  - stephancoral 10y ago
    You have many incorrect points. Firt of all, it's much less than a thousand jobs if you discount the white collar managerial jobs that were never planned to be relocated. The number of overall jobs saved is around 800. Of those 800, a significant number of them will be eventually automated or are already in the works. So your ten year figure is, in my opinion, a bit overly optimistic. It was a symbolic show. Even if Trump did a Carrier-type deal every month for his entire presidency, it would be far less than one percent of jobs lost due to automation and offshoring in the past 20 years.
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    But the same company is planning on automating away jobs in that plant and closing the Huntington one. So it's not 1-to-1 gains here. The reality is Carrier is placating an administration for larger contracts (parent company of Carrier).
dmix 10y ago
That's a good question but it's not necessarily something Trump controls directly (nor should he), it is more likely up to the local government/state where the plant is located who could work on incentivizes. That's what happened with the Carrier deal in Indiana largely because that was Pence's state and he could help directly. This is how it happens in China too. The article mentions that a Chinese city would help invest $8.7 billion, rather than the central state. > On Dec. 30, Gou announced that Osaka-based subsidiary Sakai Display Products and the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou would jointly invest 61 billion yuan ($8.77 billion) in an advanced panel facility. And Pennsylvania trade office is working with Foxconn on another plant. > In addition to the proposed display facility, Gou said Foxconn plans a new molding facility in the U.S., with the state of Pennsylvania a possible site following investment discussions with local officials. A representative from the Pennsylvania trade office attended Foxconn's party Sunday. It's typically not the exec branches job to set up those deals. But it is great that Trump is willing to get on the phone to help get the deals done, that's seems unprecedented in recent years. Most likely Trump would be focusing on the trade policy more generally or working with congress to reduce federal regulations. The Dept of Commerce could help promote the idea of operating in America. As well as via the Treasury Dept to simplify the tax code. And Congress to reduce taxation. Again this would apply to all companies, or whole industries, and (most likely) not give any individual companies special benefits in return for opening up shop.
- blackguardx 10y ago
  I think we need "free trade zones" like they have in some asian countries. If you have a mfg business in the zone, you pay zero or reduced taxes on your produced goods and inventory. Maybe throw in some subsides to help comply with regulations as well. These zones can be spread all throughout the country in economically depressed regions. These programs should be open to all companies, not just the Teslas and tbe Apples of the world. Governors and Presidents should not intervene on behalf of a single company. That isn't capitalism.
  - dmix 10y ago
    I'm more in favor of a federalist approach instead of specialized city states. Basically less federal oversight and more state oversight (besides maybe environmental stuff which crosses state lines, or give money to other states based on your carbon output). That way if you want to live in a euro-style social services high tax area you can move to Washington. Or if you want mixed go to New York. Market oriented people can go to Texas - for example. States can set up voluntary cross border zones so the regulations and taxation is more consistent for industries that are more disparate. Cross state trade wouldn't be regulated and federal law can focused on national security, foreign trade, currency, and tax collection. That way if something does work better (like ending the drug war) in one state, there will be a ton of data to reference and eventually good ideas will be adopted by other states. States like California are big enough to be their own small countries anyway. This was basically the idea when the US was founded but the federal government has only grown and every 4yrs the presidency becomes more important and given responsibility for everything. So no wonder the exec branch is growing in power - the citizens keep expecting them to be responsible for everything. It'd also protect against Donald Trump's from happening, the whims of one man should never be so influential.
justavoice 10y ago
He could work to give Apple a better deal repatriating their cash horde. But the 10% tax he offered up during his campaign seems more than reasonable.
yabatopia 10y ago
Or you could wonder how the Chinese government would react to Foxconn's intentions to open a factory in the US, and not in China. Foxconn gets lots of concessions from the Chinese government. It's easy for Beijing to twist Foxconn's arm a little bit, just enough to reconsider a US investment. Or maybe they will allow it as some kind of sop to the Trump administration.

astrodust 10y ago

If it's anything like the Carrier "deal" he'd throw them bags of cash to create a handful of jobs.

adventured 10y ago
Your information is wrong. Carrier didn't get bags of cash to create a handful of jobs. It's a thousand jobs at an average of $31 per hour in wages, not to mention benefits. It's up to $7m in incentives spanning ten years. The jobs are worth about $850 million to $1 billion in total compensation over ten years. The $7 million represents less than 1% of that value. The income taxes, sales taxes, local spending, etc, etc, etc. is worth drastically more to that community and the state than the tiny $700k per year incentive.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- astrodust 10y ago
  It's all smoke and bullshit. Hype up the "creation", completely ignore the general strategy of Carrier to shift jobs out of the country. Even Forbes thinks it's bullshit: http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/12/04/trumps-carrier-deal-means-nothing-for-future-jobs/#32ac08394c7b http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/12/04/trumps-ca...
  - agildehaus 10y ago
    Not to mention Carrier plans to use the money to further automate the plant: http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/united-tech-donald-trump-carrier-jobs/2016/12/07/id/762633/ http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/united-tech-donald...
- stephancoral 10y ago
  You have many incorrect points. Firt of all, it's much less than a thousand jobs if you discount the white collar managerial jobs that were never planned to be relocated. The number of overall jobs saved is around 800. Of those 800, a significant number of them will be eventually automated or are already in the works. So your ten year figure is, in my opinion, a bit overly optimistic. It was a symbolic show. Even if Trump did a Carrier-type deal every month for his entire presidency, it would be far less than one percent of jobs lost due to automation and offshoring in the past 20 years.
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  But the same company is planning on automating away jobs in that plant and closing the Huntington one. So it's not 1-to-1 gains here. The reality is Carrier is placating an administration for larger contracts (parent company of Carrier).

dmix 10y ago

That's a good question but it's not necessarily something Trump controls directly (nor should he), it is more likely up to the local government/state where the plant is located who could work on incentivizes. That's what happened with the Carrier deal in Indiana largely because that was Pence's state and he could help directly. This is how it happens in China too. The article mentions that a Chinese city would help invest $8.7 billion, rather than the central state. > On Dec. 30, Gou announced that Osaka-based subsidiary Sakai Display Products and the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou would jointly invest 61 billion yuan ($8.77 billion) in an advanced panel facility. And Pennsylvania trade office is working with Foxconn on another plant. > In addition to the proposed display facility, Gou said Foxconn plans a new molding facility in the U.S., with the state of Pennsylvania a possible site following investment discussions with local officials. A representative from the Pennsylvania trade office attended Foxconn's party Sunday. It's typically not the exec branches job to set up those deals. But it is great that Trump is willing to get on the phone to help get the deals done, that's seems unprecedented in recent years. Most likely Trump would be focusing on the trade policy more generally or working with congress to reduce federal regulations. The Dept of Commerce could help promote the idea of operating in America. As well as via the Treasury Dept to simplify the tax code. And Congress to reduce taxation. Again this would apply to all companies, or whole industries, and (most likely) not give any individual companies special benefits in return for opening up shop.

blackguardx 10y ago
I think we need "free trade zones" like they have in some asian countries. If you have a mfg business in the zone, you pay zero or reduced taxes on your produced goods and inventory. Maybe throw in some subsides to help comply with regulations as well. These zones can be spread all throughout the country in economically depressed regions. These programs should be open to all companies, not just the Teslas and tbe Apples of the world. Governors and Presidents should not intervene on behalf of a single company. That isn't capitalism.
- dmix 10y ago
  I'm more in favor of a federalist approach instead of specialized city states. Basically less federal oversight and more state oversight (besides maybe environmental stuff which crosses state lines, or give money to other states based on your carbon output). That way if you want to live in a euro-style social services high tax area you can move to Washington. Or if you want mixed go to New York. Market oriented people can go to Texas - for example. States can set up voluntary cross border zones so the regulations and taxation is more consistent for industries that are more disparate. Cross state trade wouldn't be regulated and federal law can focused on national security, foreign trade, currency, and tax collection. That way if something does work better (like ending the drug war) in one state, there will be a ton of data to reference and eventually good ideas will be adopted by other states. States like California are big enough to be their own small countries anyway. This was basically the idea when the US was founded but the federal government has only grown and every 4yrs the presidency becomes more important and given responsibility for everything. So no wonder the exec branch is growing in power - the citizens keep expecting them to be responsible for everything. It'd also protect against Donald Trump's from happening, the whims of one man should never be so influential.

justavoice 10y ago

He could work to give Apple a better deal repatriating their cash horde. But the 10% tax he offered up during his campaign seems more than reasonable.

yabatopia 10y ago

Or you could wonder how the Chinese government would react to Foxconn's intentions to open a factory in the US, and not in China. Foxconn gets lots of concessions from the Chinese government. It's easy for Beijing to twist Foxconn's arm a little bit, just enough to reconsider a US investment. Or maybe they will allow it as some kind of sop to the Trump administration.