- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: U.S. Steel CEO Says 10,000 Jobs To Be Brought Back… All Because Of Trump
Posted on 12/7/16 at 8:43 pm to buckeye_vol
Posted on 12/7/16 at 8:43 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
BUT as it relates to manufacturing jobs, the downward trend began a half a century ago. While it's gotten steeper in recent decades, manufacturing productivity has accelerated at the same time. So likely much of that is due to technology and innovation replacing human labor. No president should (or even can) stop that.
While it is true that automation is replacing manufacturing jobs, Our companies are still leaving the US and taking jobs with them to other counties.
If we can keep them here then there will still be a net gain of jobs.
1
Posted on 12/7/16 at 8:44 pm to ForeLSU
quote:That's the phenomenon that I've been nothing. It's one of the most troubling hypocrisies I've seen in a while. I just don't see how people can justify that dissonance.
I think we're in a cycle where we're telling those min wage workers "it's their fault" for not adapting, while telling the former factory workers it's someone else's fault. Biases at play perhaps....
Ironically Bernie Sanders is consistent and supports both. I disagree with him on high accounts, but at least he's consistent with his principles and policies, even if they are terrible.
Posted on 12/7/16 at 8:45 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
We rightfully tell the minimum wage workers who argue for a "living wage" to grow and adapt to the job market
A fair and logical suggestion for people who are demanding upwards of 100% hike in minimum wage for one of the many entry level service jobs out there.
quote:
we shouldn't be withholding the same argument from those who are waiting for lower skilled manufacturing jobs to return
Seems like both the left and right agree that there is a problem, but differ massively on how to address it.
The problem is that there are not enough job opportunities for low skill workers to have the upward mobility that they need to live comfortably off of their wages. That reality helped shape the "occupy" protests from 4 years ago and was likely a driving force behind the rise of populism in 2016.
The obvious (to me) solution is:
1. Document and explore the real challenges faced by companies in those industries and honestly evaluate the role of government in their struggles. Some of them can't be helped, but many can.
2. Implement meaningful changes to help facilitate growth in manufacturing within the US and encourage investment into manufacturing facilities. That could mean overhauling needlessly heavy handed environmental regulations, a simple streamlining of permitting processes, or the daunting task of revamping the corporate tax structure.
3. Organize and invest in trade school facilities that can help prepare low skilled workers for higher paying jobs out there. This should probably come in conjunction with drug abuse treatment centers to help the labor pool prepare for their future. Both worthy investments.
Simply mandating that minimum wage be hiked for low skill jobs is a cop out and represents either a misunderstanding of the economic realities of America today or an obvious pandering scheme to low income voters. Likely both, as there is ample evidence that progressive lawmakers (and some republicans) have demonstrated the lack of understanding of the movement of capital and the need to pander to low income voters without actually helping them. Hiking minimum wage is not a medium or long term solution to the problems they face. It's a cop out.
From where I am sitting, Trump is at least trying to understand and address the realities faced by manufacturing companies. He has not pledged to destroy entire industries with environmental red tape. He has not indicated a desire to ignore the plight of workers just because they belong to a labor union that shovels money into the campaigns of his opponents. He has neither pledged to force card check or fight organized labor. He seems to be meeting with representatives of major manufacturers and trying to understand their issues. That's more than what we've seen out of Washington politicians in a while, and it's refreshing.
This post was edited on 12/7/16 at 8:52 pm
Posted on 12/7/16 at 8:46 pm to Loserman
quote:And that's why I support lower taxes and fewer regulations. Keep them here while decreasing government.
While it is true that automation is replacing manufacturing jobs, Our companies are still leaving the US and taking jobs with them to other counties.
BUT if policies increase government involvement, whether through cronyism or regulations, the means don't justify the end to me:
Posted on 12/7/16 at 8:52 pm to dewster
quote:Agreed.
Document and explore the real challenges faced by companies in those industries and honestly evaluate the role of government in their struggles.
quote:Agreed. Less government is always the ideal solution. Even if it doesn't solve the intended problem, it solves the problem of government meddling.
Implement changes to help facilitate growth in manufacturing within the US and encourage investment into manufacturing facilities. That could mean overhauling needlessly heavy handed environmental regulations, a simple streamlining of permitting processes, or the daunting task of revamping the corporate tax structure
quote:Agreed. If the government is involved then it should be to give people the resources to improve and find opportunities in a changing market. This is especially better than trying to artificially change the market itself.
Organize and invest in trade school facilities that can help prepare low skilled workers for higher paying jobs out there. This should probably come in conjunction with drug abuse treatment centers to help the labor pool prepare for their future. Both worthy investments.
quote:And this is great, expecially when he is lessening the government involvement. But if he starts implementing Bernie-like policies that increase government involvement in the market itself, then I cannot support those means.
Trump is at least trying to understand and address the realities faced by manufacturing companies.
Great post!!!!
This post was edited on 12/7/16 at 8:54 pm
Posted on 12/7/16 at 8:55 pm to stout
Trump about to expose PBO for the fraud he is.
Posted on 12/7/16 at 8:57 pm to Seldom Seen
quote:
Not even sworn in yet and he's already making America great again. It already kinda does feel like he is President right now and not Obama.
Meanwhile, Obama is trying to toot his own horn and no one is listening!!
Posted on 12/7/16 at 9:13 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
While it is true that automation is replacing manufacturing jobs, Our companies are still leaving the US and taking jobs with them to other counties
quote:
And that's why I support lower taxes and fewer regulations. Keep them here while decreasing government. BUT if policies increase government involvement, whether through cronyism or regulations, the means don't justify the end to me:
But how do you not get that they are staying for the tax incentive.
Isn't that the exact plan that Trump has been saying for the last 18 months?
He wants to reduce Corporate taxes down to 15%.
While I think that number may be low and that 20% might actually be achievable.
Posted on 12/7/16 at 10:39 pm to antibarner
quote:
They hurt so many middle class families, sacrificing their well being on the altar of Global Warming.
That's because the obamas, the shitlarys, and ALL of the libtards are uselesss POS anti American!
Posted on 12/7/16 at 10:44 pm to stout
Posted on 12/7/16 at 10:49 pm to Loserman
quote:I get that, and I'm happy for the means and the end result in those cases.
But how do you not get that they are staying for the tax incentive.
If this trend continues, then I will continue to be happy with it; HOWEVER, if he begins to institute additional regulations and taxes--most likely regarding trade--then I'm more likely to be critical. I hope it doesn't come to that though.
Posted on 12/7/16 at 10:51 pm to TJGator1215
quote:
Willing to isn't the same thing as is. Those jobs aren't coming back it's window dressing.
quote:
TJGator1215
Well, that settles that. I guess I will believe this a-hole in stead of the CEO.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 12:04 am to stout
Trump is hitting the ground running. It's becoming clear that his campaign promises to help keep manufacturing jobs in the US probably wasn't BS.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 12:19 am to stout
CNBC - Cisco CEO discusses repatriation of capital
quote:
Cisco Systems CEO Chuck Robbins told CNBC on Wednesday if the company could repatriate overseas capital, it would do a combination of dividends, buybacks and M&A activity.
Repatriating cash, or bringing international profits back to the U.S., would ultimately create some jobs for Cisco, Robbins said on "Squawk Box" on Wednesday at the Business Roundtable meeting in Washington.
Many major U.S. corporations keep piles of cash overseas because they don't want to pay steep taxes to bring it back home. Cisco has more than $60 billion abroad, and it could be one of the biggest beneficiaries of repatriation measures proposed by President-elect Donald Trump
Posted on 12/8/16 at 1:47 am to RobbBobb
quote:So saying that jobs are great, but I'll be optimistic yet skeptical until there is actually some sort of action is now "flaming liberal?"
You are really making a case to be at the top of everyones "Do Not Read Post" list.
You are so butthurt. You have to be a flaming lib in real life
Posted on 12/8/16 at 8:06 am to stout
quote:
Obama and his minions should be ashamed. They hurt so many middle class families
Obama moving fighter jet jobs to India to build good will.
If it's cheaper to build in India, then ship every single government contract to India.
Government spending is always 100% consumption. The less it consumes, the better.
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 8:07 am
Posted on 12/8/16 at 8:10 am to Loserman
quote:
He wants to reduce Corporate taxes down to 15%.
While I think that number may be low and that 20% might actually be achievable.
Based on what? What makes you say that number is low? if 20% is possible theb 15% is possible. I personally think he should be pushing for total reform of the tax code anyway, so what is 5%?
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 8:13 am
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News