Trump Saves 1,000 Jobs; A Good Thing, Right?

     Trump will save more than 1,000 jobs in Indiana (out of 197,000 employees with United Technologies, parent company to Carrier Corps, maker of heating and cooling equipment. Also, coincidentally, a company that Vice-President-Elect Pence was originally unable to successfully talk into keeping jobs in his home state).

     Saving these 1,000 jobs is good news, right? Yes, I agree. To a point.

     Trump and Pence won't reveal the details of how this deal came about, but there is speculation that the company was probaby offered a "potential for lower taxes, a potential change in trade policies, etc" and US government contracts. "The Carrier deal could prompt other companies to try the same tactic, predicted Dan Ikenson, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. 'It creates a short-term political victory for the president-elect, but it opens up a Pandora's box in the sense that other companies are going to want the same sort of handout,' he said. 'It's better to have an overall policy that companies can bank on.'" [1]

     The way I understand the world, the reason there are policies, laws, and rules is so that everyone in society has an idea of the structure of how things operate. If you don't have a system in place, then how can you try to successfully predict an outcome? If you can't predict an outcome, how can you foresee any challenges? If you can't foresee a challenge, how can you determine that you're making the right decision about something? Without a set system, what will happen when one group is told one thing and another group is told another? How would ethical dilemmas be determined if there is no guideline?

     "Trump's staff also highlighted the president-elect's personal involvement, saying it was a sign of things to come as he works to keep jobs from fleeing. The style is unlikely to work on a larger scale, given the volume of companies that could opt to move manufacturing jobs. It may even provide an incentive for other companies to lodge similar threats in hopes of winning government give-backs." [2]

     I understand it's important for business to have incentive to keep jobs in the US. I wish a company would do that on its own, but it doesn't in the name of profits. And, I'm not necessarily against incentives for businesses. Without a company, there are no jobs. It's not a bad thing to help a company make money because an invenstment in the company is an investment in the employees it hires, and the employees invest in our economy. However, again, with no clear policy set in place in *how* these incentives will work and *what* those incentives will be across the board, I feel this creates an environment where businesses will have the upper hand in squeezing government to get what it wants. And what a business ultimately wants is profit. How do you profit? The easiest way is to start by having cheap labor. Thus, for Trump to meet all his promises, something is going to have to give, and the quickest way to do that is to threaten labor laws, workplace safety, and any other safety measures unions have in store to make sure employees are taken care of. In other words, relax all the laws and regulations that make companies ship jobs overseas where none of those demands have to be met. We all want our Apple and Mac products, our shoes and clothes, and toys for Christmas, but we don't want the high price tag. So, we may see more jobs come back or stay in the US, but the worker - the same person who most likely voted for Trump - will also, most likely, have to give up a lot in order to have that job. Does this help? Yes, there's a job; money in the bank, food on the table. But at what cost?

     This deal with Carrier also highlights the different styles between Obama and Trump. Obama would gather business leaders and academics to discuss economic issues, whereas Trump is "much more comfortable calling up a CEO and admoninishing him than he is sitting around a table with a bunch of policy wonks talking about the best way to change the incentive structure," said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and former economic advisor to Vice-President Joe Biden. He continued, "But if you're going to solve the economics of this, you've got to get at the incentive structure. You can't simply be handing out goodies to every single company that's planning to relocate." [3]

     I have a feeling that we're going to see a lot of action from Trump's Administration which is going to dazzle his supporters. They will get to point a finger at him and say, "Look! Finally someone is *doing* SOMEthing!" And, at the surface, this looks good. In fact, it looks really good. Things in Washington usually move at a glacial pace so this is going to seem like a welcome change. But, there's very little thought being given to what happens beyond that. What happens when a decision is made in haste? What happens when a decision is made without those discussions taking place? What happens when there's no process in place and the driving force is to just check-off a list?

     Again, with no clear structure of the process and incentives, you open up that Pandora's box that will further the divide between the wealthy and the not-so wealthy. And I ask, Who do you think wins at that game?

[1] Bierman, Noah and Puzzanghera, Jim (2016, December 1). Trump saves jobs, but at what cost? Los Angeles Times, p. A8.
[2] Bierman, Noah and Puzzanghera, Jim (2016, December 1). Trump saves jobs, but at what cost? Los Angeles Times, p. A8.
[3] Bierman, Noah and Puzzanghera, Jim (2016, December 1). Trump saves jobs, but at what cost? Los Angeles Times, p. A8.