• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Tax Cut Layoffs Roll In

holbritter said:
'Amirite'. Is that a word?

What do you care if it was painful or not? They were going to do it anyway, that's the point.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you believe them when they said they would do it anyway, even though they did not do it for an entire year, but chose to do it within a month of the tax cut. :roll:

That's because companies laying off 5000 people never spin yarns. Amirite?
 
faithful_servant said:
NO, the fact is that you have been shown that your claims were wrong and that the layoffs aren't the result of the tax cuts. But in spite of the facts being presented to you as clearly as possible, you are now in full blown defense mode and no facts will ever get you off of that. Truth isn't important, facts aren't important, honesty isn't important. The only thing that is now important to you is holding on to the lie you CHOOSE to believe. Is it so difficult to act like an adult and admit that you made a mistake?
Click to expand...

Your level of denial here is staggering. But, hey. Hold on to your dreams. We all need them.
 
calamity said:
Ah, so you believe them when they said they would do it anyway, even though they did not do it for an entire year, but chose to do it within a month of the tax cut. :roll:

That's because companies laying off 5000 people never spin yarns. Amirite?
Click to expand...

you do realize that those things are planned 1-2 years in advance right?
you should probably go take a business class on business planning or something.
 
ludin said:
you do realize that those things are planned 1-2 years in advance right?
you should probably go take a business class on business planning or something.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
calamity said:
:roll:
Click to expand...

that is pretty much what i figured. you really don't know how this stuff works.
thanks for pretty much proving it to everyone in 1 single post.
 
ludin said:
that is pretty much what i figured. you really don't know how this stuff works.
thanks for pretty much proving it to everyone in 1 single post.
Click to expand...

It was all I could say to your "take a class" comment considering I actually do run companies. :roll:
 
calamity said:
Ah, so you believe them when they said they would do it anyway, even though they did not do it for an entire year, but chose to do it within a month of the tax cut. :roll:

That's because companies laying off 5000 people never spin yarns. Amirite?
Click to expand...

I have no reason to not believe them. Do you?
 
Proteus said:
While I consider 45 to be a duplicitous ****sleeve, this article is a bunch of partisan, pandering nonsense. Anyone who believes those 5,000+ jobs would have been saved if the tax reform wasn't passed is too stupid for words.
Click to expand...

It's hard to fully analyze one particular case but wouldn't you agree that a company can use the tax savings to automate, relocate or some other job cutting measure? The point is that giving corporations tax cuts doesn't necessarily create jobs.

Moreover, for years there has been a growing disparity between corporate efficiency and jobs.

metro_20161121_mfg_productivity_jobs1.png


When you see a chart like this, does it make sense to believe that corporate tax cuts will create more jobs? The OP's example is that of a company using the tax cuts to become leaner and more efficient.
 
Not only did trump cuts take money from economy his newest foraging of middle class is to place a 30% tax on consumer goods. Somebody pays for his billionaire tax cuts, why not hourly employees trying to eke out a living?
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
It's hard to fully analyze one particular case but wouldn't you agree that a company can use the tax savings to automate, relocate or some other job cutting measure? The point is that giving corporations tax cuts doesn't necessarily create jobs.

Moreover, for years there has been a growing disparity between corporate efficiency and jobs.

metro_20161121_mfg_productivity_jobs1.png


When you see a chart like this, does it make sense to believe that corporate tax cuts will create more jobs? The OP's example is that of a company using the tax cuts to become leaner and more efficient.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that companies should not invest in more productive ways of doing business? It seems like you are, but I know that can't be the case because that would be monumentally retarded.
 
Proteus said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that companies should not invest in more productive ways of doing business? It seems like you are, but I know that can't be the case because that would be monumentally retarded.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying giving companies tax cuts won't produce more jobs. That chart makes that crystal clear.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
No, I'm saying giving companies tax cuts won't produce more jobs. That chart makes that crystal clear.
Click to expand...

The chart absolutely says no such thing, you are definitely inferring incorrectly on that one.

That said, I agree that there is no guarantee that tax cuts will produce more jobs. And there is no guarantee they won't either. There are always other factors involved.
 
Proteus said:
The chart absolutely says no such thing, you are definitely inferring incorrectly on that one.
Click to expand...

The chart shows that as manufacturing output has increased employment has decreased. The obvious reason is the manufacturers are able to manufacture more with fewer workers.

Is it incorrect to infer that they will use these tax cuts to increase their output? Is it incorrect to infer that as their output increases their employment will decrease as it has since 1980?
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
The chart shows that as manufacturing output has increased employment has decreased. The obvious reason is the manufacturers are able to manufacture more with fewer workers.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I agree with this sentence completely.

What I don't agree with is that the chart indicates anything whatsoever about tax cuts, because it doesn't.
 
Companies were sitting on piles of cash with record profits, you just gave them more cash. If they didn't trickle all the cash they had down then, what makes them think they are doing it now?

Other than the shady garbage of giving a one time pittance, continuing to pay their employees crap, and dumb people will just eat it up.
 
Proteus said:
Exactly. I agree with this sentence completely.

What I don't agree with is that the chart indicates anything whatsoever about tax cuts, because it doesn't.
Click to expand...

If corporate investments lead to increased productivity, which means companies need fewer workers to produce the same amount of goods, then corporate tax cuts that increase corporate investment will lead to fewer jobs.

And this tax cut was billed as one that would increase corporate investments
 
sangha said:
If corporate investments lead to increased productivity, which means companies need fewer workers to produce the same amount of goods, then corporate tax cuts that increase corporate investment will lead to fewer jobs.

And this tax cuts was billed as one that would increase corporate investments
Click to expand...

:2rofll: Increased corporate investment will lead to fewer jobs. :2rofll:

You mean like when Amazon picks their next city and invests billions, that will lead to fewer jobs?

Do you even bother to sanity check the **** you spew?
 
Proteus said:
:2rofll: Increased corporate investment will lead to fewer jobs. :2rofll:

You mean like when Amazon picks their next city and invests billions, that will lead to fewer jobs?

Do you even bother to sanity check the **** you spew?
Click to expand...

Umm, do you realize that competition from Amazon has contributed to the loss of thousands of jobs in the retail sector?

did you even bother to sanity check the fact that we are talking about investments meant to increase productivity which have nothing to do with Amazons expansion plans? Or are you one of those people that have to have it spelled out to you that we are talking about investments in productivity every time we talk about investments in a thread about a company that is investing money in productivity in order to lay off 5000?
 
calamity said:
:roll:
Click to expand...

The tax cut didn't enable them to carry out the layoffs, it simply gave them extra money to fund it. It was going to happen anyway and it was going to get paid for anyway, but with the tax cuts, they were able to offset that cost. Now I know without a shadow of doubt that you will refuse to accept this since are now fully committed to your narrative and facts and truth are no longer a player in your mind.
 
faithful_servant said:
The tax cut didn't enable them to carry out the layoffs, it simply gave them extra money to fund it. It was going to happen anyway and it was going to get paid for anyway, but with the tax cuts, they were able to offset that cost. Now I know without a shadow of doubt that you will refuse to accept this since are now fully committed to your narrative and facts and truth are no longer a player in your mind.
Click to expand...

incorrect
 
sangha said:
The article says otherwise.
Click to expand...

No it didn't:
Executives cited declining fertility rates in the United States and South Korea as factors that have contributed to a decline in diaper sales, long considered one of Kimberly-Clark's bedrock lines of business. Competition is also heating up. Amazon.com, for instance, launched its own private label brand of diapers late last year. (Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.)
Click to expand...

The only thing the tax cut ahd to do with this was to offset some of the costs of the cuts.
Chief financial officer Maria Henry said the company's gains from tax reform would help offset the cost of the restructuring plan
Click to expand...

But you see an opportunity to blame Pres. Trump and the Reps., so silly things like facts no longer matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom