Jump to content

Corporate terrorism


Gump
 Share

Recommended Posts

Last year NYS bailed out an Alcoa plant to the tune of 60 million over three years to save about 450 jobs. That works out to approximately 45k per job/year. The threat was they were closing the plant without the bailout. I expect in about 2 years they will announce they are closing. Now it seems like every company has jumped on this bandwagon. The nuke plant in Oswego has said it is closing, 900 jobs. This morning it was reported that a new buyer may save it but not without a huge cash influx from the State. I hate to see people lose jobs but is this really a good way to operate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 minutes ago, Zackny said:

The nuke plant in Oswego has said it is closing, 900 jobs. This morning it was reported that a new buyer may save it but not without a huge cash influx from the State. I hate to see people lose jobs but is this really a good way to operate?

My brother in law works there.  It really pisses me off.  Mys sister just had her first kid.  He was getting laid off from the plant he was at because they were closing.  They offered to move him to Oswego and a good job.  Now that plant is closing.  I've only seen my sister and niece a few times since they moved.

My story has nothing to do with what you posted, you're welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Zackny said:

Last year NYS bailed out an Alcoa plant to the tune of 60 million over three years to save about 450 jobs. That works out to approximately 45k per job/year. The threat was they were closing the plant without the bailout. I expect in about 2 years they will announce they are closing. Now it seems like every company has jumped on this bandwagon. The nuke plant in Oswego has said it is closing, 900 jobs. This morning it was reported that a new buyer may save it but not without a huge cash influx from the State. I hate to see people lose jobs but is this really a good way to operate?

No.  It only works because some states will bid the price up.  You're nuke plant isn't going anywhere though so it's a scam.

The state only has to explain to them the cost of shutting down a nuke plant if all the laws have to be followed to the letter as read by dedicated state lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Goat Geddah said:

Why doesn't she like you?  You don't seem like that bad of a dude.

You've never met me. :)

I went to visit them once, too damn far away.  I spend so much time commuting to work, I hate driving to visit people.  She's come out to visit us a couple of times.

I'll be going on vacation with my daughter and mys sister, brother in law and niece starting this Saturday for a week.  Should be nice.  We'll be on Lake George.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you are dealing with an incompetent state government that is willing to pony up money to keep from losing jobs in front of a general election, then I say it is American business genius

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Square Wheels said:

I went to visit them once, too damn far away.  I spend so much time commuting to work, I hate driving to visit people.  

Especially if it's three hours on the Mass Pike and then three hours on the Thruway.  That must be one mind-numbing drive.  Oswego is a really nice setting on the lake though.

What is entailed in, for example, the Alcoa "bailout" you referenced?  Forgiveness of taxes?  Cash to meet payroll?  I'm hoping there's more in it for the State than job preservation and the resulting PR boost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TrentonStrong said:

  I'm hoping there's more in it for the State than job preservation and the resulting PR boost.

of course there is...not bailing them out and allowing that many people to lose their jobs in front of an election is a courageous decision to make. Far too courageous for most state law makers

you see, a "controversial" decision will lose you votes

a "courageous" decision will lose you the election

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TrentonStrong said:

Especially if it's three hours on the Mass Pike and then three hours on the Thruway.  That must be one mind-numbing drive.  Oswego is a really nice setting on the lake though.

What is entailed in, for example, the Alcoa "bailout" you referenced?  Forgiveness of taxes?  Cash to meet payroll?  I'm hoping there's more in it for the State than job preservation and the resulting PR boost.

Eastern CT to Rochester is a mind numbing drive.  One of mine went to school there.  I made that drive too many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TrentonStrong said:

Especially if it's three hours on the Mass Pike and then three hours on the Thruway.  That must be one mind-numbing drive.  Oswego is a really nice setting on the lake though.

What is entailed in, for example, the Alcoa "bailout" you referenced?  Forgiveness of taxes?  Cash to meet payroll?  I'm hoping there's more in it for the State than job preservation and the resulting PR boost.

60 million in cash over three years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not defending state and local governments but I'm assuming that in some cases their 'investment' in business pays off.  I've read about cases where it hasn't but I don't know the stats.  I do know that the figures you gave aren't completely accurate because there are 'spin-off' jobs that have to be considered and the state income tax that would be lost on those as well.

My first experience in this was in the early 80's while I worked for a Japanese owned firm located Battle Creek.  We were an automotive parts supplier and our parent company supplied parts to those across the lake (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda....).  At that time the Japanese auto mfg were all looking to transplant operations to the US.  We were involved because we were here and our parent company had relationships with the managers over there.  We were also involved because several Japanese auto parts mfg. were looking to locate to Battle Creek.  I think if you ask Nashville and Marysville, OH if there 'investments' paid off, the answer would be a resounding YES.  Battle Creek would say the same thing.  I've also heard of companies getting tax abatements and then going belly up or never creating the number of jobs promised.

I hope things work out for all involved in your area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Goat Geddah said:

A free market is very efficient.  Government intrusion in matters like this are not good in the long run.

 

 

That seems to be a truth but governments intrude because their tax base is involved and they get competitive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

I'm not defending state and local governments but I'm assuming that in some cases their 'investment' in business pays off.  I've read about cases where it hasn't but I don't know the stats.  I do know that the figures you gave aren't completely accurate because there are 'spin-off' jobs that have to be considered and the state income tax that would be lost on those as well.

My first experience in this was in the early 80's while I worked for a Japanese owned firm located Battle Creek.  We were an automotive parts supplier and our parent company supplied parts to those across the lake (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda....).  At that time the Japanese auto mfg were all looking to transplant operations to the US.  We were involved because we were here and our parent company had relationships with the managers over there.  We were also involved because several Japanese auto parts mfg. were looking to locate to Battle Creek.  I think if you ask Nashville and Marysville, OH if there 'investments' paid off, the answer would be a resounding YES.  Battle Creek would say the same thing.  I've also heard of companies getting tax abatements and then going belly up or never creating the number of jobs promised.

I hope things work out for all involved in your area.

You are probably correct that there may be instances where some intervention is a good thing. However, now that the precedent has been set it seems every corporation that can is trying to get as much money from the Govt by using the "give us dollars or we close" tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zackny said:

You are probably correct that there may be instances where some intervention is a good thing. However, now that the precedent has been set it seems every corporation that can is trying to get as much money from the Govt by using the "give us dollars or we close" tactic.

if Uncle Sucker is handing money out to the welfare apes, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Nate said:

if Uncle Sucker is handing money out to the welfare apes, why not?

Well in this case it's uncle Andy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zackny said:

Well in this case it's uncle Andy.

We have an Uncle Andy project here in Buffalo. NYS is buying the land and building a large manufacturing facility for Solar City, an Elon Musk related company. 2 years ago it looked quite rosy, but now not so much. Locals still have their fingers crossed that the State funding (About $750 Million) does not become one of the biggest white elephants in state history. Solar City doesn't have a lot of skin in the game as I see it.

There is also a huge corruption investigation going on related to the project. If all goes well it could result in about 1500 direct jobs and a similar amount indirectly through the supply chain.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kzoo said:

Corruption in the Great State of New York......... umpossible.

Even our lawn boys are corrupt. They claim they do the work but in reality they never show up.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nate said:

and damn, I sure got zoo would up

No you didn't get me 'would' up at all.  Sometime you just make it so easy and so much fun.

Nate you just might be the new EPG.  Nate..... Jim, Jim......Nate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kzoo said:

No you didn't get me 'would' up at all.  Sometime you just make it so easy and so much fun.

Nate you just might be the new EPG.  Nate..... Jim, Jim......Nate.

Ouch!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goat Geddah said:

A free market is very efficient.  Government intrusion in matters like this are not good in the long run.

I liked this initially, but then unliked it for a specific reason.  I agree that free markets are generally efficient, but the problem lies in very large markets where they can be manipulated by unethical influencers for great profit to themselves and great detriment to the general population. Without government oversight, for example, pretty much everything we eat or drink would contain about every toxin out there if it increases profits by a tenth of a cent to not filter it out.  A lot of corporations are run by fuckers on lots of levels.  Not all, but corporations aren't there to promote the public good, only to make a profit.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corporations "blackmail' NYS for the money simply because they know they can.  NY taxes are consistently among the highest - if not the highest - in the country depending on which study or source you select.

So why would a company come to a place that is over-regulated, over-taxed, over-aggressive in enforcement, bloated with not only multiple layers of government but overlaid with special taxing districts and quasi-governmental authorities, where talented young people leave to find good jobs in other states, following the retirees who have already left?

The answer is they don't, and they won't.  If NYS state were truly business friendly, we'd have more corporations registered here than Delaware does.  So in the current environment companies don't come here and don't stay here unless there is some sort of compensation or balance to offset all of that.  The governments can't grant the companies relief from the burden of strict environmental laws or excessive workmen's compensation costs, because the officials know there's a (very slight) chance they might get prosecuted and convicted for misconduct, or worse get voted out of their gravy train political position.

So the governments do pretty much the only thing they can do - and the easiest thing to do - give away the taxpayers' money to offset all the negative aspects of locating in NY.  Of course, the problem with this plan is the government can't collect enough money to give away to all the companies who want to get their 'fair share'.  So only certain companies get the dough, and those are generally the bigger employers, or companies like Solar City out in Buffalo that fit with the government's program of promoting certain industries.

And before you ask why don't I leave if I'm so unhappy, be assured I have my private reasons for staying in NY which I choose keep private.  Mrs. TK and I both have professions that are highly portable to most anywhere in the country.  The day may come when we choose to shake the dust of NY off our feet and move on.

In the end these corporate grant/subsidy/blackmail programs address only the symptoms of the difficulties of doing business in NY, but they never address the core problem and never will.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Randomguy said:

I liked this initially, but then unliked it for a specific reason.  I agree that free markets are generally efficient, but the problem lies in very large markets where they can be manipulated by unethical influencers for great profit to themselves and great detriment to the general population. Without government oversight, for example, pretty much everything we eat or drink would contain about every toxin out there if it increases profits by a tenth of a cent to not filter it out.  A lot of corporations are run by fuckers on lots of levels.  Not all, but corporations aren't there to promote the public good, only to make a profit.

I generally agree with what you say here, but I think you've provided an apple answer to an orange question.  This wasn't about regulation or oversight for the benefit of the consuming public, but rather propping up companies that seemingly cannot find the necessary support from the marketplace to make it attractive to stay in business.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...