Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (438643)	12/5/2008 9:41:15 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574153

- Alabama (or most locations competing for large investment) subsidise initial set-up, not ongoing operations. Ongoing operations is what is supposed to bring return to the state on the initial subsidy The entire argument on this subject is strange. There is no similarity between Alabama and other states making concessions to attract jobs versus the Big 3 calling on taxpayers to fund outrageously high payments to UAW employees because the UAW has gained so much power it can effectively hold the companies hostage to their demands. They're two totally different things if you ask me. I'm not sure what kind of thinking it takes to connect these two unrelated subjects, but they've all jumped on it now.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (438643)	12/6/2008 4:26:42 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574153

You claimed it was perfectly normal for Alabama to subsidized the operation of foreign auto plants in Alabama but you think its unacceptable for the federal gov't to help American auto companies. There is a double standard in play here. You are 0 for 3. - Alabama (or most locations competing for large investment) subsidise initial set-up, not ongoing operations. Ongoing operations is what is supposed to bring return to the state on the initial subsidy Every deal is differen; some offer tax abatements from 10 to 20 years. Others require the local municipality or the state to buy the needed land and rent it back to the company for a nominal charge......or even build the plant and rent it back. These southern states are offering everything but their kitchen sinks for these plants. And its not the first time they taken this rout. First it was the NE's shoe companies; then the NE's textile companies; then the North's heavy manufacturing and now its foreign car companies. Each time they offered the new industry huge incentives to locate.....all kind of deals. It was tacitly understood that the unions would stay out so labor would remain cheap. The love affair would last for 10; sometimes 20 years.......but eventually, the workers realized they were getting screwed over and the unions would come in. Now please note the order.........the workers knew they were getting screwed and THEN the unions would come in. What happened to all those industries......they went offshore.......every single time. Their loyalty is only to their shareholders......and to their profits. What's different about GM et al......they have remained loyal to the US. - I didn't say it is unacceptable for federal government to subsidize American auto companies. I object to the subsidy for the union. Subsidy for the union? Now you're just playing.