PIK Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 I see chrysler is backing down from it's demand for billionS from the liberal government to stay in ont. So it seems after hudak went on the offensive and chrysler thinking he maybe the next premier, they balked, and are staying in ONT. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Michael Hardner Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 I see chrysler is backing down from it's demand for billionS from the liberal government to stay in ont. So it seems after hudak went on the offensive and chrysler thinking he maybe the next premier, they balked, and are staying in ONT. PIK can you offer a little context here. How did Hudak go on the offensive ? What were his statements and maybe provide some additional analysis of the game that played out there ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Boges Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) CAW (I mean Unifor or whatever they're calling themselves now) people did the radio rounds yesterday saying that Hudak was being irresponsible. Chrysler hasn't fully paid off the money they got from the previous bail out. The sentiment was that these auto companies can hold governments hostage to keep these plants in Ontario because they can easily move it to a place where the wages are far cheaper. The argument for giving the automakers whatever they want is that, they say, for every auto job, there are like 7 spinoff jobs. Not sure if that's true or not. Edited March 5, 2014 by Boges Quote
PIK Posted March 5, 2014 Author Report Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) PIK can you offer a little context here. How did Hudak go on the offensive ? What were his statements and maybe provide some additional analysis of the game that played out there ? http://www.therecord.com/news-story/4381936-reject-chrysler-ransom-demand-hudak/ Simple he said no to new money. In other words he called their bluff. Now he has no say in what goes on,but they were probably thinking he will be the next premier. Edited March 5, 2014 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Michael Hardner Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 Simple he said no to new money. In other words he called their bluff. Now he has no say in what goes on,but they were probably thinking he will be the next premier. I'm not sure why Hudak being the likely next premier would make them withdraw their request. Edited: Thanks for the cite by the way. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
PIK Posted March 5, 2014 Author Report Posted March 5, 2014 I'm not sure why Hudak being the likely next premier would make them withdraw their request. Edited: Thanks for the cite by the way. Well they could have to deal with him in future negs, so why start out on a bad footing. lol Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Mighty AC Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 Hmmm, I don't think this is over. "Stopping short of threatening to pull out of the province, Mr. Marchionne noted U.S. states and Mexico had expressed interest in winning the company’s investment. Mexico, with its low wages and proximity to the U.S. and Latin American markets, has seen rapid growth in its auto sector." "we reserve the right, as is true for all global manufacturers, to reassess our position as conditions change" "Marchionne added, On a personal note, as a Canadian, I regret my failure in having been unable to convey the highly competitive nature of markets that offer manufacturing opportunities to carmakers that operate on a global scale. Some of the shots across the bow following our initial approaches to the Federal and Provincial governments reveal, apart from political convenience, a somewhat restricted view of Canada as an industrial player in what has become a borderless economy. " Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Big Guy Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 It looked like Chrysler was planning a complete re-tooling in anticipation of committing for the future, figured that Canada would continue in the bidding war and provide the $700 million to keep that process here. Now, I believe that they will either make a smaller re-tooling or plan to pull up stakes and go to the higher bidder - either Southern USA or Mexico. Not sure if making Windsor and/or Oshawa a brown field is a good political position. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Michael Hardner Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 M AC seems to be quoting The Star article http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/03/04/chrysler_withdraws_bid_for_car_plant_aid_will_go_it_alone.html "Well they could have to deal with him in future negs, so why start out on a bad footing. lol" Not sure... Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
PIK Posted March 5, 2014 Author Report Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/03/05/wynne_stunned_that_chrysler_wont_take_700m_handout.html They said: ‘Listen, we are nervous about investing in a province where you have potentially a premier that has no understanding of the auto industry and says he won’t support it.’ They raised that with me this morning. That was the first thing they raised with me this morning that they can’t believe the foolishness of his remarks,” the union leader said. In other words he does not understand the corruption/blackmail of having a auto industry Edited March 5, 2014 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
PIK Posted March 5, 2014 Author Report Posted March 5, 2014 It looked like Chrysler was planning a complete re-tooling in anticipation of committing for the future, figured that Canada would continue in the bidding war and provide the $700 million to keep that process here. Now, I believe that they will either make a smaller re-tooling or plan to pull up stakes and go to the higher bidder - either Southern USA or Mexico. Not sure if making Windsor and/or Oshawa a brown field is a good political position.So where does it end? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
PIK Posted March 5, 2014 Author Report Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) M AC seems to be quoting The Star article http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/03/04/chrysler_withdraws_bid_for_car_plant_aid_will_go_it_alone.html "Well they could have to deal with him in future negs, so why start out on a bad footing. lol" Not sure... Me neither now. Edited March 5, 2014 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Michael Hardner Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 Seems like simple arithmetic for somebody to explain why subsidizing such things does or does not make sense. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 I'm kind of confused as to why Hudak would take such a stance on this. I just looked up his background and find that he's an academic and career politician - something like Jack Layton. He seems to have had two jobs - working at Wal Mart and as a toll attendant at the Peace Bridge. Like Harper, though, his background is in economics. I'm wondering now if he's more libertarian than PC. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Boges Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 Because this amounts to blackmail by Chrysler. Hey we want $700 million or we'll leave. I wonder if that would have worked if Heinze gave the province that option with the Leamington plant. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 Because this amounts to blackmail by Chrysler. Hey we want $700 million or we'll leave. I wonder if that would have worked if Heinze gave the province that option with the Leamington plant. They employ 5000 workers. If you assume $50K per year, then that's $250M per year in salary, with likely $100M in revenue or so. That leaves out ancillary investments in the plant that enter the economy, and secondary economic activity. The costs of adjustment for losing those jobs have to be figured in as well. Would anybody like to continue with this line of thinking ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
bleeding heart Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 Oh, it's certainly not that succumbing to blackmail does not make perfect sense, and is not quite understandable. It only irks that people feel forced into this position. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
TimG Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 If you assume $50K per year, then that's $250M per year in salary, with likely $100M in revenue or so.Workers making 50K only pay about 9K in tax assuming no deductions. The total tax revenue will be less than $45 million. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 Workers making 50K only pay about 9K in tax assuming no deductions. The total tax revenue will be less than $45 million. Ok. Do you feel comfortable finishing the rest of what I started ? I am very curious about this approach that TimH is taking. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
TimG Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) Ok. Do you feel comfortable finishing the rest of what I started ?It is not clear what your point is. The math never works when it comes to subsidies. It comes down to a question of ideology. Edited March 5, 2014 by TimG Quote
TimG Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/cisco-taps-toronto-as-one-of-four-global-innovation-hubs/article17311981/ Cisco said in December it plans to expand in Ontario, announcing investment plans for up to $4-billion to build research and development facilities in the coming decade, with the Ontario government agreeing to kick in up to $220-million. Edited March 5, 2014 by TimG Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 It is not clear what your point is. The math never works when it comes to subsidies. Really. I could see it working with all costs in, as in - it being worth it for Ontario to support this industry... but you say no ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
TimG Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) Really. I could see it working with all costs in, as in - it being worth it for Ontario to support this industry...$45 million in direct revenue vs $700 million subsidy which comes 5 years after the last (i.e. in 5 years it will be time for the next payout). The ancillary benefits are a 'make up whatever numbers you want' exercise. The only real argument is we are dealing with a free market because other jurisdictions hand out subsidies. Edited March 5, 2014 by TimG Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 $45 million in direct revenue vs $700 million subsidy which comes 5 years after the last (i.e. in 5 years it will be time for the next payout). The ancillary benefits are a 'make up whatever numbers you want' exercise. The only real argument is we are dealing with a free market because other jurisdictions hand out subsidies. Well, as I stated it's not $45 million in revenue, and no it's not a 'make up whatever numbers you want' exercise, or at least it shouldn't be. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
TimG Posted March 5, 2014 Report Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) Well, as I stated it's not $45 million in revenue, and no it's not a 'make up whatever numbers you want' exercise, or at least it shouldn't be.Well any accurate calculation has to look at opportunity cost. If those workers don't have a job at Chrysler many will find work (possibly for lower pay) somewhere else and the benefits to the economy from having these people work in an industry that does not require subsidies have to be factored in. Edited March 5, 2014 by TimG Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.