How would President Trump stop a business from moving overseas?

American Thinker ^ | April 28, 2016 | Silvio Canto

[expat_panama]

Let me agree with Mr. Trump, and supporters, that it's a very bad idea for U.S. companies to move overseas and take those jobs elsewhere.

I have personally seen the consequences of these moves in Mexico.

You can see all of these companies in the industrial sectors of Monterrey, Queretaro, Tijuana, and other Mexican cities.

They are down there hiring Mexicans, from floor sweepers to engineers to lots of people with university degrees. They are hiring professionals from the top schools south of the border.

Again, I don't like it but what can a U.S. president really do about it? What legal authority does a U.S. president have...

...the reasons that US companies move to Mexico. This is the one that caught my attention:

Duty-free imports, tax credits & incentives: maquiladoras operate in free trade zones, enabling companies to import materials and equipment without paying taxes or duties, then re-exporting finished products.

The Mexican government also offers a variety of incentives, from capital equipment grants and help with infrastructure to real estate grants, the Aerospace Training Center in Querétaro and tax credits.

How does a U.S. president stop this? He can't unilaterally, no matter how much pressure he puts on the executives not to make the move.

Furthermore, renegotiating NAFTA would mean undoing the economic infrastructure that ties Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. It would likely mean that Congress...

...Trump is raising a lot of expectations rather than proposing solutions to fix the problem of jobs going overseas.

Again, I hate jobs going overseas as much as Trump. At the same, all I've heard so far are slogans rather than solutions. In other words, this is a lot more complicated than we've heard from Mr. Trump. d from Mr. Trump.

[factoryrat]

I thought of that scenario myself, but then discarded the idea. That would entail undoing a whole litany of regulations, taxes, labor laws, and and high wages. Add to that the fact that all of the companies that offshored are now entrenched in those countries, the earliest having moved there over two decades ago.

Even if Trump could remove all of the barriers mentioned, I highly doubt these companies would come back to the US.

[PIF]

First, there needs to be people who will work;

Second, find people willing to work in these places for the same wages as overseas;

Third, the taxes must be equal to the overseas place;

Fourth, there needs to be an educated work force that can actually read, write, spell, and count.

For starters ...

Or just rule by decree - aka enhanced executive order ...

[Arm_Bears]

American Thinker has outed itself as a GOP-e/RINO house organ.

A shame, as a used to enjoy the content.

[alloysteel]

Give the corporate entity incentive to stay.

Reduce or eliminate the burden of even setting up business, by eliminating any number of “special” rules that provide benefit to other persons or entities, to no real purpose than to “redistribute” the capital that should be applied to growing the business. This redistribution may be defined in any number of ways, from enforcing a minimum wage, to artificial limitations applied and enforced through restrictive regulations, on reporting, or manufacturing practices, or distribution channels, or simply as a kind of harassment of management for non-economic reasons.

The business of business is business, not some sort of social experimentation laboratory, where the criteria of profit and loss are simply ignored, and the designation of social goals is assigned for entirely arbitrary reasons, not because any one or another agenda makes pragmatic good sense.

And the reality of tax policy. No corporation pays taxes. They only collect them, the consumer ultimately pays taxes, and if the taxation policy is assessed but never collected, the revenue stream collapses. Therefore it is altogether in the interests of all entities involved, that the economy be kept robust and growing. Which means, the care and feeding of those corporations must be encouraged and given the opportunities, the corporations respond by doing what they do best, converting capital into growth of even more goods and services. And along the way, feeding, clothing, housing and entertaining the great bulk of consumers, who in turn trade their time to the corporate entities in terms of talent and value added to the product and services stream.

[TheConservativeBanker]

How about no government contracts for companies who aggressively move jobs out of the US? For many businesses, governments are their largest customers.

[SoothingDave]

One of the easiest ways to motivate companies here is to include stipulations in the terms of government bids, and trickle them further down to grants to states where their bids have to include the same stipulations. For example, companies bidding must complete at least 75% of the manufacturing in the U.S., with no less than 60% parts manufactured in the U.S. Or, companies who have moved a factory of more than 300 employees from the United States to a location outside the United States within the past five years, are prohibited from bidding. Stuff like that.

It worked wonders for the economy of Brazil.

[central_va]

You know the answer you don’t stop them you just charge them a tariff for importing third world built products into a first world market.

[Cowboy Bob]

If Obama can do thing by decree...why can’t Trump? You sound racist.

[taxcontrol]

Simple, lower the corporate tax rate below the EU.

[exit82]

Ask Pfizer.

[agere_contra]

Pragmatism.

You can create zones without having to deal with corrupt union + big Government hot spots from sea to shining sea

[kjam22]

Rather than allowing government to become more oppressive over businesses... there is a market approach that is already in use for some products. Consider the Fender Stratocaster guitar. The Strat is the top of the line for Fender. Each guitar has where it was made printed on the guitar by the logo. You have Mexican Strats, you have strats made in Korea, Japan etc. And you have the American Made Strat. Made in USA. The USA strats are known to have better electronics, better fingerboard etc. They cost a few times more than the others because the market will bear those costs. Beginners wanting a strat will often buy the cheap ones. Accomplished and professional musicians wouldn't play one. But the market and the manufacturer control it.

In King Trumpy's world, we would tax the ones coming in from Mexico and Korea, and Japan.... then beginner guitar players would be required to pay the same cost for a guitar that a professional is willing to pay.

[kjam22]

I don’t want any president doing things by decree.

[tacticalogic]

Even if Trump could remove all of the barriers mentioned, I highly doubt these companies would come back to the US.

Anything Trump can do, the next President can un-do.

[Rebelbase]

“Part of it is educating US consumers to demand made-in-the-USA products”.

Walmart is going to have to go through years of bare shelves before the US industry could fill demand.

[central_va]

I don’t hear the globalist corporation crying over regulations. Those relations are the cover story to get “conservatives” on board with what is really going on which is labor arbitrage across international borders.

[Alberta's Child]

The Ford situation in Mexico is a perfect case in point for why stupid U.S. regulations drive businesses out of the country.

Ford has a problem that many of their competitors face, but it's worse for the Big Three automakers because of their high labor costs in the U.S. Here's a quick (simplified) summary:

1. Fuel efficiency standards require car manufacturers to sell vehicles that meet an average mileage standard across their entire product line. To meet these standards they have to sell a lot of small cars. U.S. auto safety standards make these cars more expensive today than ever before.

2. So Ford faces a dilemma: they have to sell a lot of their compact cars, but the combination of UAW labor costs and government safety standards push the prices of these things up near the $20,000 range.

3. The problem is that nobody wants to buy a compact car for $20,000 these days. Anyone willing to shell out that kind of money for a new car is likely to be in the market for a mid-sized car.

4. So Ford has to get the price of their compact car (the Ford Focus) down to the $16,000-$18,000 range -- either by producing it in the U.S. and selling it at a loss, or by producing it in Mexico and making a small profit on them.

Can anyone blame Ford for opening a new plant in Mexico to manufacture the Focus?

[Thibodeaux]

America is not wiling to buy over priced American made stuff and will be unwilling to buy overtaxed imports.

Americans just don’t want what you repeatedly demand

Archaic taxes in the form of tariffs are not the answer

[central_va]

First, there needs to be people who will work;

Fringe kooky statement. Free Traitor™ "jobs Americans won't do" talk.

[Rebelbase]

Samick hurt the most.