U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 23, 2009 05:54 AM UTC
12 Comments
I lack the self discipline to let them dissolve, and when I bite them it hurts my teeth and gets stuck in my molars for the rest of the day.
But I’m sure a lot of people like them, so why should all those people be injured by being stuck with higher prices when they can be produced more efficiently in Mexico?
Why do you obsess on jobs when consumers far out number the people who’ve lost jobs.
Lower prices are good for consumers and the economy. Inflated prices caused by protectionism depress the economy and ultimately cost jobs.
Read the history of the Great Depression. Hoover and Roosevelt both forced businesses to over pay workers, and that only caused the depression to worsen.
Flawed logic to say the least, which is a specialty in conservative thinking. Ignore how much consumption was done on credit in recent decades. Ignore the fact that people without jobs can’t consume (unless they’re charging it).
At some point business are going to have to become patriotic and stop exporting jobs. It’s a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face, and it only makes sense to people who don’t value the good of the nation.
The good of the nation is promoted when Jolly Ranchers are produced in Mexico (at a lower opportunity cost) and everyone here can buy them for a lower price. The people who made Jolly Ranchers in PA can go make soemthing that we are more efficient at producing.
Would you suggest that we specialize in making rubber tires and vodka because it will create more jobs–of course not.
Yeah, how’s that working out in Michigan and Ohio?
same people, even if the U.S. GNP makes a net gain from the move.
Also, the winners tend to be diffuse. Convenience store and movie theater operators, and Hershey shareholders, may collectively save $10,000,000 a year, spread over thousands of stores and theaters (perhaps $500 a year each), and hundreds of thousands of shareholders (perhaps $50 a year each for an average investment of $50,000).
The losers in Pennsylvania, in contrast, are likely to be concentrated, with dozens or hundred of people facing prolonged unemployed for a long time, or getting jobs that pay considerably less doing something else like waiting tables or doing day labor.
Jolly Rancher jobs already left the U.S., when production shipped to Canada?
the last thing in the world the US government should be doing is subsidizing kid poison. What’s next, subsidizing trans fat in chewable tablets for kids?
Kids are fat enough without more of the government’s help. And while I’d feel sorry for the people who might lose their jobs building prisons if we were to reform our draconian sentencing laws, I don’t find job creation and retention as a reason to increase incarceration.
in the cooker? (or wrapper, as it were)
Agriculture already gets plenty of subsidies for the ingredients that go into granola.
Sugar farmers get big government payments to keep them making sugar in the U.S. rather than elsewhere. Indeed, ag subsidies remain one of the most persistent conscious and intended trade imbalances.
So do most countries that have ag industries that produce sugar.
Indeed, one reason for the move to Mexico may be bigger sugar subsidies there than in the U.S. as much as it is cheaper labor.
The lengths of time of the plant in each location makes me wonder if state and local government hadn’t provided tax breaks contingent upon staying a certain number of years in particular locations, and that the company moved the plant as so as those requirements were satsified, first in Colorado, then in Canada, and then in Pennsylvania. Perhaps Mexico is offering tax breaks now.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if the Mexico operation makes it possible for Hershey to repatriate or gainfully invest funds earned abroad and subject to U.S. taxation upon consolidation of those funds with U.S. operations, that a larger active business operation in Mexico may make possible.
For example, maybe Hershey has a captive life insurance company in the Caymans which it can use to fund to construction of the plant in Mexico without ever paying taxes on the money earned by the life insurance company, but would have to pay income taxes on the life insurance company profits if they were returned to the U.S.
NAFTA and other treaties are hard to change on this score (particularly with regard to lower wages abroad), and restrictive trade rules (Smoot-Hawley) enacted to preserve jobs in the Great Depression are widely credited as one important factor that made the Great Depression so bad.
The U.S. tax code is easier to change, although imposing new taxes in hard economic times isn’t necessarily popular.
Canada’s health care costs are lower than the U.S. for better care (as measured by outcomes_, so there is room for improvement on that front. But the fact that the plant was moved from Canada to Pennsylvania makes clear that health care costs weren’t the whole story in parts of this plant move.
Then again, it may simply be cheaper to make candy in Mexico than in the U.S. or Canada, even with those employees getting good for Mexico health care and operating conditions that aren’t sweatshop conditions (i.e. reasonable hours, safe working conditions, job stability, adult workers, pay more than the prevailing wage in the area). Offshore U.S. manufacturing operations are typically better than the local competition, but worse than what one would get in the U.S.
I’d also be curious to see how much of the cost of a factory is factory workers these days in something like the JR plant. The number of employees for even large operations is a lot smaller than it used to be for factories, because so much more is automated.