Sign in to follow this  
st27

Ontario Plant Closings

Recommended Posts

Contrary to what the liberals both federally and provincially have been saying about how well the economy is doing, I thought I might start a list....

Feel free to add any I might have missed....

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/08/25/peterborough-ge-plant-with-lethal-legacy-closing-down.html

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/procter-and-gamble-plant-closure-brockville-1.4129366

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/sandvik-plant-arnprior-closure-1.4886904

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-cascades-to-close-two-corrugated-packaging-plants-in-ontario/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-lear-to-close-assembly-plant-amid-strike/

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/tillsonburg-auto-parts-plant-zf-trw-set-to-close-by-years-end

https://www.bramptonguardian.com/news-story/8771493-georgia-pacific-closing-brampton-dixie-cup-plant-after-69-years-cutting-133-jobs/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/campbell-soup-closing-87-year-old-toronto-facility-380-jobs-to-be-affected/article37723724/

http://www.recorder.ca/2018/04/16/donaldson-closing-brockville-plant

https://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/news/local-news/worker-reaction-to-tenneco-closure-plans

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/kellogg-to-close-london-ont-plant-next-year/article15840106/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/heinz-to-close-ontario-plant-cut-800-jobs/article15442338/

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/magna-international-to-close-perths-grenville-castings-plant-380-jobs-affected

http://www.windsorsquare.ca/archives/2018/navistar-chatham-closing-continues-to-be-costly/111630

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/caterpillar-closes-diesel-office-lays-off-50-in-london-ont/article26833707/

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/siemens-closes-wind-turbine-plant-in-tillsonburg-340-green-energy-jobs-gone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the ant farm analogy, they grew to the end of sustainable resources and now will die back.  There will be more of this, as most companies are only profitable when they keep growing, they don't have a plan for sustainability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup... all good..I guess the employees will learn they are not sustainable too.. maybe we had better cut back on immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More insane left wing accounting.

Immigrants that have been and will continue to rely on free stuff for the remainder of their lives, or any of the many many useless home grown types we already provide for ARE NOT REAL customers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, deicer said:

When did your ancestors come to North America?

Before confederation.... but that's hardly relevant.

Immigration is a policy, like any other policy it exists for the good of the nation and is owned by the citizens of Canada. Accepting large numbers of economic migrants isn't accounted for in this policy and we aren't doing it right. If you want to do it right, integration is a key factor and that's expensive. So, open up your wallet, pay the bills and do the damn thing properly or stop fooling around until you are ready to back up the PC lingo with some cash. 

I have always warned about demographic concentrations with large scale migrations. This is a lesson Germany has yet to learn. Within 50 years, it could well be a predominantly Muslim country. I'm not suggesting that's either good or bad BTW, only that it is what it is. If you asked that question upfront on a referendum though you would lose badly... I bet most liberals would rethink the intake situation. Actually, in Germany, they already have. 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defcon: in actual fact Canada as mostly populated by economic migrants/ immigrants. My great great  did not come to Canada in 1805 because things were rosy in Scotland economy wise but he did so under the legal system then in place. The only bitch I have with is with those recent economic immigrants that are doing so illegally and that we are meekly letting them come in..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, deicer said:

When did your ancestors come to North America?

My great great grandparents came in the early 1800’s with nothing but the shirts on their backs. They worked HARD, had no government handouts, carved out a 150 acre farm out of solid bush and started farming. They were a true example of a work ethic Canada so desperately  needs right now instead of the constant influx of Trudeau freeloaders. In my entire families history I cannot think of one person who ever relied on a government for their welfare....EVER.....

 

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

My great great grandparents came in the early 1800’s with nothing but the shirts on their backs. They worked HARD, had no government handouts, carved out a 150 acre farm out of solid bush and started farming. They were a true example of a work ethic Canada so desperately  needs right now instead of the constant influx of Trudeau freeloaders. In my entire families history I cannot think of one person who ever relied on a government for their welfare....EVER.....

 

None of mine ever took a government hand out either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

None of mine ever took a government hand out either.

I credit my upbringing as to why I am such a staunch Conservative.....when I was a kid, no body gave me a bike. I scoured the railway tracks and the local dump for parts and made my own.

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More from the unsustainable industry/jobs front:

     Bombardier laying off 5000 across Canada and selling Q400 division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We live in an overcrowded world.

If Canada 'needs' a particular immigrant to fill a job that a Canadian cannot, immigration makes sense.

On the other hand, if there's no demand, why would any nation keep on importing masses of people that are completely unemployable, entirely dependent and have zero chance of ever becoming productive members of a modern first world society?

If the individual, or an organization wants to help in a 'meaningful' manner, shouldn't the assistance be directed towards these people in their homelands where change is absolutely necessary?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DEFCON said:

shouldn't the assistance be directed towards these people in their homelands where change is absolutely necessary?

In a word, yes.

What is most often lost here is the concept of integration. People coming from European countries simply integrate more easily into Canadian society because of the similarities in language, culture, religion, education and values. They may arrive poor and desperate, but those similarities offer them a huge advantage when it comes to integrating.

Large numbers of people from completely different cultures, who don’t speak the language and are poorly educated and unskilled can be successfully integrated if you need an influx of labour to build a railway with picks, shovels and axes (as a for instance). They have a job to come to, they are self sufficient and that buys them the time and opportunity it takes to adapt to a foreign land without excessive government assistance. At best, this is not an easy process, imagine yourself parachuted into rural China tomorrow and compare that integration process with a drop zone in the USA. Being willing to work hard is just not enough to get by, they need help and that help comes at a cost. If you are already unwilling to pay, it's past time to stop running up the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly we are not breeding enough.  With a birth rate of 1.6 we are unable to sustain ourselves.  Immigration allows us to continue as a country.  we would require a birthrate of 2.1 or better.  Immigration is a necessary function.

Integration should also be a necessary function because within a couple of generations the cultural background of the majority will significantly change based on where most of the immigrants originate.  This would have a profound effect on out laws and way of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 1:33 PM, Wolfhunter said:

In a word, yes.

What is most often lost here is the concept of integration. People coming from European countries simply integrate more easily into Canadian society because of the similarities in language, culture, religion, education and values. They may arrive poor and desperate, but those similarities offer them a huge advantage when it comes to integrating.

Large numbers of people from completely different cultures, who don’t speak the language and are poorly educated and unskilled can be successfully integrated if you need an influx of labour to build a railway with picks, shovels and axes (as a for instance). They have a job to come to, they are self sufficient and that buys them the time and opportunity it takes to adapt to a foreign land without excessive government assistance. At best, this is not an easy process, imagine yourself parachuted into rural China tomorrow and compare that integration process with a drop zone in the USA. Being willing to work hard is just not enough to get by, they need help and that help comes at a cost. If you are already unwilling to pay, it's past time to stop running up the bill.

The proper immigration channel stipulates certain conditions (at least it used to) you had to be able to support yourself or have someone to support you until you can find work.  You need to have skills or education that make you an asset to Canada.  

Refugees are a different story.   The 2 should never be confused.  Immigrants (proper channel) are generally a benefit to their communities and tend the be successful.  Refugees are a split some are very successful and others not so much.  its a bit of a crap shoot.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to be sure I understand;

"He said the workers and the union aren’t to blame, given uncompetitive labour costs were sorted out with the near bankruptcy back when Canada bailed out GM and Chrysler a decade ago. (That left taxpayers on the hook for $3.5 billion.)"

Did the taxpayers recover none of their 3.5B 'investment' from the 'too big to fail' scheme'? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A FIRM MAKES MONEY BY CREATING WEALTH. IF IT LOSES MONEY, IT IS DESTROYING WEALTH. IF A GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZES THOSE LOSSES, IT IS DESTROYING WEALTH. SO LET’S NOT KEEP DOING THAT, WRITES JOHN ROBSON.

 

  • Calgary Herald
  • 29 Nov 2018
  • John Robson
img?regionKey=D1FrZneH9%2fmRqRAIN9ahBg%3d%3d  

So it was money down the drain after all. GM closing North American plants including in Oshawa is hard on affected people and communities. But it also makes short work of the argument that markets are great in theory but massive government bailouts and subsidies work in practice.

Yes, I said so at the time. And for my pains the Harper Tories gave me patronizing lectures about principles being for chumps and ideologues. Did I say “gave?” Actually it’s “give” because Harper’s new book claims the essence of conservatism is to say one thing and do another.

Phooey. As John Stuart Mill explained, if something works in theory but not practice the theory is wrong so get a new one. But here it wasn’t.

On Nov. 21, 2008, I ridiculed a Globe and Mail editorial claim that “While there are ample reasons for Ottawa to tell carmakers they don’t deserve taxpayer bailouts, there are also compelling reasons to provide help for weathering the current storm. The trick will be to provide the right help to keep these critical companies afloat without getting stuck in a corporate welfare quagmire.”

Good luck with that, mate. Especially as, I said, “this argument drops any pretence that GM, Ford and Chrysler are winners but urges backing them anyway” without any explanation of how subsidizing failure suddenly went from “unaffordable folly” to “reputable wisdom.” It just somehow became a wise investment because everyone panicked. Do not try this approach with your own portfolio.

Weirdly, the pre-politics Harper knew exactly why bailouts are bad. He could have recited in his sleep, and possibly yours, too, the “Austrian school” explanation that the insurmountable problem with intervention is that it requires government to possess more knowledge than it conceivably can.

Markets are amazingly effective at reducing the dazzling, baffling complexity of economic interaction to a few simple numbers: sales revenue and input prices. As Leonard Read’s “I, Pencil” explained back when there were pencils (that didn’t break in the sharpener, I mean), even that humble object required the efficient co-operation of everyone from loggers who cut trees to those who make gasoline for their chainsaws and coffee for their cups (and the cups and chainsaws) to producers of drab yellow paint and the little “ferrule” holding the eraser.

If everyone involved had to know what everyone else was doing and why, you’d never see another pencil. But they don’t. They just need to know what things cost. The central planner, by contrast, must know everything about everything to order the right inputs at the right time not just for the pencil factory but for everyone in the whole complex interlocking supply chain in which miners also need pencils and coffee, accountants need desks and so on.

Now wait, you may cry. That theory explains why socialism fails in practice. But to bail out one car plant you only have to know how much cash they want and where the taxpayer keeps it. And it’s amazing how often people stop there, assuming the immediate effect of a policy is the end of the story.

We “lend” GM umptysquillion bucks, the factory stays open, people have jobs, sing Hallelujah. As for taxpayers, well, there’s more where that came from. But to know whether bailing out the plant beats letting it fail, you must know everything that will happen if it gets the money and, crucially, everything that therefore won’t happen because someone else doesn’t. And of course you can’t.

You can’t know everything taxpayers would have spent the money on instead, or who would have borrowed it and why, let alone what would have happened next, and next, and next. You aren’t God. But you can know one simple thing.

A firm makes money by creating wealth. The things it sells are worth more than the things (including labour) used up creating them. That’s what profit is. Literally. Hence, necessarily, a firm that loses money destroys wealth. It makes things worth less than the inputs consumed. So the more you subsidize it, the more wealth gets destroyed. Which is bad.

There’s the first bitter fruit of government intervention. The second is that disguising destruction as creation lets underlying problems get worse, like excessive labour costs, until the hole gets too deep to fill even with other people’s money. Predictably.

When I did predict it, I got patted on the head and insulted. Then our governments gave GM and Chrysler $13.7 billion, got back $10.2 billion (maybe, given characteristically opaque government bookkeeping), and the plant shut anyway. Practice, meet theory.

So can we have our $3.5 billion back? Or have they got some new hare-brained scheme to lose money on every sale but make it up on volume? Yup. Maple Leaf Foods this week.

I was afraid they might.

DISGUISING DESTRUCTION AS CREATION LETS UNDERLYING PROBLEMS GET WORSE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But bringing in 350 thousand fully dependent refugees a year remains trudeau's highest national priority?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DEFCON said:

But bringing in 350 thousand fully dependent refugees a year remains trudeau's highest national priority?

 

 

 

Defcon, you are mixing apples and oranges. I believe the number you quote is the planned number of Immigrants not refugees.  https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/immigration-canada-2018-1.4371146

And of course you are forgetting that the majority of legal immigrants are not dependent on handouts. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this