51–60 of 157 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't want to have problems with current US administration and Trump wants factories, so they give him factories.
Meaning the automation starts as soon as Trump leaves.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-new-data-center-north-c...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is essentially no difference between giving a company money and not collecting money from them that they would otherwise pay. Economists call these sorts of things tax expenditures . It amounts to taking money from some people and companies who pay their full tax bill, and giving it to others who don't.
Most of the "incentive" situations are not a choice between those two scenarios, they are a choice between having the business there and giving them an (initial) tax break, or having the business go elsewhere. It's a choice between collecting discounted taxes, or none at all, not discounted vs. non-discounted.
What happens is that the jobs up and move as soon as the subsidy ends.
There has been quite a bit of research done on these kinds of tax subsidies and they almost always cost more than doing nothing and not getting the jobs.
$3 billion in subsidies for 3,000 jobs. http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2017/07/26/scott-walker-h...
This is pretty standard for deals like this, Nevada gave Tesla 1.3 billion for the Gigafactory. This "could" draw 3 billion. It's just tax incentives, not like it's a cash payment. But anything to make Trump look bad I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "late stage capitalism" What does this even mean? Sounds like an activist buzzword. What evidence do we have that there are even "stages" to capitalism much less that we are in a later stage?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism Capitalism is showing its flaws if we're paying a million dollars per job just to bring the job to our soil , although I suppose it's better then just keeping Foxconn products (or products that integrate their components) out at ports (or tariff them, like Russia with phones without a GLONASS chipset).
The outsourcing and automation and optimizing away of blue collar American jobs was already capitalism working as intended. Somehow, Trump and the Republicans have sold middle America a bill of goods and convinced them that globalism and capitalism are opposed to one another, when they are the same.
What's happening here is very much anti-capitalist.
I find it hard to believe that they won't automate it to the max. They've started to do it in china, why wouldn't they do it here where labor is more expensive and the factory is brand new. Foxconn has been manufacturing for a long time and they are looking to reduce costs not increase them by building in the US. Automation is the best way. I bet the jobs are not long term. Some jobs are better than none but don't pa…
They don't want to have problems with current US administration and Trump wants factories, so they give him factories.
promises to the president are meaningless. He cant take away their factories or force them to hire people.
And promises like foxconn's frequently turn out to be the most optimistic number they can think up, to drum up good press and subsidies from politicians looking to show results to their voters.
Wow!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like it'd be cheaper to just give it away as UBI, no? Especially considering a million dollars for a transient job versus paying someone a million dollars over their lifetime. This whole late stage capitalism transition is going to be painful.
> "late stage capitalism" What does this even mean? Sounds like an activist buzzword. What evidence do we have that there are even "stages" to capitalism much less that we are in a later stage?
Apparently US labor is cheaper then Chinese. Wow!
"U.S. Manufacturing costs are almost as low as China’s, and that’s a very big deal"
http://fortune.com/2015/06/26/fracking-manufacturing-costs/
"These days, China's labor costs are only 4% cheaper than those in the U.S. when productivity is factored in, according to Oxford Economics. "
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/17/news/economy/china-cheap-lab...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the "incentive" situations are not a choice between those two scenarios, they are a choice between having the business there and giving them an (initial) tax break, or having the business go elsewhere. It's a choice between collecting discounted taxes, or none at all, not discounted vs. non-discounted.
Except that it doesn't work like that. What happens is that the jobs up and move as soon as the subsidy ends. There has been quite a bit of research done on these kinds of tax subsidies and they almost always cost more than doing nothing and not getting the jobs.