Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 265 posts

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#121

Post by jariel »

galimaufry wrote: post #99
jariel wrote: post #65

This is very good information, but the wrong narrative. This was not some 'fake deal' by a Chinese firm to get subsidies, it looks like they probably barely broke even on this one - if that - and no company wants to have big ugly stain failures like this. It looks like Foxconn just bit off more than they could chew, maybe saw an opportunity, but then realized they couldn't make use of the plant. They knew what the th…

Agreed that Foxconn doesn't sound malicious here. But it does seem like more than typical bumbling. In particular, I can't see how this management structure is supposed to work - competing subdivisions is fine, and having divisions just do what the CEO says seems like it could work, but combining them is wild.

There is probably something to the story here, because superficially it doesn't look like Foxconn benefited from this, so why did they do it?

The journo tried to paint this as some kind of 'big fraud by FoxConn' but that's clearly not it, a big part of the story was missed.

Often, sometimes corporations just make mistakes and have units that are poorly managed, we just usually don't get to witness their failures publicly.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#122

Post by freeone3000 »

Accujack wrote: post #62
pg_bot wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew someone would bring up Citizens United v FEC when I said worst. I know this will be an unpopular opinion on this forum, but I believe that case was decided correctly. I agree wholeheartedly with Justice Kennedy's opinion that "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech" Read the opinions and d…

Yes. People blame the court for doing the correct (if not right, because courts don't really do "right") thing. The problem is that there's no constitutional amendment making an exception to the first amendment to limit or forbid contributions to campaigns. It should never have been an ordinary law in the first place.

I fundamentally disagree with this, but on different grounds. I absolutely believe that groups of people have fewer rights than individual people. A corporation should have no right against self-incrimination, for instance. An LLC should have no right for freedom of religion. Groups are, by definition, not a monolith, and defending the rights of the group often infringes on the rights of the individual. Extending individual rights to the aggregate is absurd, and the abuses of it lead to the worst outcomes in case-law.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#123

Post by SamReidHughes »

freeone3000 wrote: post #122
Accujack wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. People blame the court for doing the correct (if not right, because courts don't really do "right") thing. The problem is that there's no constitutional amendment making an exception to the first amendment to limit or forbid contributions to campaigns. It should never have been an ordinary law in the first place.

I fundamentally disagree with this, but on different grounds. I absolutely believe that groups of people have fewer rights than individual people. A corporation should have no right against self-incrimination, for instance. An LLC should have no right for freedom of religion. Groups are, by definition, not a monolith, and defending the rights of the group often infringes on the rights of the individual. Extending ind…

A church shouldn't have freedom of religion?

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#125

Post by nendroid »

pimlottc wrote: post #115
nendroid wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone knows American workers are way worse than chinese blue collar workers. This is a well known fact among factory owners in China. Foxconn is not stupid, they've done such a thing before when migrating manufacturing to China. If American workers were good they'd take this project seriously too. They aren't, and the screw ups are just a result of certain executives not taking the project seriously and not provid…

Nothing in this article indicated that the problem was the quality of the American workers. They were given no business plans, no money, no authority to make final decisions. It doesn't matter who you hire at that point, that's a recipe for failure.

And I'm claiming the article hit the wrong point. It's not covering the fact that Foxconn has no intention of running an actual operation in America. Partly because it's a 1000x better deal to just open another factory in China. This whole thing is obviously done with an ulterior motive.

Either the topic is deliberately being avoided or the writer doesn't know.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#126

Post by jeffbee »

fortran77 wrote: post #79

The fact that local governments in every state make deals with companies for reduced property-tax rates is why I'm terrified about Prop 15 killing California. The big businesses, Facebook, Google, Apple, will all negotiate special property tax rates and only the small businesses will have to pay the double or triple tax prop 15 would bring.

This is a very incorrect view of property taxation in silicon valley. Google and Apple are not going to be harmed in the least, because Google and Apple already pay a disproportionate amount of real property taxes in Santa Clara County. If Prop 15 makes legacy businesses pay a fair assessment on their parcels, relative newcomers like Google will be helped, not harmed. Google is Santa Clara County's largest taxpayer, paying $65 million in secured property taxes last year. If older large companies like Intel begin to pay realistic assessments, it won't be so skewed.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#127

Post by ummonk »

Reelin wrote: post #108
geofft wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a state passed a law that corporations may not put a kosher or halal marking on foods they sell, would you find that law constitutional? (Certainly it's not interfering with the corporation's freedom of religion interests, is it? Corporations don't practice religion!) The problem here is that there's no simple or intuitive description of the solution we want besides "The right to free speech does not extend to the…

> kosher or halal marking on foods they sell, would you find that law constitutional ... no? It would be a law more or less targeting a particular religion. That's against both the letter and the spirit of the constitution. Unless I'm missing something here? > (Certainly it's not interfering with the corporation's freedom of religion interests, is it? Corporations don't practice religion!) Serious question: Why can't…

That's the point of the analogy. Rights like freedom of religion and freedom of speech must extend to corporations as well.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#128

Post by MisterBastahrd »

kenned3 wrote: post #19

This is a great article around why "corporate welfare" rarely works out. Also, semes like a textbook example of "eminent domain" abuse? We call this "expropriation" in Canada and it is rarely abused like this. Taking peoples property to give it to a private corporation? I can understand the need to take property for public use (roads, infra) but the US needs to end eminent domain abuse. If Foxconn needed the property…

I think I read somewhere that Louisiana loses about 20% of its local municipal revenue per year due to corporate welfare and tax breaks.

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#129

Post by ummonk »

staticautomatic wrote: post #78
pg_bot wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew someone would bring up Citizens United v FEC when I said worst. I know this will be an unpopular opinion on this forum, but I believe that case was decided correctly. I agree wholeheartedly with Justice Kennedy's opinion that "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech" Read the opinions and d…

Corporations don’t have speech interests. The majority’s opinion in Citizens United is premised upon the assertion that they do.

"Corporations" here typically being not for profit corporations such as unions or public advocacy groups (including the eponymous "Citizens United").

Re: Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

#130

Post by __blockcipher__ »

freeone3000 wrote: post #122
Accujack wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. People blame the court for doing the correct (if not right, because courts don't really do "right") thing. The problem is that there's no constitutional amendment making an exception to the first amendment to limit or forbid contributions to campaigns. It should never have been an ordinary law in the first place.

I fundamentally disagree with this, but on different grounds. I absolutely believe that groups of people have fewer rights than individual people. A corporation should have no right against self-incrimination, for instance. An LLC should have no right for freedom of religion. Groups are, by definition, not a monolith, and defending the rights of the group often infringes on the rights of the individual. Extending ind…

Supreme court cases build upon precedent. It sounds like your real issue is with corporate personhood. That was decided in a case that Citizens United built on, so I would recommend barking up that tree instead.

In any case, I personally feel corporate personhood actually does make sense. It’s absurd that I as an individual can engage in speech but if I communicate through a company that I solely own now I can’t.

Trying to “get money out of politics” is a fools’ errand; as Citizens v United demonstrates, speech often requires money. What we really need is the opposite: get politics out of my damn money!

(By the way, most who have been spoonfed the “get money out of politics” line are entirely ignorant on the facts of the CU case. As I recall Hillary Clinton was trying to suppress a documentary critical of her because it was too close to an election. Does that sound like something you’re a fan of?)

Post reply on HN