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

131–140 of 265 posts

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

#131

Post by jeffbee »

jariel wrote: post #121
galimaufry wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 publ…

Foxconn thought they were licking the boots of the American despot and his henchman, the Governor of Wisconsin. This is the accurate assessment of the American regime abroad: it is a corrupt autocracy where the guy at the top hands out favors and punishments capriciously. It seemed to Foxconn leadership that they could break even on the boondoggle, but perhaps benefit greatly from avoiding trade sanctions.

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

#132

Post by aetherson »

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…

Nothing like the very egalitarian principle that says, "One rich man can advocate for his interests, but 100 poor men may not pool their resources to advocate for theirs."

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

#133

Post by __blockcipher__ »

gruez wrote: post #51
pg_bot wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can blame the worst supreme court decision in the 21st century for that. (Kelo v City of New London) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

worst ? what about citizens united? how often is eminent domain abused for economic development, compared to how much favorable legislation was passed for corporations?

To quote CU as the worst decision out there is laughable. Personally I fully agree with the ruling, but even if I didn’t, isn’t Dredd Scott far more disastrous? Or Korematsu (allowed detention camps based on race)? Or the one that allows forced sterilization of the mentally retarded?

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

#134

Post by Judgmentality »

danhak wrote: post #100
sjm-lbm wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations also get a lot of benefits that individuals or unstructured associations don't - mainly things like liability protection - so it's not like it would be unreasonable to have corresponding limitations on what they are allowed to do. And that's before we get to the point that corporations, as a practical matter, are formed under state laws, so why is the federal government giving them rights? (and that's be…

> And that's before we get to the point that corporations, as a practical matter, are formed under state laws, so why is the federal government giving them rights? That's an interesting point. Marriages are formed under state law as well, and it doesn't seem controversial to me that the federal government grants that relationship special privileges.

> Marriages are formed under state law as well, and it doesn't seem controversial to me that the federal government grants that relationship special privileges

I think the only reason this isn't controversial is because people don't think about it. The fact that people are conditioned to get married, not to mention the tax benefits, is pretty fucking weird if you stop and think about it. Supposedly our country was meant to separate church and state, but it's obvious it was such a new concept that many of the ideas were stolen from the mores of the conventional religions of the time.

I mean, why is marriage a legal thing at all? Why is the government involved? It made sense when there was a dowry involved, but today? Nobody cares until they realize what a fucking nightmare getting divorced is, and the number of conditions and loopholes is asinine. It's almost like the lawyers invented it, because divorce lawyers make an insane amount of money on the suffering of others (they are heavily incentivized to push for people to be combative, because they make more money that way - and it's easy to rile people up when custody of children is involved).

This is obviously a bit of a rant that went in a weird direction but whatever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZTOT6DKfZ8

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

#135

Post by neuromanser »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #123
freeone3000 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

a church is not a person, it cannot believe in anything. how does a church pray? how does it make a confession?

do not antropomorphize companies, it does not compute at all.

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

#136

Post by fiblye »

nendroid wrote: post #86
orange_joe wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol, did you even read the article? the situation had absolutely nothing to do with the pay of American workers and everything to do with the fact that Foxconn management went into this situation without a plan, and the situation was exacerbated by their almost feudalistic management structure.

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…

Every single thing in this lengthy article comes together to make one clear point: they had no plan at any step of the way and just tried to BS it all, and they've done it several times around the world. Blaming this on lazy Americans when they were literally begging for something to do is strange.

The article is gathering plenty of facts and interviewing plenty of people. If you've got insider information with some good sources, by all means, provide it.

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

#137

Post by Reelin »

ummonk wrote: post #127
Reelin wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I tend to agree, but I think (perhaps mistakenly) that OP was trying to illustrate via analogy that it's more complicated than that. I wasn't able to see the point being made with the analogy though (hence my reply).

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

#138

Post by geofft »

staticautomatic wrote: post #112
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…

Preliminarily, I do think such a law would be constitutional. However, you haven’t said why you think it wouldn’t be, so I’m not sure what exactly you’re inviting me to argue.

I think it wouldn't be constitutional on the same grounds as Citizens United, namely, it would be a violation of the right to free speech. If I have a constitutional right as an individual to label things kosher or halal, why would I lose that right if I go into business with some friends? (I'm assuming I have this right as an individual, right?)

I think it is a consistent view that I do lose that right when I incorporate to be clear, and you could probably design a coherent society on that model - I just don't totally follow why / what the constitutional grounds are.

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

#139

Post by 8note »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #81
staticautomatic wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sure they do. Corporations are owned by people, and those people have speech interests. If corporations didn’t have the right to free speech then a group of people campaigning for a politics cause would suddenly lose their right to free speech if they formed a corporation to simplify the activities, such as the joint handling of money or purchasing of ads.

Don't candidates in political campaigns have some limits imposed by law? Amounts you're allowed to spend and so on. Their campaign is a corporation if I'm not mistaken

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

#140

Post by 8note »

ummonk wrote: post #127
Reelin wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'd see it as infringing on the religious shopper's rights rather than the corporations though. That makes it towards impossible to practice your religion
Post reply on HN