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

191–200 of 265 posts

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

#191

Post by sterlind »

tomp wrote: post #165
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…

Can corporations put “kosher” markings on food that is not kosher? Isn’t that already a limit on free speech?

It'd be trademark infringement. the circle K thing is a trademark that a private Kosher organization allows companies to put on certified foods after they're satisfied with the inspection (as far as I recall.)

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

#192

Post by timidiceball »

wishconsinconn wrote: post #28
sjg007 wrote: post #11

Man I can’t wait for the Netflix movie about this. What should the title be?

"Fox in the cheesehouse"? While you wait, American Factory is a pretty good documentary about a Chinese auto glass manufacturer trying to set up a stateside plant in an area that aggressively courted them.

I thoroughly enjoyed American Factory's take! It presented many aspects of such a venture without taking too strong of a narrative one way or the other. Petty politics big and small, cultural mismatch, the rich getting richer, union busting. But also the very real attempts at bridging the culture gap and the stories of some imported foreigner workers who develop a serious fondness for life in America.

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

#193

Post by rsynnott »

jariel wrote: post #151
jeffbee wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First - 'Licking the boots of politicians' is something that happens in every country involving politicians of ever stripe. "but perhaps benefit greatly from avoiding trade sanctions." - I don't think this is the case directly, there doesn't seem to be evidence of that, however, it might be true. Trump hasn't really singled out Chinese manufacturers. Second - the populist/lazy/naive theme here is the supposed belief…

> I would say this is a good example of 'How even good Chinese companies do Business in 2020' and the results should be on display for bureaucrats and would-be belt-and-roaders everywhere.

This is a Taiwanese company. Belt and Road is a PRC thing.

That said, this is more of an example of "how practically any company will behave when offered poorly designed subsidies". There's a _place_ for state subsidization of industry, but it has to be done very carefully or this happens.

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

#194

Post by rjmunro »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #128
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.

That's an unfair way to say it. You could equally say "Louisiana spends about 20% of its local municipal revenue supporting local businesses."

I have no idea if that is a big number or how it compares to other states. I also have no idea if it's a good investment - perhaps it results in lots of jobs and ultimately more than 20% increase in tax take (you should also factor in if it's just pulling jobs and therefore taxes from elsewhere, rather than creating new value).

But the money is no more "lost" than it would be if they spent it on schools or roads or whatever else.

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

#195

Post by 5555624 »

layoutIfNeeded wrote: post #186
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

>After the Court's decision, the city allowed a private developer to proceed with its plans; however, the developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the project, and the contested land remained an undeveloped empty lot in 2019. Wait, so did the original owner get back their property then?

No. Even if they had gotten their property back, the houses had been razed. (At least one house was moved.) As of 2018, it's simply a vacant parcel of land.

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

#196

Post by sramam »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #130
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…

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. Try…

> 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.

I've always struggled reconciling this with the notion of limited liability. A similar crime does not beget a similar punishment.

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

#197

Post by pm »

wishconsinconn wrote: post #28
sjg007 wrote: post #11

Man I can’t wait for the Netflix movie about this. What should the title be?

"Fox in the cheesehouse"? While you wait, American Factory is a pretty good documentary about a Chinese auto glass manufacturer trying to set up a stateside plant in an area that aggressively courted them.

Fox "con" surely.

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

#198

Post by rayiner »

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.

> The problem is that there's no constitutional amendment making an exception to the first amendment to limit or forbid contributions to campaigns.

Citizens United wasn’t about campaign contributions. It’s already illegal for corporations to donate to campaigns.

Citizens United was about whether a 501(c)(4) corporation—just like the ACLU or the NAACP—can be prosecuted for releasing a movie critical of a candidate. Justice Kennedy wasn’t analogizing money to speech—the case was whether the government could control political speech by controlling how a corporation used its money in publishing a movie.

Here is the ACLU’s take on a constitutional amendment: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/campaign-finance-refor...

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

#199

Post by rayiner »

efitz wrote: post #145
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Try…

Without corporate personhood, you wouldn’t lose any of your rights as an owner (stockholder), employee, or officer of a corporation- you just wouldn’t get to magnify your individual rights by using the power of the corporation. As an individual, you’d still get to speak your mind on whatever. In my opinion, you just shouldn’t be allowed to take the enormous financial power of a corporation and turn it towards your ow…

The “corporation” in Citizens United was a dinky non-profit. Has the case gone the other way, nothing would stop the government from regulating how the New York Times used its “enormous financial power” for speech.

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

#200

Post by rayiner »

piva00 wrote: post #175
Thorrez wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the church itself doesn't have freedom of religion. But for the members of the church to have freedom of religion they need to be able to exercise their freedom as an organized group. The end result is the same: the government is limited in what restrictions it can place on the group, because to restrict the group is to restrict the members.

> But for the members of the church to have freedom of religion they need to be able to exercise their freedom as an organized group. There is no logic in this sentence. An organised group as an entity doesn't need to be treated the same as a citizen for the freedoms of the members of the group to be respected, I don't understand where is the leap between: rights of a citizen should be extended as rights of a virtual…

The sentence is logical, you’re just incorrectly assuming it’s a simple syllogism. The OP isn’t saying that churches need to be treated substitutably with members of the church. But it’s apparent that churches as entities need to be protected in order to protect individual religious freedom. If the government banned mosques (as legal entities) from constructing buildings and holding gatherings, that wouldn’t ban Islam, but it would obviously be an impingement on the religious freedom of Muslims.
Post reply on HN