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

Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 196 posts

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#31

Post by iainmerrick »

Semaphor wrote: post #8
1cvmask wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s funny that they are downvoting you for stating the obvious no-brainer explanation. Just curious as I am seeing more of this on HN lately or is it just the Baader Meinhof phenomenon after I read someone else complain about the recent downvoting phenomenon for stating the obvious. Has the readership changed of HN or more specifically the commentariat?

> Has the readership changed of HN or more specifically the commentariat? My personal impression is, that it got a lot worse since Covid, which I attribute to more people doing home office and/or having more free time. Any discussion forum that grows gets worse. But both my impressions and the 2nd part might be wrong.

Any discussion forum that grows gets worse.

Huh! I hadn’t thought about it in such stark terms before, and I’d like to disagree, but there may be something in that.

Is that an original thought, or did you get it from somewhere? It sounds like something that should be an eponymous law.

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#32

Post by dasil003 »

lordgrenville wrote: post #18
luckylion wrote: post #4

Is it just me or has it become more common for journalists to write about decreases by saying "X-fold" or "x times"? I always get confused, I find it much easier to say "by 97%".

I think for x > 1 "x-fold" is clearer. "Ten times bigger" sounds simpler to me than "1000% growth".

Yes, for growth. But in this case they are using x > 1 or shrinkage.

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#34

Post by realityIsntHere »

luckylion wrote: post #4

Is it just me or has it become more common for journalists to write about decreases by saying "X-fold" or "x times"? I always get confused, I find it much easier to say "by 97%".

Percentages can be just as bad.

Increase by 100% is 2x

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#35

Post by saalweachter »

Loughla wrote: post #15
1cvmask wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s funny that they are downvoting you for stating the obvious no-brainer explanation. Just curious as I am seeing more of this on HN lately or is it just the Baader Meinhof phenomenon after I read someone else complain about the recent downvoting phenomenon for stating the obvious. Has the readership changed of HN or more specifically the commentariat?

I genuinely don't understand how 'international mega-corporation doesn't understand international labor differences' is a no-brainer. Please explain that to me. That seems like one of the first things that any company should evaluate.

Honestly? I assume the people who negotiated the deal are a different department from the people who would have implemented the deal. They went big and went home and now it's someone else's problem.

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#36

Post by billyhoffman »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #26
neartheplain wrote: post #7

The massive downward revision of this deal, and of Foxconn's commitment to create jobs in Wisconsin, is hardly a surprise. Foxconn has a history of reneging on promises to build factories, as was widely reported when this deal was first made in 2017: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/foxconns-history-of-broken... https://boingboing.net/2017/08/09/potemkin-factories.html https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/08/20/op-ed-the…

It helped Trump, mission accomplished.

Did it? His “8th wonder of the world nonsense” was after he was elected in 2017, and Trump then lost Wisconsin in 2020

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#37

Post by buran77 »

pen2l wrote: post #6
1cvmask wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s funny that they are downvoting you for stating the obvious no-brainer explanation. Just curious as I am seeing more of this on HN lately or is it just the Baader Meinhof phenomenon after I read someone else complain about the recent downvoting phenomenon for stating the obvious. Has the readership changed of HN or more specifically the commentariat?

It wasn't really my take or opinion, I rather recalled it being cited as the reason by Foxconn itself in multiple instances. Also, I'm from Wisconsin, and an old EECS professor explained this to be the reason from his first-hand knowledge of some conversations with Foxconn. Here is one citation I was able to find quickly: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-foxconn-wisconsin-exclusi... He said the company was still ev…

> I rather recalled it being cited as the reason by Foxconn itself in multiple instances.

It's more plausible that any company will give the more acceptable, easily digestible explanation, rather than the real one.

But really it's the politicians who won, first by banging their chests for all the investments and jobs they created, now for getting an easy out. They can't be blamed for not seeing through any ploy because they can argue Foxconn obviously had good intentions sabotaged by "a misunderstanding" that couldn't have been caught.

It's very unlikely (by that I mean close to impossible) that Foxconn just "blundered", went through many rounds of negotiations, and started building, while genuinely not being aware that the US labor market is different from the Chinese one.

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#38

Post by clankyclanker »

notRobot wrote: post #28
luckylion wrote: post #4

Is it just me or has it become more common for journalists to write about decreases by saying "X-fold" or "x times"? I always get confused, I find it much easier to say "by 97%".

This phrasing always confuses me, slashes 30 fold means that it is now 1/30th the original?

Yes.

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#39

Post by smt88 »

pen2l wrote: post #6
1cvmask wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s funny that they are downvoting you for stating the obvious no-brainer explanation. Just curious as I am seeing more of this on HN lately or is it just the Baader Meinhof phenomenon after I read someone else complain about the recent downvoting phenomenon for stating the obvious. Has the readership changed of HN or more specifically the commentariat?

It wasn't really my take or opinion, I rather recalled it being cited as the reason by Foxconn itself in multiple instances. Also, I'm from Wisconsin, and an old EECS professor explained this to be the reason from his first-hand knowledge of some conversations with Foxconn. Here is one citation I was able to find quickly: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-foxconn-wisconsin-exclusi... He said the company was still ev…

You're being downvoted likely because of how naive it sounds when you take what Foxconn says at face value.

Large companies are unlikely to ever tell the truth about their motivations, but they're even less likely to when they were doing something manipulative and dishonest, as Foxconn was here.

Re: Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn

#40

Post by CydeWeys »

pen2l wrote: post #6
1cvmask wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s funny that they are downvoting you for stating the obvious no-brainer explanation. Just curious as I am seeing more of this on HN lately or is it just the Baader Meinhof phenomenon after I read someone else complain about the recent downvoting phenomenon for stating the obvious. Has the readership changed of HN or more specifically the commentariat?

It wasn't really my take or opinion, I rather recalled it being cited as the reason by Foxconn itself in multiple instances. Also, I'm from Wisconsin, and an old EECS professor explained this to be the reason from his first-hand knowledge of some conversations with Foxconn. Here is one citation I was able to find quickly: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-foxconn-wisconsin-exclusi... He said the company was still ev…

Your mistake here is taking a multinational corporation at its word, especially one known for playing games with subsidies in other countries too. These quotes are the cover story from corporate PR, not the truth.
Post reply on HN