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

81–90 of 196 posts

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

#81

Post by altacc »

billyhoffman wrote: post #36
KingOfCoders wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You probably need to consider the wider impact, not just Wisconsin. This was national news (I'm international and I remember reading about it) and would have contributed to his supporters general perception that he was delivering on promises. This isn't really an area where we can single Trump out as he was just being a normal politician here. It's common to announce an amazing deal with a big fanfare which then either fails to materialise, is in fact not as amazing as the headlines claim it to be, or includes previously agreed policies or agreements that are claimed once again as new. This is just typical PR (unfortunately).

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

#82

Post by KZZ »

jcranmer wrote: post #78
Invictus0 wrote: post #2

Can someone explain to me why Foxconn didn't build the plant? Why would they go through the trouble of negotiating this deal, which ended up phenomenally in their favor, just to throw their hands in the air and walk away?

From what I can tell, Foxconn never actually intended to build the plant. (I'm getting a lot of this from an interesting long-form article on the history of this deal; unfortunately, I don't remember where I found this article, sorry). Essentially, Foxconn thought that the Wisconsin deal would work more typically as its deals in China went. Glad-hand the government officials, get sweetheart deals on land and investme…

For information, the plant has been built. The building is there, just empty.

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

#83

Post by hnworthing »

waterheater wrote: post #71
ThaDood wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to be a naysayer, but do you have any sort of evidence to substantiate this claim? Any evidence of exceptions to laws regarding the usage of the watershed and lake with specific regards to Foxconn? Or any kind of indication that a bottling facility will be built up?

Hard evidence? No. The exact plot of land they chose is not particularly remarkable, so I must wonder why they chose a piece of land straddling the watershed, given that the Compact [1] indirectly applies to corporations. There's a deeper political aspect to Foxconn's presence that I can't trust. I'm from Wisconsin, and the whole Foxconn deal leaves me feeling extremely uneasy. Leaving aside the Wisconsin and USA pol…

> Terry Guo briefly ran for president of the Republic of China.

I have reservations about Foxconn too, but I’m not sure I understand why this bit is relevant. The Republic of China = Taiwan, a US ally. (Mainland China is the People’s Republic of China). This is akin to Bloomberg running for president.

Also it’s Terry Gou and not Guo.

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

#84

Post by emodendroket »

danhak wrote: post #64
altendo wrote: post #61

I am always struck at the amount that states and municipalities are willing to write off in order to attract companies. On one hand, I understand that companies want to take the best deal, but on the other hand, at times local governments are willing to give up so much money in tax revenue. I remember reading about the competitions for Google Fiber and Amazon's second HQ - it felt absurd the amount cities and states…

They’re not really “giving up” anything if they attract a business that otherwise wouldn’t be there at all. It’s still a net gain to have a major employer in your locale, along with all the other economic benefits and tax revenue that entails.

The New York Times investigated this notion and found most deals were so lopsided that the municipalities and states never came anywhere near recouping their investments. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-ba...

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

#85

Post by skystarman »

avs733 wrote: post #77
danhak wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not really “giving up” anything if they attract a business that otherwise wouldn’t be there at all. It’s still a net gain to have a major employer in your locale, along with all the other economic benefits and tax revenue that entails.

There should be research to support this argument. Has anyone found evidence for or against? Otherwise the claim here seems aspirational rather than useful. I know that the history of stadium deals, for example, this claim is nearly universally made to support incentivizing sports teams - and the evidence nearly universally shows it to be false. "In every case, the conclusions are the same. A new sports facility has…

I don't think the comparison to sports stadiums fit here. Usually there is already a stadium for a large NFL team or whatever in the city and the economies in the cities that are large enough to even host these teams are WAY more dynamic than where many factories are being built in the south or midwest.

For example Walmart's HQ was built in a TINY SW Arkansas town. The billions that have been invested there by the company, not only in jobs, but amenities in the city have no comparison to any other option that was available to them. If the city and state wanted to hand Walmart a $100 million dollar check, then that investment would have paid off way more than 10x. (IDK what subsidies they were given, probably none just using this for sake of the argument)

I know WM is the evil empire and I'm not defending all they do, just saying that if the right business moves into your small community it can be worth tens, hundreds or even many billions of dollars to a community that has no other options.

Amazon moving into NYC, or Atlanta giving many millions in subsidies to the Braves for a new stadium? Not really comparable.

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

#86

Post by moneybaggins »

pokot0 wrote: post #59
dqpb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will never be assembled by humans in the US, but we should strive for US based robotic manufacturing.

This is the key people often overlook. If we stop using our AI geniuses to develop tracking algorithms and start building automation, we can have nextgen factories in the West. The environmental factor is yet to be solved though. For the most part, developing countries are trading environmental damage for money. Not much different from harvesting oil or other resources to an economist.

Well let’s see, work in adtech and make $1M TC and get treated with kid gloves by the company or work in industrial engineering and make $100K and be a cost center. How do we change the incentives? Ban advertising and tracking? But making the alternative more attractive is out of the cards...

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

#87

Post by refurb »

danhak wrote: post #64
altendo wrote: post #61

I am always struck at the amount that states and municipalities are willing to write off in order to attract companies. On one hand, I understand that companies want to take the best deal, but on the other hand, at times local governments are willing to give up so much money in tax revenue. I remember reading about the competitions for Google Fiber and Amazon's second HQ - it felt absurd the amount cities and states…

They’re not really “giving up” anything if they attract a business that otherwise wouldn’t be there at all. It’s still a net gain to have a major employer in your locale, along with all the other economic benefits and tax revenue that entails.

Exactly.

People this it’s a choice between: A) company moves here pays $0 in tax or B) company moves here and pays $5M in tax.

When in reality it’s a choice between: A) company comes here and pays $0 in tax or B) company doesn’t come here and net taxes are still $0

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

#88

Post by AlwaysRock »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #76
AlwaysRock wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be a net gain. Dropping a few thousand jobs and a factory into an area changes said area. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes not.

Most communities tend to prefer having lots of jobs available versus having too few jobs available.

Absolutely. But I don't know anyone who likes having the added traffic that thousands of jobs bring. And increased housing prices. And yada yada. More jobs isnt always positive and at the very least have some downsides.

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

#89

Post by KZZ »

jfb wrote: post #48
Loughla wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're 100% spot on. I cannot be convinced a multi-national mega-corp is ignorant of US labor and the challenges in the US labor market. There just is no way that's possible for a company this size, or am I wrong? So that leaves either bad faith, or they are just abjectly incompetent. I can't really see any other options. Or, again, am I way off base?

I mean, it was bullshit from jump street, but if Wisconsin had poured (more) money into Foxconn's pockets, I'm sure they'd have been happy to put something up.

For the record, they have put something up. Currently 1 large empty buildings and 2 medium sized, filled buildings. Also one perplexing glass globe.

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

#90

Post by wavefunction »

danhak wrote: post #64
altendo wrote: post #61

I am always struck at the amount that states and municipalities are willing to write off in order to attract companies. On one hand, I understand that companies want to take the best deal, but on the other hand, at times local governments are willing to give up so much money in tax revenue. I remember reading about the competitions for Google Fiber and Amazon's second HQ - it felt absurd the amount cities and states…

They’re not really “giving up” anything if they attract a business that otherwise wouldn’t be there at all. It’s still a net gain to have a major employer in your locale, along with all the other economic benefits and tax revenue that entails.

Roads and infrastructure don't pay for themselves and considering the scale of some incentive packages offered and the paltry outcomes like the one we're discussing in Wisconsin and elsewhere the assertion that there's a "net gain" deserves serious scrutiny and supporting evidence.
Post reply on HN