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

91–100 of 196 posts

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

#91

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

skystarman wrote: post #85
avs733 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

I'd just like Wal-Mart to honor Walton's rule about no more than two customers waiting in line.

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

#92

Post by wavefunction »

luckylion wrote: post #63
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 don't have a choice between Amazon HQ or 50 medium sized new businesses, they often have Amazon HQ or nothing new. In that case, whatever they get is more than they have now, isn't it? New jobs that will bring other new businesses and local taxes etc are a bonus.

Places that were serious contenders for Amazon HQ definitely have other employers and options. There is no way that Amazon HQ is ending up in Sioux Falls or Laramie or something.

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

#93

Post by cma »

refurb wrote: post #87
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.

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

We have a coordinating union of states though, we don't need states to be pitted against each other to subsidize existing wealthy owners.

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

#94

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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.

Physical manufacturing doesn't have the sort of profit margins that software provides. You can't give devs the kind of pay many expect when there are 10x more people in the production chain. Investors aren't going to flock to such businesses.

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

#95

Post by aaaaaadsfscxva »

KZZ wrote: post #82
jcranmer wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Curious

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

#96

Post by kickout »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #52
waterheater wrote: post #44

Do not trust Foxconn. I strongly believe they're playing a long-term game here. For example, the Foxconn plant is on a particular tract of land only partially within the Lake Michigan watershed. Anyone living within the watershed must return their water, and it must be cleaned up first. My understanding of the Great Lakes Compact is that Foxconn's land is one of legal ambiguity, that they may draw from Lake Michigan…

> but water is set to be more valuable than oil Desalination costs less than 0.1 cents per liter, so that sets a pretty firm price cap on the cost of water.

Not arguing at all--- you got a link for those costs? I always thought desalination was cost prohibitive. I'd be thrilled to know it was 0.1 cents per liter (seriously)!

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

#97

Post by JohnWhigham »

cma wrote: post #93
refurb wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We have a coordinating union of states though, we don't need states to be pitted against each other to subsidize existing wealthy owners.

Until our limp-dick federal government does something about it (which they won't), the custom will continue.

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

#98

Post by acdha »

refurb wrote: post #87
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.

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

Or, company comes here, pays their employees less than expected, and leaves sooner than expected with the local taxpayers on the hook paying for more infrastructure than they need - and maybe some bonus pollution to deal with for decades.

These deals are always more complicated than the initial marquee numbers and that usually seems to make them less favorable for the area than hoped because companies have greater experience and can play desperate municipalities off against each other with little consequence for not delivering.

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

#99

Post by npongratz »

MomoXenosaga wrote: post #47
AlexandrB wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a take that's wildly generous to FoxConn, painting them as the "aww schucks" kinda honest guys that just didn't know about the challenges of the US labor market. The alternate take is that the whole deal was made in bad faith and FoxConn was hoping to collect subsidies and line its pockets. This version of events has some precedent[1]. It's especially hard to believe that FoxConn didn't know about US labor wh…

You know what's bad faith? Politicians bullshitting that these kind of factory jobs are ever going to come back. My smartphone will never be assembled in the US or Germany.

I'm not saying it's economical, but anyone willing to pay 2.5x the cost of a Made-in-China phone could have their phone assembled in the United States: https://puri.sm/posts/librem-5-usa/

(No relation to the company, though I did once have a very nice chat with Todd Weaver).

And to the larger point: I agree completely that politicians opening their mouths about jobs (and also about anything else, IMO) is bad faith bullshit.

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

#100

Post by rchaud »

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…

> but I'd like to see these deals be more level-headed before they get to this point.

I don't think that's possible considering the incentives at play. Politicians always have the next election in mind, and what better way to try to win it then sign a deal that promises jobs? Doesn't matter if the numbers bandied about are too good to be true --- just get pen to paper and point the finger at your opponent and decry him as anti-business.

Post reply on HN