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

141–150 of 265 posts

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

#141

Post by nendroid »

komali2 wrote: post #120
nendroid wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can you define the meaning of "worse" here and then back up your claim with evidence?

https://youtu.be/9KRe08n0d3o?t=7

Just watch it. I'm an american born chinese. I'm basically a lazy bastard like every other american. If you go to china you'll see these people are industrious af. They will work their ass off no question under slave labor until they kill themselves. You've heard of the nets to prevent suicide in Foxconn right?

The movie spins the whole situation as a cultural problem. This is partly true. The other part that is 100% true is that Chinese people work 400% harder and faster than you or I. I know from anecdotal experience both from going to China, working in a chinese store with other chinese people under my mom as a kid (and getting fired by my own mom for not being as efficient as the other chinese people) and watching this movie. It's real.

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

#142

Post by jayd16 »

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.

In a vacuum, it does not seem to follow from the 1st amendment that forming a corporation for financial expedience should also be protected speech. You don't lose speech by forming a new thing without speech if you retain your rights as an individual.

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

#143

Post by 8note »

Lazare wrote: post #94
ineedasername wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, and I don't like the decision, but there is a correlation with money none the less. Exercising speech takes resources. I cannot speak to the audience of newspaper readers without either investing capital to create a newspaper or by paying for ad placement in an existing one. Money is not, in itself, speech, but in our society it is integral to exercising that right at any scale much beyond a few individuals.…

> I think the main problem with the decision was the assertion that entities like corporations, rather than simply individuals, have free speech. The decision did not assert or assume this. It rested on the idea that individual have rights, and they do not lose those rights by acting collectively. If I'm allowed to speak, then I'm allowed to buy and use a printing press so that my speech can be more easily distribute…

Those humans can still express themselves, no? Nothing requires that they use their speach only at the new York times

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

#144

Post by 8note »

jeffbee wrote: post #126
fortran77 wrote: post #79

The fact that local governments in every state make deals with companies for reduced property-tax rates is why I'm terrified about Prop 15 killing California. The big businesses, Facebook, Google, Apple, will all negotiate special property tax rates and only the small businesses will have to pay the double or triple tax prop 15 would bring.

This is a very incorrect view of property taxation in silicon valley. Google and Apple are not going to be harmed in the least, because Google and Apple already pay a disproportionate amount of real property taxes in Santa Clara County. If Prop 15 makes legacy businesses pay a fair assessment on their parcels, relative newcomers like Google will be helped, not harmed. Google is Santa Clara County's largest taxpayer,…

This sounds like you're in agreement. The big companies will benefit, at the expense of the small companies

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

#145

Post by efitz »

__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…

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 own ends and call it “individual rights”.

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

#146

Post by Lazare »

8note wrote: post #143
Lazare wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the main problem with the decision was the assertion that entities like corporations, rather than simply individuals, have free speech. The decision did not assert or assume this. It rested on the idea that individual have rights, and they do not lose those rights by acting collectively. If I'm allowed to speak, then I'm allowed to buy and use a printing press so that my speech can be more easily distribute…

Those humans can still express themselves, no? Nothing requires that they use their speach only at the new York times

Are you really arguing that laws restricting or compelling the speech of media outlets is fine? That, eg, it would be perfectly constitutional had the Republicans passed a law making criticism of Trump by newspapers or television channels illegal?

I assume you would NOT be okay with that, but keep in mind that in the US, the first amendment applies to us as individuals. If those rights are forfeit when exercised collectively, then the result is a world where only the very, very rich can speak without the permission of the government. That's a horrifying outcome!

The rich, I would argue, have too much power already, and stripping the ability of the non-rich to band together to act as a counterbalance does nothing more than cement that power.

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

#147

Post by pg_bot »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #133
gruez wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I qualified the statement as the "worst of the 21st century". If you were to compile a list of worst decisions ever, I think most lawyers would say Dred Scott v Sanford, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v United States, Bowers v Hardwick, and Buck v Bell.

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

#150

Post by nendroid »

fiblye wrote: post #136
nendroid wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not blaming it on lazy americans. Huge difference. I blame the chinese directly. They never had the intention of hiring American workers. They know American workers are capable but inferior and they screwed them over on purpose.

>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.

And I'm saying there's a reason for this. It's not an accident. It's because they don't give a shit about American workers. They think American workers are inferior. They don't want to put any real money into the project they bought it up for some ulterior motive.

Not only American factory workers. But many places in the world. It's hard to beat the industriousness of Chinese workers.

I'm not gonna lie, I don't have hard evidence. I'm just guessing the situation but it's also somewhat obvious. You seriously think if China (taiwan technically) was serious about investing in blue collar workers in America they would let it just slide like this? We're talking about the fastest growing economy humanity has ever seen that has transformed from a backwards 3rd world country to a super power within your lifetime. They will eat up and devour any opportunity or deal in front of them. Why would the Chinese miss out on the American Factory Worker???? Probably because they don't give a shit.

The following isn't evidence but if you read my post and watch the linked video... it is an actual short snippet of a real life example of a serious chinese investor who tried employing American factory workers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24834199

American factory workers can't hold a candle to chinese industriousness. You think those Asian dad memes don't have an actual origin?

https://www.pinterest.com/lindaschloss/asian-father-memes/

Those memes aren't that far from the truth.

watch the movie if you're interested.

Post reply on HN