Slashdot Mirror


Apple's Top Assembler Foxconn Confirms Plans for US Investment, To Create 50,000 Jobs (bloomberg.com)

Foxconn, the biggest assembler of Apple devices, is in preliminary discussions to make an investment that would expand the company's U.S. operations. From a report on Bloomberg: The disclosure came hours after an announcement by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and SoftBank Group's Masayoshi Son to invest $50 billion in the U.S. and create 50,000 jobs. The money will come from SoftBank's $100 billion technology fund, which was announced in October, a person familiar with the matter said. A document that Son held up after the meeting in Trump Tower also included the words "Foxconn," "$7 billion" and "50,000 new jobs" in addition to SoftBank's numbers. "While the scope of the potential investment has not been determined, we will announce the details of any plans following the completion of direct discussions between our leadership and the relevant U.S. officials," Foxconn said in a statement. "Those plans would be made based on mutually-agreed terms."

324 comments

  1. Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Only fair.

    1. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why is wanting to preserve a culture "bad" when that culture is European, but pure virtue when it's some other culture? People are getting pretty tired of the racism inherent in the "everybody but Europeans (white)" mentality so prevalent among the regressive movement of late.

    2. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said civic society not culture. Is he wrong? Should CEOs and companies have a civic responsibility?

    3. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      But when it's white men that are the problem we're all good?

    4. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      On the record as opposing the Asianification of Silicon valley? Really? Please provide citation where he specifically says he opposes it.

    5. Re: Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when a Japanese guy those billions in hope for favors....

      YOU TAKE THE MONEY.

      And you keep your enemies closer...

    6. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the dominant culture is European and it has systematically sought to destroy other cultures through war, colonization, subjugation, forced assimilation, and economic coercion?

    7. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no "European" culture. If you ask any random Italian, German or Belgian if they identify with American culture and they're just going to give you a WTF look. The most common use of that phrase is on white supremacist websites based in the US, and is a typical dog whistle to bring out other racists. Oops !

      Also, there is no such mentality in the progressive community to exclude whites in any way shape or form. White culture is indeed the dominant culture in the US and also in the progressive community.

    8. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by jodokast98 · · Score: 1

      They're just jealous ... It's the sunburn prone skin, the genetically mutated eye colors, and the genetically mutated hair colors. How else do you explain the bleached blonde look hair kits, the colored contacts, and the pale skin creamers that are sold in abundance on the market? Since they're too busy "being white", they'd rather cry racism or cultural appropriation or whatever else; it's easier than claiming they find whites beautiful.

    9. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Really now? I think you need to read a book that wasn't written by Hitler. How about sun tan creams, "booty" enhancements, breast enhancements, etc.? Maybe people are just vain hairless naked mole rats scrounging for a living?

    10. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Straw man. Bernie's a white man and he's good. But not to Trump!

    11. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because the dominant culture is European and it has systematically sought to destroy other cultures through war, colonization, subjugation, forced assimilation, and economic coercion?

      Obviously we should have tried harder.

    12. Re: Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not according to white nationalists he isn't.

    13. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not what he said, but it's no wonder the media is clammering to get mouthpieces like you to go on the record as "really" getting it right.

      Trump voiced concern over these students attending Ivy League schools and then going home: “We have to be careful of that, Steve. You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country,” Trump said.

      When asked if he agreed, Bannon responded: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think ... ” he didn’t finish his sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”

      A civic society means that a society that props itself up and improves itself; it's not a racial thing, it's an inclusive thing. The problem with Bannon's quote's statistic is that it's literally backwards. But if it were not, I'd be pretty nervous that 66% - 75% of major technology companies were run by people born outside of the US. That would be a really bad sign for people born in the US. That's where the civic society comment comes from.

      I realize that people on Slashdot are better than most and have never misquoted a statistic, nor have they ever misread a study, but normal people do it all of the time. G. W. Bush did it and Obama has done it. And it will happen again! Dun, dun, dun...

    14. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Yes. Because without having civic responsibility in the long run their business will be doomed.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    15. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing we have you to explain this to us otherwise people may have missed all of these completely undeniable hegemonies, subjegations, and dominations.

    16. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by avandesande · · Score: 2

      It's dominant because it has been the most successful. People subjugating and killing each other.... they all do.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    17. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by jodokast98 · · Score: 1

      Whoosh ....

    18. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      Because the dominant culture is European and it has systematically sought to destroy other cultures through war, colonization, subjugation, forced assimilation, and economic coercion?

      Pretty sure Asian culture has done the same.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    19. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, there is no such mentality in the progressive community to exclude whites in any way shape or form.

      Do tell... That seems to be exactly how they create safe spaces and safe spaces and safe spaces and safe spaces and even safe spaces. They don't dare call it "segregation", it's just "safe spaces".

      There is no white culture, but it's dominant. Okay, makes prefect sense.

    20. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Fine, you don't like European culture? Don't use modern agriculture, medicine, electricity, most machine tools, piped water, electronics (covered under electricity), automobiles.... You people are lunatics.

    21. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by wyHunter · · Score: 2

      Indeed, speak to the Koreans about the Japanese.

    22. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's right; if whites want to join the progressive community they just need to admit how guilty and over privileged they are, and that every culture on the planet no matter how primitive and regressive is just as good as theirs.

    23. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned
      Only fair.

      That's what Trump has said that he would like to do. Yet here he is brokering a deal for Foxconn to open a factory here without having to do that. It's almost like Trump is dishonest.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Think of it as multiple virtual machines spawned to run things

    25. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by marquisdepolis · · Score: 1

      1. European cultures are of course well worth preserving, and it's done fairly aggressively. Come visit us in Europe in Germany or Spain or France - you'll see.
      2. You can only "preserve" cultures that aren't already the dominant paradigm. Just like you can only "preserve" animals that are endangered.

    26. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 2

      Are you saying non-European cultures didn't try the exact same thing? Also, lumping all of Europe together is pretty silly; there are significant differences between many European cultures.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    27. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I said there is no such thing as "European" culture. Because America has deviated to a large degree from all of those individual cultures. We have our own culture. My second comment used white as catch-all ethnicity in the context of a dominant US culture. Are you always this dumb or did you turn into an ignoramus mouth breather after you started supporting our first orange president.

      Do tell... That seems to be exactly how they create safe spaces and safe spaces and safe spaces and safe spaces and even safe spaces. They don't dare call it "segregation", it's just "safe spaces".

      What a snooze-fest. Half of those are nonsense second hand reports about someones email or some other shit, one is not even from this country (Newsflash UK is not part of the US), one talks about a freaking YOGA class - YAY!! Way to bring down whitey! Scary stuff!! Do you even know what what _actual_ racism and _actual_ segregation looks like? -people lynched and murdered for drinking water, murdered for simply being black, murdered for simply looking at someone's wife, enslaved and shackled and raped and forced to work as indentured servants.. etc etc. Jesus.. someone really beat you with a stupid stick all over didn't they?

    28. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      Also, there is no such mentality in the progressive community to exclude whites in any way shape or form.

      B U L L S H I T

      The vitriol of anti-white hatred (especially white MALES) coming from the SJW left these days is fucking palpable. The level of white guilt and white self-hatred in particular would be funny if it weren't so dangerous. It's gotten to the point where I strongly suspect that we would already be seeing "Whites need not apply" addendums to many job postings if that weren't still technically illegal. Oh wait, in the UK at least, we already are.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    29. Re: Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      Indeed, speak to all of East and Southeast Asia about the Japanese.

    30. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I said there is no such thing as "European" culture. Because America has deviated to a large degree from all of those individual cultures. We have our own culture

      Oh yes, because let's pretend that the U.S., Canada, and Australia don't share 99.9% of the same culture as Great Britain, including the same language and almost exact same legal/political systems, personal customs, etc. (Canada partially excluded, because of that damned Quebec). There is WAY more variation in culture and language in China than there ever has been between the UK and its English-speaking colonies, but that doesn't stop people from referencing "Chinese culture" or even "Asian culture."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    31. Re: Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stfu cuck

    32. Re: Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      King of the Hill already made that joke.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_CaZ4EAexQ

      Meanwhile, you seem to be confusing Great Britain for Europe. Nearly as bad as the Nazi views of Pan-Germanic cultute, or the Slavic Universalists.

    33. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know not one of those countries is in Europe right...
      Look at the actual culture of actual European countries, then tell us with a straight face they are American clones.

    34. Re: Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, speak to those tasty Australians about the Japanese.

    35. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Great Britain isn't in Europe?

      LOL. Oh yeah, Brexit. Not anymore, huh?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    36. Re: Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fun fact: the continually variable transmission (CVT) was invented by a poor Ghanaian woman.

    37. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'UK' is just the name we give an air and naval base of the US, located off the coast of Europe.

    38. Re: Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know leonardo da vinci identified as a ghanian woman.

    39. Re: Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh... there was a pretty good period where other regions tried to do worse, it culminated in the dark ages and set humanity back a long way.

    40. Re: Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I simultaneously agree that safe spaces are stupid while also not buying the idiotic "European culture" meme?

    41. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the same 13 hour days , living in barracks for a few dollars a day working conditions? After all turn around is fiar play

    42. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Because the dominant culture is European and it has systematically sought to destroy other cultures through war, colonization, subjugation, forced assimilation, and economic coercion?

      So it's a revenge thing?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    43. Re:Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Only fair.

      It is only fair if Americans build it or purchase it. The fact that this isn't at this moment so should tell you something.

    44. Re: Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youte an iduo or youre playing the race card..

    45. Re: Now make it a requirement that it's US-owned by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Too true!

  2. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of course the jobs will almost all be staffed by employment agencies that hire only H1-B and H2-B workers, but we can still claim we created jobs!

    1. Re:Awesome by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

      Trump is cracking down on that

    2. Re:Awesome by newdsfornerds · · Score: 2

      He'd need at least eight years and two unicorns to accomplish that but I hope he does.

      --
      Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
    3. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the jobs will almost all be staffed by employment agencies that hire only H1-B and H2-B workers, but we can still claim we created jobs!

      Ummm... citation needed please.

    4. Re:Awesome by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      He's not cracking down on anything. He's not in office yet.

    5. Re:Awesome by Jawnn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trump is cracking down on that

      Obligatory... [citation needed]

    6. Re:Awesome by colin_faber · · Score: 2

      Trump has stated that he would be "looking into" the H1B situation. Many talking heads, supporters and haters are assuming this means that changes are coming. The money thinks changes are coming, so likely changes are coming but he's not in office yet. In either case this is more winning for Trump even before he's entered office. Very much new CEO strategy.

    7. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it will be staffed by the thousands of Americans who will move across the country to live in the company dorms, to work their 9.5 hour shift three days a week (so they are part time and don't get health benefits) bent over a microscope putting a screw in a smartphone at mimimum wage.

    8. Re:Awesome by johanw · · Score: 2

      And yet he's getting a Taiwanese company to create jobs in the US. Seems that phone call with the Taiwanese president may have been good for something, and not only for pissing off mainland China.

    9. Re: Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled "The Taiwan Extreme Autonomous District", comrade.

    10. Re:Awesome by Kagato · · Score: 1

      HAHAHA. Given the GOP has a bill floating around to remove all H1-B caps color me not impressed.

    11. Re:Awesome by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Vaguely recall Obama saying he was going to get rid of Guantanamo before he won the first time, that is a more definitive statement than "looking into".
      Trump can "look into" the H1B situation and then do nothing, at least he won't have lied when nothing changes.

  3. A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Finally with an entrepeneur taking the reins we may be staring down a new golden age for America... withtout all the BS and fake numbers spewed by the recent federal government regimes. Unemployment at less than 5%? Puh-leeze. I guess maybe if you count crap work and part time jobs with no benefits. Trump is going to take the world by the balls and basically start squeezing and say "stop fucking us over OR ELSE. Now would you like to talk?"

    1. Re: A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wish it were a conspiracy theory but Obamacare really was about keeping average working hours to thirty a week so more people would share the few jobs there are. And it did work, for a given value of 'work'.

    2. Re:A new golden age by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trump is going to take the world by the balls and basically start squeezing and say "stop fucking us over OR ELSE. Now would you like to talk?"

      The problem is that while Trump may think he has his hands on the world's balls, he doesn't realize that the world also has it's hands on the US's balls. Trade doesn't exist in a vacuum and playing chicken with the economy is not something to look forward to.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:A new golden age by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For the past 30 years we've been rolling over and playing dead. Maybe try something else for a bit?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:A new golden age by neo00 · · Score: 1

      ... he doesn't realize that the world also has it's hands on the US's balls. Trade doesn't exist in a vacuum and playing chicken with the economy is not something to look forward to.

      I wonder to what extent this is true, in context of this story. Given the fact that this money seems to be coming primarily from Saudi Arabia and, potentially, other unknown sources.

      The money would come from a $100 billion investment fund that SoftBank Chief Executive Masayoshi Son is setting up with Saudi Arabia's sovereign-wealth fund and other potential partners, according to the Wall Street Journal.

      Src: http://www.foxbusiness.com/pol...

    5. Re:A new golden age by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      For the past 30 years we've been rolling over and playing dead. Maybe try something else for a bit?

      I have no problem with trying something different, but extremism is always ill-advised.

      Just imagine the state of affairs 1 year down the track if Trump issues some scorched earth policy that somehow pisses off the middle east* and in response OPEC suddenly ramps up oil production and destroys Trump's attempt to boost the US oil industry and causing a major meltdown in employment in the midwest.

      * Given his Taiwan excursion this week (planned or unplanned - you make the call), pissing off other countries is not to be unexpected.

      BTW starting various wars and invading various countries hardly sounds like playing dead.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    6. Re:A new golden age by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      I agree that it doesn't seem to apply in this particular case*, but the OP was positing a new golden era based on playing hardball - which was what I was replying to.

      * The interesting thing is that from the article you linked:

      It was not immediately clear how much of SoftBank's investment has been disclosed before. Softbank said on Nov. 7, the day before the U.S. election, it planned to make future large-scale investments via the $100 billion tech fund, rather than on its own, to avoid growing already bloated debt.

      So it seem that Trump is taking advantage of something that wasn't his doing.

      I can also see the Dem's having a field day about Saudi money financing Trump's desires.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    7. Re:A new golden age by darkmeridian · · Score: 1, Informative

      Trump's Taiwan excursion was heavily planned after months of lobbying by Bob Dole and other registered foreign agents of Taiwan. Oh, and the Trump Organization sent someone to investigate a potential billion dollar deal to develop land in Taiwan while this was going on. But no conflict of interest there!

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    8. Re:A new golden age by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      It's adorable that you actually think any of that is going to happen.

    9. Re:A new golden age by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just imagine if bad things happen! Your overactive imagination is not an argument.

      Also, am I allowed to be pissed off at China for taking our jobs, our factories, our IP, constantly fucking with their currency and failing to abide by our trade agreements? What does anyone being "pissed off" have to do with anything? Are you the kind of guy who pays sticker price for a car because you don't want to "piss off" the car dealer? Who gives a shit.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    10. Re: A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the other way around already -- nowhere in the world can burger flippers and waiters can buy 55" TVs and drive cars. America's already great compared to 90% of the world. Only thing Trump is capable of doing is take it down. My biggest fears are: he will get a second term. Pence will actually be calling the shots. They are much much worse than Bush and Dick Cheney was (especially Pence).

    11. Re:A new golden age by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The other reason that China bought up a lot of US debt was to make sure there were no more property bubbles in the Far East funded by American money. They deliberately prevented Trump and people like him developing land over there, and aren't about to let them now.

      It could get ugly if Trump and co. start using the US economy as leverage to get personal real-estate deals off the ground.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think that the employees in this new location will be paid more than minimum wage and no benefits? If so, I hope you're expecting a sharp increase in prices, since that's what's being paid for overseas.

      Or that it will hire very many people since they'll probably automate it all? That'll affect the unemployment rate like 0.01% LOL

    13. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh, the pissing off China by seemingly recognizing Taiwan as an independent state is a thing that actually happened, you know.

      If you voted for DT, you are not allowed to be pissed off. China didn't take your jobs / factories. IP you MAY have an argument for, but not the other two. Chinese Manufacturers and Corporations can produce for much cheaper labour. In a "pro-corporation" stance that many Americans seem to have taken that want less regulation (despite backroom deals with specific companies), this is a result -- China has almost no (safety, minimum wage) regulations that it observes.

    14. Re: A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      China is taking our real estate, too.

    15. Re:A new golden age by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      Finally with an entrepeneur taking the reins we may be staring down a new golden age for America... withtout all the BS and fake numbers spewed by the recent federal government regimes. Unemployment at less than 5%? Puh-leeze. I guess maybe if you count crap work and part time jobs with no benefits. Trump is going to take the world by the balls and basically start squeezing and say "stop fucking us over OR ELSE. Now would you like to talk?"

      You have no idea what kind of "jobs" this will even end up being. Foxconn is already shipping jobs out of China to Africa and automating more of their plants because Chinese workers cost too much, so don't expect these token jobs to be making more than minimum wage. They could even go the Wal-Mart route and make them part time with the government (tax payers) picking up the rest through welfare.

    16. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just imagine the state of affairs 1 year down the track if Trump issues some scorched earth policy that somehow pisses off the middle east* and in response OPEC suddenly ramps up oil production

      Wow, I'm anti-Trump but I think that would be a good thing for everyone. Scorching earth sounds destructive, of course, but OPEC increasing production can only be a good thing for everyone (except them). More abundance causes lower prices, and the less OPEC charges us for oil, that's a net gain to our economy, period.

      If it means that domestic oil business takes a short-term hit, so fucking what? The oil can stay in the ground and be harvested later.

      ...Trump's attempt to boost the US oil industry and causing a major meltdown in employment in the midwest.

      Attempting to boost the US oil industry would be an on-the-face-of-it a stupid thing to do. Every penny he spends on that, is definitely for-sure going to be a total waste. The sooner such a silly idea runs out of steam, the better for America.

    17. Re:A new golden age by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0

      Finally with an entrepeneur taking the reins we may be staring down a new golden age for America...

      A) Trump is not an entrepreneur in the strictest sense. He had daddy give him a few million plus ready made contacts to get started. A true entrepreneur would be like Jobs and Wozniak or Gates or Musk.

      B) The only gold we're going to see is the hideous gold paint Trump will plaster the White House with.

      Unemployment at less than 5%? Puh-leeze. I guess maybe if you count crap work and part time jobs with no benefits.

      Those people are working, aren't they? That means they are not unemployed. Therefore the number is correct. The survey only asks if you're working, not what kind of work.

      Trump is going to take the world by the balls and basically start squeezing and say "stop fucking us over OR ELSE. Now would you like to talk?"

      And in turn countries, such as China, will say, "Give us our money for all the bonds we've been buying from you." That then sends us into an economic depression as we have to come up with ways to pay those bondholders or do what Trump thinks is good business sense and throw up our hands and default.

      Because the U.S. defaulting on its obligations will have no impact whatsoever.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    18. Re:A new golden age by Ksevio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because in return you get cheap consumer products and the consequences of Chinese manufacturing are far away. Manufacturing jobs aren't coming back to what they were a few decades ago. Automation means factories need to employ far fewer people. Do you really care if a factory is physically located in the US or in China if there are (relatively) no people employed at it? Let's assume the factory extorted the government to avoid paying taxes.

    19. Re:A new golden age by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      So, with most of the money flowing out of the US, who has the most leverage if that flow is cut back?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    20. Re:A new golden age by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Unemployment at less than 5%? Puh-leeze. I guess maybe if you count crap work and part time jobs with no benefits.

      In other words, most of these 50,000 new assembly plant jobs?

    21. Re:A new golden age by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Are they really "taking" your jobs and factories though? I mean, do you actually want a job that pays $2/hour manually assembling stuff like a robot all day? And if China didn't exist, would you be able to get that job or would it have been automated already?

      It's more like, to sustain a reasonable standard of living in a modern western country you need both cheap goods and a higher wage than the cheap goods can sustain, and should focus your effort on better paid high end manufacturing and services.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:A new golden age by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      "China, will say, "Give us our money for all the bonds we've been buying from you." That then sends us into an economic depression as we have to come up with ways to pay those bondholders or do what Trump thinks is good business sense and throw up our hands and default. "

      Which causes China's economy to tank. They simply will not do that when they rely on the US so heavily. They can't afford to.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    23. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "OPEC suddenly ramps up oil production " The Saudis already tried this strategy and all it did was make the US shell oil production companies become more efficient and lower the profit breakeven point.

      "scorched earth policy that somehow pisses off the middle east"
      The ME has already been "scorched" for quite some time. It's time the US backed out of the region and let the murder and mayhem currently sweeping the region burn itself out. You would be hard pressed to find any US citizen who would object to this type of policy.

      "Trump's attempt to boost the US oil industry"
      The US oil industry is doing just fine without any heavy handed government interference. They have just located another shale oil field in Texas that dwarfs the ND fields. For the first time in a long time the US is not dependent on foreign energy sources.

      "pissing off other countries "
      Who gives a shit. The incessant whining from foreign countries has already pissed off the US public which lead to Trump getting elected. It's past time for a US President to remind the world that actions have consequences they might not like. Right now America's "allies" around the world are scared the US might not have their back unless the start contributing more to the relationship. Countries have been dumping on the US and blaming the US for all the world ills while standing around with their hands out expecting the US to finance their national defense and solve all their other self made problems they won't own up to.

      "BTW starting various wars and invading various countries hardly sounds like playing dead"
      Well these other countries should stop inviting the US to their countries with their stupid actions. They are free to kill one another and blow up anything they want within their own country but exporting that madness will always end with someone getting a boot up their ass.

    24. Re:A new golden age by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      High end manufacturing? You mean, like the most advanced cell phones and electronics in the world?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    25. Re:A new golden age by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      More like value-added services like operational research on the function of a mine, or design of the next global power super computer, or anything that isn't really just a commodity item on the downward section of its product lifecycle. Look it up.

    26. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A) Na ah. You can't be an entrepreneur unless you start with exactly one buck!

      B) Thanks for the stupid.

    27. Re:A new golden age by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      And how exactly do you expect our average 100 IQ worker to do that shit? That's all fine for me...I'm an electrical engineer. But what about my less gifted countrymen? What should they do?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    28. Re:A new golden age by ranton · · Score: 1

      For the past 30 years we've been rolling over and playing dead. Maybe try something else for a bit?

      What you call rolling over and playing dead, would be more accurately called leading the world at the end of the second industrial revolution and setting the stage to lead in the next revolution. There is no economy which compares to the USA. The European Union as a whole is the closest comparison, with 71% of the US's GDP per capita (PPP). The USA is undeniably the leader of this generation's technological revolution. Anyone who looks at the last 30 years of the USA and sees a nation rolling over and playing dead needs to read a book sometime.

      None of this guarantees the US will remain the world economy's leader over the next century. In fact it is nearly impossible we can lead with the same level of authority especially as Asia continues to develop. But if our nation's leaders look at the last 30 years of the USA as anything but something to replicate then we have little chance of keeping up as the world evolves.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    29. Re:A new golden age by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I love how Nixon was discredited in pretty much every aspect of his presidency but some stuff he says about China is canon.....

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    30. Re:A new golden age by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Have you been to the rust belt? The financial elite are doing great, yes. The middle and working class? Not so much.

      A nation is more than its GDP.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    31. Re:A new golden age by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      You shouldn't be pissed off at China for ignoring the IP of the developed nations and using it to catch up. That's what countries at their stage of development do. The US did that early in it's history, especially with fabrics. So it's a bit hypocritical for the US to have used those techniques to advance their economy and then try to deny China the same thing. Either that or admit that it was wrong for doing those things in the past.

    32. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) Trump is not an entrepreneur in the strictest sense. He had daddy give him a few million plus ready made contacts to get started. A true entrepreneur would be like Jobs and Wozniak or Gates or Musk.

      Jobs, Wozniak, and Musk are truly self-made entrepreneurs. Gates through his wealthy mother was able to land a very lucrative deal with IBM to develop MS/PC-DOS.

    33. Re:A new golden age by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They do low level assembly at Foxxcon. The high end manufacturing is done elsewhere, e.g. Sharp and LG make the LCD panels. Some of that is done in China, but by robots because human beings are not very good at making silicon ICs and gluing LCD stacks.

      I was thinking more about the kind of stuff they do in Germany. You can have a house made in a factory for assembly on-site like a model kit, all bespoke to your specifications. Quality German cars. Wind turbines. Stuff that is not really suited to automation (too low volume, too difficult etc.) and pays at least minimum wage.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re:A new golden age by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Since when are nations acting in their economic self interest subject to moral arguments? The goal is winning success for your nation and a nice life for your people, not being "moral" about intellectual property.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    35. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until my $350 Rumba can actually do it's job, I'm not too worried about less gifted folks having something to do.

      Floors need sweeping, windows need cleaned, etc. What needs to change is the attitude of those looking for jobs but that won't happen as long as there are significant hand outs that prevent them from being properly desperate enough to want to work.

    36. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why the fuck would I want a $300 smartphone if I can't get a job for more than burger-flipper wages? My grandfather could afford to raise a family, buy a house, go on vacations, and send his kids to college on his blue collar salary alone. A shiny iphone is a piss-poor substitute for that. I would cheerfully pay 10 times for these stupid electronic gizmos if it means I get back the standard of living that once made America the envy of the world.

    37. Re:A new golden age by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      Whatever number you use for unemployment (whether it be the 9% that includes everyone, or 4% that only includes those seeking work), the net results is that it's going down and has been. Whichever number you use is better than the 2008 number. That includes wages as well (though moving slower than I'd like).

      Trump just has to not fuck up. He's being handed the easiest job compared to his predecessors. So far he seems to be doing ok, to my surprise.

    38. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.
      Remember the US accounts for 4% of the worlds population.
      China will soon be the worlds biggest economy and it will not be long before the EU becomes the 2nd biggest,

      Trump is putting at risk over 2 Trillion worth of exports.

      Asia is the fastest growing market in the world, the US could see its self locked out.

    39. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your job is to insert screw 4b, 10,000 times a day.

    40. Re:A new golden age by wyHunter · · Score: 2

      What? China took US dollars for its goods - logical, it's the world's reserve currency. However, they had excess dollars for their foreign exchange needs, so they bought investments in absolutely safe items - US government dollar denominated debt. They're moving out of this some and buying resources, property, and other valuable considerations.

    41. Re:A new golden age by slew · · Score: 1

      The other reason that China bought up a lot of US debt was to make sure there were no more property bubbles in the Far East funded by American money. They deliberately prevented Trump and people like him developing land over there, and aren't about to let them now.

      It could get ugly if Trump and co. start using the US economy as leverage to get personal real-estate deals off the ground.

      Hardly. There are property bubbles like you can't imagine all over the far east (including china in Shanghai and Shenzen). Are you trying to say that by buying US treasuries, they prevented the private US companies from borrowing money to invest in real-estate deals? Apparently the People's Bank of China didn't get the memo because they were basically funding both the bubble AND buying US treasuries. Of course now they have over the last couple years sold a big chunks of their US treasury holdings to address their own liquidity problems because of their slowing economy and the growing property bubbles.

      If they were "smart" they would have let american companies take some of that risk, right?

      Sounds to me that China bought up a lot of US debt as a safe place to park money that has the advantage of being pretty liquid (because there is a robust secondary market in US debt instruments)... Just like everyone else in the world does.

    42. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how Nixon was discredited in pretty much every aspect of his presidency but some stuff he says about China is canon.....

      I dunno, there are some lefties that long for Nixonian wage/price controls, and he technically did campaign to get us out of Vietnam...

      Now what he actually did and how that turned out, that's another story...

    43. Re: A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful, or you'll set off the gadget fetishists growling. Slashdot is chock full of them, you know.

    44. Re: A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, your adult diapers need changing? Oh, is that still a few years off? Regardless, you need more proles, it seems.

    45. Re:A new golden age by ranton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you been to the rust belt? The financial elite are doing great, yes. The middle and working class? Not so much.

      I grew up in the rust belt on my dad's farm (which he rented). And then I did what the majority of people leaving the middle class have done, I moved to the upper middle class. A combination of public school funding, supportive parents, publically funded colleges, and federally backed student loans made it possible for someone who even screwed up enough to drop out of college his first time (very immature) to move up in stature in society. And far from this being a rare success story, it is what has happened to two thirds of the people who are moving out of the middle class.

      What is true is that the gap between the upper classes of society and the lower classes is widening. This is a product of many factors, but mostly because the economy is doing so well and those with more resources and/or more capability are better able to take advantage of that opportunity. The widening gap at its root can be summed up with the old saying "it takes money to make money". While obviously not entirely true, overall it explains most of our country's problem with the left-behind working class.

      The only thing we know nearly for certain is that the working class success stories of the last century are a thing of the past. When manufacturing and other low skill industries come back to the US, it will be because automation has reached a level where few unskilled labor is required. The working class will not be able to provide their children the same opportunity I can provide mine. That is why I made the switch to a more progressive view in my late 20's. We can still have a similar level of opportunity, but it will come from income redistribution.

      Taxes and public aid, like my federally backed student loans, are how we can fix this imbalance. It won't come from bringing high paying rust belt jobs back to this country. That part of human history is over. We just need to find a way to fight against demagogues who prey on struggling citizens' broken pride and tell them what they want to hear. Especially when those leaders fight against the same progressive policies which could help them most.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    46. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when are nations acting in their economic self interest subject to moral arguments? The goal is winning success for your nation and a nice life for your people, not being "moral" about intellectual property.

      That's why Australia is thinking about greatly expanding the scope of fair-use. They figure, nobody is gonna stop producing English language material because sales in Australia tank, so if they ignore the morality of effectively enabling piracy, they can help to make a nicer life for their people...

      http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries...

    47. Re: A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will not be long before the EU is fragmented into several dozen small economies.

    48. Re:A new golden age by slew · · Score: 1

      I can also see the Dem's having a field day about Saudi money financing Trump's desires.

      The Dems probably shouldn't be throwing such stones. Two reasons...
      1. Apparently the Clinton Foundation has ingested quite a bit of Saudi money over the years...
      2. SoftBank is a *Japanese* tech conglomerate, not a Saudi tech fund...

    49. Re:A new golden age by larryjoe · · Score: 1

      "China, will say, "Give us our money for all the bonds we've been buying from you." That then sends us into an economic depression as we have to come up with ways to pay those bondholders or do what Trump thinks is good business sense and throw up our hands and default. "

      Which causes China's economy to tank. They simply will not do that when they rely on the US so heavily. They can't afford to.

      The holders of US treasury bonds can't simply return them for a refund. They have to sell them to other buyers. So, there is no direct impact on the US federal budget. However, dumping a large number of bonds on the market puts downward pressure on the bonds, which increases the yield, which then in turn affects things like mortgage rates.

      China has dumped large (tens of $ billions) in some months. However, they can't dump them too quickly or they would have to sell at a discount.

    50. Re:A new golden age by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Foxconn already has a facility in Indianapolis, http://www.foxconngfo.com/fact...

      It sounds like a terrible place to work. I know some people that work there.

    51. Re:A new golden age by ranton · · Score: 2

      And how exactly do you expect our average 100 IQ worker to do that shit? That's all fine for me...I'm an electrical engineer. But what about my less gifted countrymen? What should they do?

      100 IQ workers are the least of our problems. How about the approximately 34% of people who fall between 85-100? That question is essentially what led me to become more progressive in my late 20's. There is no answer for the majority of these people other than public assistance. We cannot wish ourselves back to a world where manufacturing work had enough economic value to support $30/hour jobs with good pensions. At least not tens of millions of these jobs anyway.

      The answer is ensuring everyone is able to have a good quality of life regardless of their economic value (income redistribution), and that the main avenues to future economic prosperity (education) are as open and available to the working class as they are to the upper class. That is much harder to implement than it is to propose, but they are the heart of most progressive economic policies.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    52. Re:A new golden age by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I would cheerfully pay 10 times for these stupid electronic gizmos if it means I get back the standard of living that once made America the envy of the world.

      Sure, who wouldn't? The problem is, it doesn't mean that at all. If the gizmos are assembled by robots in America and the money goes back to China or even better, gets hidden away in whatever country is the tax haven of the week, then the end result is actually worse than if the doodads had been made in another country because we have to eat all of the pollution. And as it turns out, Foxconn has a bad record even for a Chinese company.

      Letting Foxconn build an automated factory in the USA, employing construction workers for a year or two and then only a mere handful of minimum-wage employees whose job is to clear jams from machines, is not going to bring back your grandfather's standard of living. That was based on being the last guys to enter WWII, after the rest of the world had the shit bombed out of it — and then bombing it some more. Producing all that stuff and then letting companies like Lockheed and Boeing keep whatever materials were "left over" at the end of the war to make stuff with (e.g. Lockheed not only made airplanes, but also AlClad travel trailers — we've got a 1962 Streamline "Duchess" here) is how we created that prosperity. Not to mention selling the Nazis fuel and the Japanese Aluminum during the early parts of the war, or the company Prescott Bush ran during the war whose purpose was to funnel funds to Hitler's S.S. — the seed capital behind the Bush family fortune was based on Nazi profiteering.

      TL;DR: American prosperity was based on Nazi victories.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    53. Re:A new golden age by taniwha · · Score: 1

      No for the past 30 years you've been competing on the world stage ... and failing ....

      The problem is that you want trading partners that will sell you cheap stuff, but want to sell your own stuff at far higher prices ... a free and open market doesn't work that way

    54. Re:A new golden age by marquisdepolis · · Score: 1

      "For the past 30 years we've been rolling over and playing dead."
      [citation needed]

    55. Re: A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as folks like you think it's worse.. we are doing ok.

    56. Re:A new golden age by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Where is this free and open market you speak of?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    57. Re:A new golden age by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, upstate New York.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    58. Re:A new golden age by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      I suggest a modest revision of Swift's "A Modest Proposal"...that's what I expect to happen in the new Gilded Trump Age.

    59. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but that's ok in my opinion. Mutually assured ball destruction could lead to less armed conflict. I hope in one hand as I crap in the other...

    60. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K bro your income will be the first to be "redistributed". And no, you can't decide where it goes. The progressive elites will.

    61. Re: A new golden age by jhoger · · Score: 1

      Obamacare didn't cause jobs to switch to full time. It was a prediction but it didn't come true because health insurance isn't the only expense versus going part time.

    62. Re: A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm fed backed student loans are now thought to contribute to spiraling education costs. There are no good solutions and THIS is what needs to be tackled : what happens when the robots do all the jobs?

    63. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, every single trade agreement the US has signed has been to the favour of the US. You basically dictate terms to the whole world. Invade anywhere you like, kill who you like. And still claim to be the victim.
      Wow, you really are white men aren't you.

    64. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China can't have liquidity problems, it can print its own currency. They had problems with the exchange rate falling too quickly, and had to sell a Trillion $US worth of treasuries to prop it up for a while.

    65. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the money stops flowing out, then the US dollar keeps rising. All your stuff becomes too expensive to export, all your imports get cheaper still and you lose even more local jobs.
      You could always cry about other countries 'manipulating their currencies' but don't expect to force another revaluation like you did to Japan in the day.

    66. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But every time the US wants to spend money is has to sell bonds first. You know how the budget is in massive deficit as far as the eye can see.
      Who will buy US bonds from America at full price, when they can just get them from China cheaper?

    67. Re: A new golden age by ranton · · Score: 1

      Hmmm fed backed student loans are now thought to contribute to spiraling education costs.

      Only by those who haven't researched the topic. Read Why Does College Cost So Much? for a good run down of the actual evidence, and student loans barely register. It basically all comes down to every labor intensive service which requires highly educated and difficult to automate practitioners, whether they be doctors or professors, has grown in cost much faster than inflation.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    68. Re:A new golden age by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      So far he seems to be doing ok, to my surprise.

      So far? He hasn't even started the job yet.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    69. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just compare programmer salaries in the USA vs programmer salaries abroad. Then ask yourself if in 2016 there is a reason coders have to be in America. Can Trump stop that gap?

    70. Re: A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but without bulldozers and dump trucks, our real estate ultimately stays here. Not sure what your point is. Herr Drumpf has bought property all over the world, as have many other Americans/US Corporations.

    71. Re:A new golden age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your grandfather probably didn't buy the toys we find necessary. Most households that had a car had only one. There usually was one Ma Bell phone in the home, it was a luxury to have more. Probably no AC either! Probably if a TV was owned there was only one, although they frequently lasted long enough that an old one might get relegated to the kid's room, or a den. He probably wasn't paying for cable, college, particularly state schools, were pretty cheap (U of Texas was about $280/semester in the early 70's), wasn't paying cell phone bills for multiple phones, and probably didn't have or use many credit cards. He saved for the vacations, and they probably were drive to, camp out, or cheap beach cabin rentals (going on my experience as a kid). And depending on the industry a blue collar salary probably made him middle class, by our standards. Unfortunately, due to corporations being given incentives to move offshore to where wages were nil by our standards, and subsequent automation of the ones that stayed, as well as a vilification of unions, those jobs will not be coming back. Even if there were some way to force a multinational company to move production back here it would be years before they could build the infrastructure, both the physical facilities as well as the supplier chain pipeline for what every components they needed. So if we build a cell phone manufacturer, or TV, or whatever, they will need 1) a factory to assemble the product (largely automated, I make my living writing software for this exact thing), the some company making the resistors, chips, screens. Oh, and as China is the only/biggest source/supplier of some of the "rare earth" minerals used in the screens and other tech items, pissing them off could mean either no supply or really expensive. I suspect you still would want your $300 smartphone (though they will likely be $800 without phone company subsidies) I see a lot of BK and McD employees with them, affording them is the issue.

    72. Re:A new golden age by marquisdepolis · · Score: 1

      List of states doesn't quite capture what I meant by citation needed.

      Love cowboy bebop also btw, re your sig.

  4. Softbank - Sprint & T-Mobile merger failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I suppose this doesn't have anything to do with current regulators blocking of Spint's merger with T-Mobile. Softbank president Son owns Sprint, so perhaps he's looking for a little favor when Trump assigns new folks over at the FCC.

    1. Re:Softbank - Sprint & T-Mobile merger failure by neo00 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You're probably right. The de-regulation that Trump has been advocating for would potentially let the merger pass this time.

      “We were talking about it, and then I said I’d like to celebrate his presidential job” because Trump will advocate deregulation, Son told reporters according to Bloomberg News.

      There was a lot of speculation about that since the day after the election.

    2. Re:Softbank - Sprint & T-Mobile merger failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump has specifically stated he is against big mergers and prefers competition. He has never proposed ANY changes to anti-trust law or its implementation. That is a very different thing from reducing regulations on business operations.

    3. Re:Softbank - Sprint & T-Mobile merger failure by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      I suppose this doesn't have anything to do with current regulators blocking of Spint's merger with T-Mobile. Softbank president Son owns Sprint, so perhaps he's looking for a little favor when Trump assigns new folks over at the FCC.

      That is the other political side of this, along with the Saudi money, planning since before Trump was a candidate, and the temporary nature of construction jobs. Unfortunately for Americans that political BS is all it takes to be popular, so they are well and truly fucked.

  5. inevitably by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And in other news, Apple announced that their next iPhone is expected to retail for around $7000."

    1. Re: inevitably by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The labor cost in an Iphone is about $20-30. Thus, the cost to produce an Iphone goes up $15-20.

  6. Sales by snookiex · · Score: 1

    God, it's going to be an awfully big sales and marketing department.

    --
    Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
  7. The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by queazocotal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    50000 workers, at $25000 is 1.2 billion per year.
    These 'factories' are not going to be using employees at $10/hr to assemble PCBs.
    I note a story earlier this year "One factory has "reduced employee strength from 110,000 to 50,000 thanks to the introduction of robots", a government official told the South China Morning Post. ".

    Most of the putative 50000 jobs are going to be construction work building the factories.
    The factories are then going to be - if not totally lights-out - reducing employees to the bare minimum.
    If you're building a new factory in the USA, and contemplating employing workers at $10/hr for 5 years (three shifts), that's $500K per station or so (probably more costing all costs of employees.

    If you have even 100 employees constantly doing a very similar job, you can easily afford to spend 5 million developing a custom robotic solution, and deploying it for another $5m ($50K/station), and come very considerably out in front.

    ($10/h*24h*365*5 = 438k. Employers taxes and obligations add to this comfortably exceeding the 500k figure for three shifts)

    1. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Major+Blud · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most of the putative 50000 jobs are going to be construction work building the factories.

      That's still a net positive. That's 50,000 construction jobs that wouldn't exist in the U.S. if FoxConn stays put in China.

      If you have even 100 employees constantly doing a very similar job, you can easily afford to spend 5 million developing a custom robotic solution)

      $5,000,000 to develop a custom solution?!?! You're seriously underestimating the cost involved with that. Just a off-the-shelf robot alone can cost $100,000, without programming or other peripherals.
      https://techcrunch.com/2016/03...

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    2. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      50000 jobs constructing the factory for a couple of years at which time it goes away.
      And foxcon is not paying market prices for robots, for the simple reason that it makes sense to build them themselves - if they're going to end up replacing pretty much every worker. Even if they weren't, if you bought 10000 of them, the price would come down very considerably.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/tech... was the initial 'robots replace workers' story I was quoting earlier.

    3. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by edtice1559 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes but it's still better to have the construction and the factory here. There will be some jobs and maintenance as the factory runs. What's being pointed out here is what is already known by those who want to know. Automation is taking away more jobs than outsourcing. And that's not going away. The good thing about automation is that it's making US manufacturing competitive again. The downside is that manufacturing is just going to be a much smaller employer going forward.

    4. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple is supposed to have $215 Billion in cash reserves. They could pay for this out of pocket for quite a long while. Perhaps they should be made to?

    5. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's great for Trump, gives him a nice boost while in office and then stiffs whoever comes afterwards as the contracts end.

      Don't get me wrong, it's good that manufacturing is being built up in the US, but it's not a long term solution to the 21st century.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not, because the factory will just blackmail the gov't for larger and larger tax breaks, and move when it doesn't get them. There will be no benefit to the people, as usual, only the 1%.

    7. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      That way is problematic - because it means that your factories now can't compete at all and sell things outside the US.
      In principle, roboticised factories could.
      There is no good answer that results in repetitive manufacturing jobs coming back in massive numbers.

    8. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are missing the point, those jobs are not permanent. The converatives here in Canada tried to play the same game with pipelines and oil sands expansion. "We're creating thousands of jobs!!!" For exactly the amount of time it takes to build the pipline then 98% of you are laid off and the 2% maintain the thing.

      In this case, it will be factories. The jobs are not permanent. The international nightmare trump is creating, on the other hand, may just be permanent.

    9. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Your net only extends to America. Which is better than most American's net, which only extends to themselves.

    10. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Most of the putative 50000 jobs are going to be construction work building the factories.

      That's still a net positive. That's 50,000 construction jobs that wouldn't exist in the U.S. if FoxConn stays put in China.

      Temporary construction jobs isn't going to stop the hemorrhaging, and a band-aid fix isn't exactly delivering long-term prosperity, especially when some of those temporary jobs are going to be used building robots to replace human workers.

      Yes, it delivers temporary benefits, but rest assured we will hear the I-created-50,000-new-jobs statistic regurgitated 10 years from now, which at that point will be utter bullshit.

    11. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      Robots don't come from nowhere, they need to be designed, built, installed, programmed, and maintained. Even factories full of robots still need employees for facilities, maintenance, IT, management, finance, and more. So there will be lots of jobs in areas other than construction.

    12. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a lot of companies that couldn't design a Network Attached Storage system for $5m, an actual working robot.

      An Arduino connected to a few stepper motors doesn't count. Real robots need to be electrically safe, mechanically safe, have a software development lifespan (Q&A, release cycles, etc), material science needs to be up for constant duty for X years. You need to develop a maintenance schedule. You need to insure the robot . You need to develop replacement parts and keep them in stock. You also need to train people to repair the robot and then hire them to fix the robots.

    13. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "goodness" of the deal is completely dependent on what FoxConn got promised in return. This is so corrupt it is ridiculous. Foreign companies making business deals with the president in return for "favorable terms" from the government.

    14. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      Foxconn is already heavily involved with robotics, and is reducing their employee count in China because of it. So honestly, the robotic stations have been developed, they just have to ship them here.

    15. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      If you've got a hundred identical jobs being roboticised, you're not going to get remotely close to a hundred 'robot operator' jobs.
      China has a robust and growing industrial robot industry. They're not going to be buying from US vendors.

    16. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      No it's not, because the factory will just blackmail the gov't for larger and larger tax breaks, and move when it doesn't get them. There will be no benefit to the people, as usual, only the 1%.

      Exactly - just like the Carrier deal that pushed aside better companies and will increase total unemployment due to unequal treatment, this policy failure just starts the domino effect all over again.

    17. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were a construction worker, I'd rather have a job for 10 years than zero years.

      There are no factory workers in this US FoxConn factory being replaced because the factory doesn't exist yet.

      I can't think of anything that will stop the trend of automation. So why not get 50,000 jobs while we figure out what to do next.

    18. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Blackmail with what leverage? No jobs?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    19. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      The threat to move after a politician has built their political muscle on the basis of the employment provided. Big firms are powerful, and the US had done everything possible to destroy the unions where were the only force that could have resisted them.

    20. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you got to go through the chain of command, Department of the interior, department of state, EPA, union board, OSHA etc. Everyone of them need to be wined, dined, and greased up.

      It's bad manners not bribing the useless beaurocrats.

    21. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Big firms are powerful, and the US had done everything possible to destroy the unions where were the only force that could have resisted them.

      Decline in US labor pricing power due to globalization did that. And we would still have globalization even if the US erected trade barriers way back when. Here is the usual failure to understand basic causes and to attribute current failure to convenient scapegoats.

    22. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building a pipeline across Canada will be at least a two decade project with massive employment for a sizable chunk of those people's work-life and well-compensated too. Afterwards many of these workers will move onto another project somewhere either building or maintaining pipelines, or transitioning into management roles in other firms in a variety of related industries. That is as long as the oil companies pay for the pipelines the taxpayers are not on the financial bail-out hook.

    23. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      There's no need to blackmail because with automation, the U.S. will be the most cost-effective place to manufacture. So there's no reason to move anywhere. The wrinkle there is that while the manufacturing is in the U.S. (and it's been growing in the US for a few years now), *jobs* aren't going to increase.

    24. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Factories don't operate in a vacuum; an entire supply chain springs up around them.

    25. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by geekmux · · Score: 1

      If I were a construction worker, I'd rather have a job for 10 years than zero years.

      There are no factory workers in this US FoxConn factory being replaced because the factory doesn't exist yet.

      I can't think of anything that will stop the trend of automation. So why not get 50,000 jobs while we figure out what to do next.

      Ironically, those 50,000 jobs will help accelerate the impending doom of automation, which is the last fucking thing we need right now. And once automation takes a foothold, we know what's "next".

      Society and business must learn to shift to adapt to these changes with human employment, which acceleration would force a more rapid adoption to concepts like UBI to offset what automation will ultimately destroy. Since UBI depends on the infamous speed of Government to help legislate it through, we need to be moving a bit more methodical, and not acting out of desperation with regards to "jobs" that feed short-sightedness and destroy long-term options.

      TL; DR - We have enough greedy people myopically and selfishly focused on the next quarterly results rather than long-term prosperity. Don't need to feed that shit mentality.

    26. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's still a net positive. That's 50,000 construction jobs that wouldn't exist in the U.S. if FoxConn stays put in China.

      Temporary jobs. At 2-4 years for the construction projects, that's just enough of a draw for a political ad saying, 'I brought the jobs, as I promised. Paid for by Trump for re-election.'

      Will it make an actual difference? Doubtful considering there is a likely market bust coming soon, next 3 years~, which everyone seems to be sticking their head in the sand on. Even $Billionaire trump, can't stop that, with the full weight of the 'Fed' behind him. Only way, would be to have the Middle class foot the bill again, just like in 2008. That happens, the US economy will tank, cause NO ONE will have money to pay off their debt.

    27. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The GP to my post was talking about automated factories (very few jobs)...you're not following the discussion.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    28. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that different from any other major endeavor? Creating a hospital or jail or the Hoover Dam. The construction jobs are all temporary.

    29. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      To a degree, yes. Though other factories springing up to service them with raw materials will be facing exactly the same problem.

    30. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes but it's still better to have the construction and the factory here.

      Better how? You have to assume they're only planning this because Trump plans to gut the EPA and make it profitable for them to operate here while polluting the living shit out of this country like they've been doing to China. We get one year of construction jobs in exchange for minimum four years of heavy industrial pollution serious enough to be noticed even in China? On what planet does that sound like a good idea? Planet Trump's Cock?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read it all again, you missed everything.

    32. Re:The jobs will be mostly construction jobs. by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      This type of manufacturing is really "assembling." Electronics manufacturing looks clean but it's really dirty. The pollution associated with a microchip is insane. But this is an assembly line that's putting the parts together and it isn't going to pollute much at all.

  8. Americans? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    It's easy to create 50,000 jobs if you don't have to pay them well or hire locally. When those 50,000 seats are all filled by domestic workers making at least market rate, then it is time to call it a good job.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Americans? by ZipK · · Score: 1

      The jobs will be filled by Russian chatbots.

    2. Re:Americans? by tnok85 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean local MILFs in my area that want to talk to me?

    3. Re:Americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to create 50,000 jobs if you don't have to pay them well or hire locally. When those 50,000 seats are all filled by domestic workers making at least market rate, then it is time to call it a good job.

      I think plenty of people would agree that it's better than the unemployment line from companies inverting and leaving the country altogether. It's got to start somewhere, right? (rhetorical question)

    4. Re:Americans? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      The jobs will be filled by Russian chatbots.

      Nah, who needs Russian chatbots when MS produced the advanced Trump supporter chatbot, codename Tay
       
      /rimshot

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    5. Re:Americans? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, it's not.

      50,000 American jobs created by factory work? Okay. Now, those iPhones have to generate revenue to pay for those jobs. Apple has huge profit margins, so this isn't much fair (the US business average is under 10% profit margin); but let's say Apple isn't altruistic and is trying to keep those huge profit margins, or just pretend Apple is a normal US business with normal profit margins that fit its business growth and risk control needs (because the only violators of this are what, Apple, Google, and Microsoft?).

      To keep the same margins at higher American worker costs, you charge more for the phone.

      If you ship fewer phones, you'll have fewer jobs. That includes fewer exports, too, so less international revenue coming to the U.S.; but let's assume that doesn't happen. Everyone buys iPhones at $1,400 instead of $700.

      Someone concluded 36 million iPhones sold in the US. If we're imagining a doubling in price above (for illustration; order of magnitude is controlled by depth of price difference, and the difference isn't at 0--we'll get to that), that's $25.2 billion. That's equivalent to 1.52 million minimum-wage incomes.

      So for 50,000 jobs shipping 36 million iPhones to US customers (which I doubt actually happens) at $700 additional cost (doubling the price), you lose a maximum of 1.52 million jobs. It's only 50,000 jobs lost if the wages are on average $262/hr for those lost jobs ($524,000/year).

      As I said: the price increase controls magnitude. If you increase it by $100 ($700 becomes $800), you're looking at $3.6 billion. That's 218,000 minimum-wage jobs, or 50,000 $72k jobs ($36/hr average wage). That's your exchange.

      All of that is based on the sales of US phones to US people. That doesn't count international sales. The biggest take-aways here are that job creation or loss in practice depends on how much you pay the workers--pay them less and you create more jobs, as you noticed--and that everyone who isn't a factory worker and who buys the factory worker's product has less money to spend.

      At best, this is a way to enrich factory workers at the expense of all other Americans, reducing the number of available products and services (e.g. we could have expensive iPhones and no Spotify) by drawing both domestic and international money to a subset of peoples's hands, with the international money being spendable back into the US economy. At worst, this is a way to create poor US factory workers, a poor US middle class, and less-competitive United States business, causing a rapid fall in sales as people in Europe roll their eyes at higher-priced iPhones and just go to buy the Chinese-made competitor's product--or maybe Apple will sell Chinese-made phones outside the US and stay competitive, but the US factory workers won't get that international money (14,000 employees at Apple HQ are still getting that cash and propping up Cupertino's economy with $2 billion of wages from across the world).

      Again, as you observe: the net job change will be positive (an increase) if we pay the factory workers little and abuse them with minimal benefits and other cost-cutting measures, making them poor even as the products they produce become more-expensive than the import product. Even then, the US consumer still has less money to spend on everything else, and is thus poorer: he can buy fewer things with the same income.

    6. Re:Americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The manufacturing cost doubles, not the component cost. The manufacturing cost goes from $10-20/phone to $15-40/phone (50-100% increase.) Feel free to redo the rest of your math,

    7. Re:Americans? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      According to your "logic", the wisest thing we could possibly do is export and outsource ALL American jobs. Just imagine how rich we'd all be if none of us worked and nothing was produced here!

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    8. Re:Americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Apl we're talking about though.

      They charge stupidly high margins and provide little benefit hardware wise. They could get away with it.

    9. Re:Americans? by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      No, according to his "logic" jobs that *can* be outsourced while keeping the same quality should be. And he's right. If it can be made cheaper elsewhere with no loss in quality then it should be, because it means the cost of living decreases as the cost of goods decreases.

      The key here is "for the same quality". If you want higher pay compared to other countries, you have to provide higher quality. Germany knew this and was able to keep its population employed while having wide-open borders for trade. Their population is, on average, irreplaceable by cheap labor because cheap labor isn't capable of doing what its population does -- produce pristine, high-quality machines.

      Nobody *deserves* a job. You gotta earn it by being either lower-cost or better skilled. It's true of everything in the free market, why should it be an exception for American workers?

    10. Re: Americans? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So if we don't want most people living on a dirty street and starving like in other countries we need to figure out how to make better stuff then them? That's bullshit, especially when that stuff was designed here in the first place and cheap labor adds nothing to the quality of the product.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    11. Re:Americans? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's something to that, but you're missing a factor.

      Remember that part where I said the break-over point wasn't zero? For men and boys's cotton trousers and shorts eliminating all import from China, if all American jobs created to make those average above $18/hr wage, you have a net-loss of American jobs; if they average below $18/hr, you have a net gain. In either case, the cost of MBCT increases in terms of labor-hours, especially to the line workers--where a minimum-wage line worker model would raise the price from $14.97 average per pair to $25 and 1.8 hours's wage to 3.0, and a $21/hr worker model (GM factory line worker wage) would raise the price to $50.57/pair and from 0.71 hours's wage to 2.4.

      In both cases, the worker making the given salary (and every other American) spends more time working to buy the same good. That's called "being poorer", and the net result is fewer things shipped, fewer things sold, fewer retail workers, and so forth. The break-over point is non-zero because while you reduce the number of goods shipped and sold, the reduced number of formerly-Chinese jobs are added onto American jobs when the dust settles: if you lose 40,000 Chinese manufacture jobs, 57,000 American retail jobs, and you transfer the remaining 57,000 manufacture jobs form China to America, you get a net-zero change in American employment. Reduce the purchaseable goods further (by making them more-expensive) and you lose jobs; reduce it less (by paying lower wages and thus lowering the price) and you gain jobs.

      As for eliminating all American jobs, that's actually a viable goal. The main factor is time: if you eliminate some American jobs today, we will experience some unemployment, and also an increase in wealth (purchaseable goods per person). Give it time and our spending and labor force adjust to fit, buffing out the unemployment. Obviously, this means eliminating 30% of jobs today would wreck the economy; while eliminating 30% of today's jobs over the next 30 years would end in no increase in unemployment while every American ended up that much richer and capable of buying that much more stuff.

      Projecting this back, far more than 100% of all jobs which have ever existed have been eliminated (by technical progress), and we've outsourced a hell of a lot of jobs. There are things Americans simply don't do anymore, and the outsourced workforce is enormous. Furthermore, combining trade with technical progress, the sheer amount of stuff we import greatly exceeds what we were able to make before it was outsourced--which is only an amusing interpretation, because it's also true that technical progress has replaced pretty much all of our jobs several times over, and now we make here in America several times more than we could make a hundred years ago.

      The technical progress thing should be obvious, too. Imagine the farm workers it took to irrigate a field before we proposed a better way. It takes far fewer people to build, maintain, and operate the factories, pumps, and irrigation equipment to pivot-irrigate a farm than it does to have folks carry buckets of water back and forth all damned day.

    12. Re: Americans? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Actually, outsourcing and importing for cheaper is part of what gives the poor a better quality-of-life. The unemployment argument is a red herring: bringing any trade jobs back incurs an added cost, which raises prices and thus eliminates other jobs. If those prices raise enough to diminish the newly-created jobs beyond the number of jobs lost, then you have a net-loss of employment; this means American workers producing trade-import goods would need to be paid little to net-create jobs.

      Even then, the change is disturbing.

      Right now, Men and Boys's Cotton Trousers and Shorts retail for an average of $14.97 per pair (this is a rough Google number, and is probably inaccurate; it's also the only factor that can be variable and still correctly-demonstrate the principle). The Chinese import cost is 6 cents per pair (40,000 pairs shipped in a 40-foot shipping container, at an import cost less than $1,300 from China to US), with the Chinese labor cost at $6.14 per pair (via the published total number of imports of MBCT from China PRC and the total cost of those imports at import time). The difference in import and price includes the domestic shipping (truck drivers), retailing (inventory associates, cashiers, managers), logistics, and infrastructure (power, maintenance, rent) involved in local sale, as well as the profits.

      If we paid American factory workers above $18/hr to make MBCT, with a retail average of $14.97, we would lose total American jobs; if we paid under $18/hr, we would gain jobs. This is because the cost of MBCT would increase, and the total purchaseable goods would thus decrease, impacting the entire logistics chain of shipping and selling them, as well as reducing the number of factory jobs to make them; and the factory jobs recovered from China are added to the job market, offsetting this. If more jobs are lost than gained, you lose jobs in total.

      That's not the issue.

      Say you pay your factory workers $21/hr, the same salary as a GM line worker. The price of MBCT goes up from $14.97 to $50.57 (remember: $8.83 of that goes to American wages for cashiers, truck drivers, shelf stockers, and the like, with some carved out for taxes and profits; I'm assuming profit margins and taxes fall instead of increasing as well, instead of adjusting that $8.83 larger). Today, a $21/hr income lets you buy MBCT at 0.71 hours's work per pair. With $21/hr factory workers, they'd work for 2.4 hours to afford a pair.

      If you pay them an $8.25 minimum wage, the price rises to only $25. Today, an $8.25/hr wage lets you work for 1.8 hours and buy pants; at $25, an $8.25/hr wage requires you to work for 3.0 hours to afford the same pants you're making.

      If you think that sounds ludicrous, consider: before globalization, the median American household spent 12% of its income on clothing; once we started outsourcing to China, this rapidly fell to 4%. It's now under 3.5%--it's only slowly continued to fall since the great globalization revolution. That means globalization in fact decreased costs to 1/3 what they were.

      Outsourcing your jobs to another country that does the work a hell of a lot more cheaply creates an enormous capacity to buy, but somebody has to transport all that shit you're buying once it comes off the docks. You can't sail a ginormous shipping friggate up the mid-western basin to Colorado. That creates local jobs. Even then, unemployment dips nice and friendly-like, but it gets buffed out as population expands to fill the abundance of jobs, until some factor of scarcity (job scarcity, food scarcity, etc.) creates an expanding population in poverty and slows growth. Likewise, a small loss of jobs slows population growth until it adjusts to fit its economy's capacity, and can have a profound effect on the size of the labor force.

    13. Re: Americans? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Outsourcing your jobs to another country that does the work a hell of a lot more cheaply creates an enormous capacity to buy, but somebody has to transport all that shit you're buying once it comes off the docks. You can't sail a ginormous shipping friggate up the mid-western basin to Colorado.

      No, you have to unload those containers onto autonomous trucks. It won't be long before the trucks are unloaded by autonomous pallet jacks. Amazon is already hard at work (alongside others) eliminating the humans inside the warehouses. They're going to have to have automated shoppers pretty soon, because nobody else is going to be able to afford to buy anything.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re: Americans? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That's true. That's a continuation of when Ikea adjusted the shape of their boxes to stack three times as much stuff onto one shipping pallet, reducing the number of shipping employees involved by 60%; and when the shipping pallet was invented; and when the automobile and train replaced the horse and buggy; and when overland shipping replaced a large population of sailors, which happened after the old cold blast process that made 400 pounds of iron was replaced with a hot-blast furnace that could make 86,400 pounds of iron with the same amount of labor time.

      We've been cutting back at the amount of work to do anything since we sharpened spears. We changed from stone to bronze and then to iron and steel; we created better tools; we got rid of artisans who take forever to make anything and went to assembly lines that use 1/8 as many people to do the same shit, and then to cellular manufacture that achieves the same in 1/12 as much labor. Better logistics, better management, new tools, power tools, and the like have continued to cut this back. Fertilizer and GMOs have eliminated nearly 100% of the labor used to make food over the past 200 years.

      It's a beautiful forward march of progress, isn't it? The standard-of-living of all classes goes up as the labor required to make any one thing goes down; and the laborers working their full time to make those things--fewer they are--still have the same money representing the same labor-hours, even though to buy anything they don't need to induce the labor of so many labor-hours. They can then buy more things, and so do so, which is why we tend to stabilize around 5% unemployment even as we eliminate nearly all jobs that have ever existed.

      Imagine what it'll be like when only 1/4 as many people are required to make Tesla cars. That $85,000 top-tier Model S will be replaced by something ludicrous for the rich folks, and the common man will buy something roughly equivalent to the top-tier Model S performance box for $21k. That'll be the car we drive, the car the working-man owns.

    15. Re:Americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see your profile in city you in. Let meet for love intercourse.

    16. Re:Americans? by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      Why would Apple make their global iPhones in the US? Make the US versions here and everyone else's abroad. No loss in global sales because prices are unchanged and potentially some hit in margins for being domestic that could be offset by price increases elsewhere.

      Where it gets interesting is if someone just says fuck it and moves everyone to Canada instead. It would depend on how much of the business is US vs abroad but surely there's an inflection point that you decide the US market isn't worth it.

    17. Re: Americans? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Then why is the quality of living going down? Sure we have lots of cheap gadgets, but that does dick all for quality of life. People work longer and commute longer, are in greater debt, spend less time with their families and can afford less nutritious food and housing than ever before. It's great that people in China are making more money, but why do we have to be the ones to sacrifice for it?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    18. Re:Americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I walk across the street and come back with a forklift full of components. Try doing that from the other side of the planet for only double the cost...

    19. Re: Americans? by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      Everything you describe is a natural result of a growing population (and thus, more competition for finite resources like land, which naturally causes people to work more to obtain money to buy land). The results would be way worse without people in China making stuff, as in addition to higher land costs, you'd also have higher cost of those gadgets as well.

      Just take a look at the numbers. Wages haven't gone down; they've gone up (though for the average man, not by much). In comparison, cost of most daily goods have gone down or stayed flat even though more people are demanding them. Clothes are 1/3 cheaper. Electricity price has barely moved. Food has barely moved.

      The only things that are causing people to feel poorer than they were before are housing, medical care and gas. Those are, unfortunately, things globalization and technology have *not* been able to improve for a variety of reasons.

      Thinking that somehow, low-cost jobs not moving to China would mean someone in the U.S. would have it is logically incorrect. Without expansion in overall consumption, the population would just grow without any new jobs and every new person born will be out of work until someone dies.

    20. Re: Americans? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It has become far, far more efficient to make the goods. More than enough to make up for additional demand. So the cost of them *should* be going down, and far more than they are.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  9. So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

    From China or from India. Doesn't matter as long as they are not native speakers of English.

    --
    Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
    1. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither are Americans.

    2. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by meta-monkey · · Score: 1, Insightful

      1. Part of Trump's immigration plan is an overhaul of the H1-B system.

      2. These are not really "tech" jobs but manufacturing jobs for our average, 100 IQ workers. We need jobs for these people, and the usual liberal canard of "education" has been a failure because you can't cram a 100 IQ auto worker through engineering school and have him come out as a 125 IQ engineer. We need simple jobs for simple folk.

      3. Nothing will make you people happy anyway. I hope Trump comes out and says "people should breathe air" so all the lefties will suffocate themselves.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      lets check back how well trump's 'plan' goes. if we ever SEE anything real from him in this direction.

      fact is (I know, we're post-fact now, sigh..) that he's a business guy and that type LOVES indentured servitude.

      there's nearly 0% chance he'll cut back on cheap labor for CORPORATE AMERICA.

      you righties are such gullible morans. sad part is, you just ruined things for all of us for the next 4 years ;(

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking sucker.

    5. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Your incoherent screed needed more ALL CAPS non-arguments.

      Also your lefty tears are delicious, and will be for the next 8 years.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    6. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Retarded faggot - Trump won't make it for even a month, he'll be impeached as a Russian traitor and maybe just barely escape a death sentence at trial. Otherwise he'll get to meet Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in hell.

    7. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Being this delusional...

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    8. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      We need simple jobs for simple folk.

      Trump is going to shutdown Caterpillar. Think of all the literal shovel ready jobs he can make if companies don't have to rely on mechanical tools.

    9. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      1. Part of Trump's immigration plan is an overhaul of the H1-B system.

      Trump can plan all he wants, it's what Congress will let him do that matters as has already been demonstrated by Republican leadership saying "Yeah, we're not building a wall.".

      2. These are not really "tech" jobs but manufacturing jobs for our average, 100 IQ workers. We need jobs for these people, and the usual liberal canard of "education" has been a failure because you can't cram a 100 IQ auto worker through engineering school and have him come out as a 125 IQ engineer. We need simple jobs for simple folk.

      Most of the "liberal" worker reeducation projects have had their funding gutted by "conservatives" who didn't want to spend the money on poor folk. Worker reeducation and strong unions have kept Germany an industrial powerhouse despite pressures to outsource. But that involves commitment and funding from government, which won't happen here as most "conservatives" think you're poor because you chose to be or God is punishing you.

      3. Nothing will make you people happy anyway. I hope Trump comes out and says "people should breathe air" so all the lefties will suffocate themselves.

      Well, aren't you a bitter little munchkin. Some of us like to observe facts and make decisions based on them rather than go by feelings and faith. Thanks, though, for showing us the face of yet another triggered over sensitive snowflake alt-righter.

    10. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talking about and to yourself? You need to go back to the mental hospital, Trump will pay you anyway.

    11. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facts are for queers. Like you. Fag.

    12. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by meta-monkey · · Score: 1
      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    13. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      2. These are not really "tech" jobs but manufacturing jobs for our average, 100 IQ workers.

      As others have pointed out, these aren't manufacturing jobs, but construction jobs, and thus will be only temporary.

    14. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Trump can plan all he wants, it's what Congress will let him do that matters as has already been demonstrated by Republican leadership saying "Yeah, we're not building a wall."

      We're building the wall. I think Trump has just a liiiiiiiiittle bit more political capital than Mitch McConnell right now. Plus with his wife at Transportation she'll be all "oh Mitchuru babby, gibs $1T infrastructure package me sucky sucky ruv you wrong time!"

      Well, aren't you a bitter little munchkin. Some of us like to observe facts and make decisions based on them rather than go by feelings and faith. Thanks, though, for showing us the face of yet another triggered over sensitive snowflake alt-righter.

      What exactly do I have to be bitter about? I'm not one of the many, many whiny leftists in this thread crying because Trump's...bringing jobs to America? You people are going to sit there pouting for 8 years while Trump makes America great again and I'm gonna laugh, and laugh, and laugh... Oh, and how'd all those "facts" from Huffington Post work out for ya? Yeah. That worked out great for ya.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    15. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Us Anonymous Cowards got cranky when our paragon of highest integrity, charisma, and morals lost to the orange demon spawn.

    16. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      You should look to Germany to see how a whole population (with an average of 100 IQ) can still be incredibly skilled workers that's irreplaceable by cheap labor. They have wide-open trade policies that allow outsourcing.

      When people talk about education it isn't always some 4-year university degree that results in them being a scientist. Better skilled workforce can just mean people who have better vocational training through apprenticeships and/or trade schools. We don't even have that today.

      It can also mean a more mobile workforce so that if you setup a factory somewhere and know you can get 100k workers in a very short amount of time without having to pay their relocation packages.

      China does this to a level you can't imagine.

    17. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We're building the wall.

      We're not building a literal wall and if we do appear to be trying, it will be deliberately mismanaged and never completed with the funds diverted to pockets. It's just not a realistic goal.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      This is the liberal talking point I understand the least. That we can't we build a wall. We built the interstate highway system. We sent rockets to the moon. Lots of other countries have walls. Hell, China's got a wall. WE CAN'T LET CHINA BEAT US ON WALLS.

      You can argue whether a wall is a good idea or not, but to say we can't build a wall is stupid beyond belief.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    19. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We built the interstate highway system.

      We built it with what were essentially defense funds, because that was the basis upon which it was sold. And it's falling to pieces even as we speak.

      We sent rockets to the moon.

      That was a long time ago.

      Hell, China's got a wall.

      Which didn't work. It was a halfway decent public works project, but inferior to doing something which would have benefited the people like building sewers or waterworks.

      You can argue whether a wall is a good idea or not, but to say we can't build a wall is stupid beyond belief.

      We can't build a wall in the same way that we can't run a nuclear reactor (PWRs on ships aside) safely. Once you account for malfeasance, you arrive at the conclusion that it cannot be done.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      How to build a wall:

      1. Call civil engineers.

      2. Say, "one wall please."

      3. Give them money.

      4. Build wall.

      So when the wall is built, and we're standing there watching the giant catapult flinging illegals back into Mexico, what exactly are you going to say then?

      I get it, you're opposed to Trump ideologically. But you have to stop saying retarded things like "you can't build a wall" or no one will ever take you seriously again, and you'll keep losing. Then again, that's fine, because I want you to keep losing. So keep running around saying walls are hard.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    21. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I get it, you're opposed to Trump ideologically. But you have to stop saying retarded things like "you can't build a wall" or no one will ever take you seriously again, and you'll keep losing.

      Tell you what. I'll bet you a dollar that we never build a contiguous wall under a Trump or even Pence presidency. It doesn't have to be effective for you to win this bet. It only has to be without breaks which are not intentional. (Border crossings are permitted, so long as a highway or equivalent runs through them, and they are patrolled.) I'm allowing for the apparent attempt to build a wall, so it really does have to reach completion.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Why would I bet something that was never the plan? Go back a year ago, even at rallies when he was talking about the wall he said there would be breaks for natural barriers. You're moving the goalposts.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    23. Re:So. 50,000 more H1-B visas need to be issued by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Go back a year ago, even at rallies when he was talking about the wall he said there would be breaks for natural barriers. You're moving the goalposts.

      If those breaks are patrolled with the same fervency as a border crossing, then I'll allow it. Otherwise, the whole thing is even more of a sham than I thought.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. $50 billion for 50,000 jobs? by fredrated · · Score: 2

    That's a million dollars a job. Seems like a lot.

    1. Re:$50 billion for 50,000 jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Seems like a lot.

      Yep. I'd rather take the million and ditch the job. Especially at Foxconn, lest I end up jumping out of the window.

    2. Re:$50 billion for 50,000 jobs? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      ..and yet when the government taxes that amount of money out of the economy...

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:$50 billion for 50,000 jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, actually. There's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be built or rebuilt (jobs don't just happen in an empty cornfield), workers need to be trained, and jobs need to be backed with a few year's worth of capital to be sustainable, because you have to be able to weather a bad product run or flawed design to move on to the next while keeping workers. If the jobs include research and development, add more money. Jobs that are worth having and that stick around are very expensive to create.

      Shovel-ready ditch-digging jobs aren't worth creating except in a crisis, because they only last a short time. They keep people fed for a month or two, but they don't keep people employed. Sustainable jobs that keep people on the payroll and vested in society require much more work and money to create, but in the long run there is a positive return on the monetary investment and a benefit to society.

    4. Re:$50 billion for 50,000 jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government destroys the tax money? Burns it?

    5. Re:$50 billion for 50,000 jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, yeh, the government taxes $1 mil/ job out of the economy. If that was the case, then given that MILLIONS of people in the U.S. that work, the government would be rolling in money. There'd be gold-plated toilet seats and jet fighters. There isn't enough money on the planet to describe the quantity of money you're saying is taken as taxes.

      It's good to see all the trump supporters who jumped on this story. Since there were a bunch of people who voted illegally or not at all and the election was rigged for trump, I didn't think there'd be anybody who would actually speak up for him.

    6. Re:$50 billion for 50,000 jobs? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Government destroys the tax money? Burns it?

      Shatters it like a window.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    7. Re:$50 billion for 50,000 jobs? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Okay, yeh, the government taxes $1 mil/ job out of the economy. If that was the case, then given that MILLIONS of people in the U.S. that work, the government would be rolling in money.

      Tax revenue: $7.14 trillion

      Sum of:
      Federal: $3.64 trillion
      State: $2.05 trillion
      Local: $1.45 trillion

      So yes, the government is rolling in money.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  11. Re: Hooray for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to build the wall, then start deporting. Deport to Africa as well, Chicago has 700+ murders this year alone.

  12. very simple,.. just reclassify the faclilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that pesky workers rights stuff can be easily brushed away by foxconn buying up a facility (or expanding it) and then having it reclassified as an embassy. Problem solved,.. cheap American slave labor and no emancipation act to worry about.

  13. $1,000,000 per job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, 50 billion to create 50 thousand jobs is 1 million dollars per job created.
    That doesn't seem like a good investment.

  14. Fancy Titles for Crap Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will be part time casual labor jobs.

    Ie: assembler " put this into the box, tape the box, and put the sticker on it"

    Technician: Verify that the sticker is put on correctly

    Technologist: Verify that the unit turns on before it's put into the box.

    Engineer: Verify that there are no screws missing, put the battery inside the finished unit.

    Most of these jobs will cater to the High School or GED educated crowd. Give a person a fancy title and they will work for peanuts.

    1. Re:Fancy Titles for Crap Jobs by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      Oh - no - they won't.
      The easy jobs are generally easy to automate.
      If you have 'put into box' type jobs, and are paying 300 people $10/hr - then it doesn't take much time at all to instead spend $5m designing robots and $5m installing them, and they then work 24*7.
      The 50000 jobs are a lie - they will perhaps be in constructing the factories.

    2. Re:Fancy Titles for Crap Jobs by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      Give a person a fancy title and they will work for peanuts.

      No, build your plant in a county surrounded by other counties that all have no other realistic job options and people will flock to you, even at minimum wage with no benefits working 7 days a week. It's how Toyota & Honda build cheep cars in their southern factories after all.

    3. Re:Fancy Titles for Crap Jobs by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      The easy jobs are generally easy to automate.

      The easy (for humans) jobs are the the most difficult to automate. Difficult jobs in very narrow, highly specialized fields have already been automated. My $35 raspberry pi running mathematica does a better job at solving math problems than I do, and I spent decades learning how to do it, yet where's the automation that cooks my dinner and cleans and puts away the dishes?

    4. Re:Fancy Titles for Crap Jobs by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      Much factory work - especially where you have a hundred workers doing the same thing - is very vulnerable to automation.
      This is a much, much more constrained problem (or often can be designed to be so) than a general cooking robot.

    5. Re: Fancy Titles for Crap Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microwave. Dishwasher. If you're a real bachelor you don't have a dedicated dish cabinet: you just store them in the dishwasher or sink.

  15. Bullshit by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Bullshit. 50,000 jobs? To save shipping costs for small electronic products? Bullshit. This is another Trump lie.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. This is total nonsense. It's a long distance from a tweet or a press conference to opening the doors and filling a huge parking lot, and it will never come to fruition. In fact, I quite doubt that the requisite contracts will be written, let alone signed in the light of economic reality.

    2. Re:Bullshit by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Hey it doesn't say they're permanent jobs. Maybe 10,000 jobs to construct the factory plus 10,000 jobs that get created from the economy of those construction workers having jobs and then 3,000 temp workers that work for a couple months. After a couple years you've easily got "50,000 new jobs"

  16. Re: Hooray for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should animals be prevented from freely migrating? Walls violate natural, unalienable rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness.

  17. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah. Right.

    Right after the Rethugs find Bin Laden and those WMD.

    Fuck Trump and every asshole idiot that voted for him.

    1. Re:LOL by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Bill, we know you wanted to be the "first lady", but you'll just have to enjoy your retirement now. Oh, btw, how's that foundation doing now that you don't have political leverage?...time will tell.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  18. $5 says this is a move to save Foxcon money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bet this is a move to do final packaging here in the U.S. This means they can ship more units cheaper from overseas. The job quote will include temporary jobs to design, build, and run a final packaging factory. If you think about how big an iPhone or iPad box is they can easily ship three to four units in the same space even when loaded with some packaging to protect during shipping.

  19. "plans based on mutually-agreed terms." by Nutria · · Score: 1

    Them there's the weasel words.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  20. Magic Wand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like Trump really does have that magic wand Obama talked about.

    1. Re:Magic Wand by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Stories are leaving out what concessions Trump offered, which made Foxconn decide that this would be an improvement from the status quo.

      The "magic" wand might not be magic at all; maybe it's a tax break or the company gets a free "write whatever law you want, and I promise to sign it" or something like that.

      Until we know how the trick works, we're going to be speculating all kinds of crazy things (as I did above). This would be a good job for journalists. You know that once people find out the cost, there's going to be another flamefest about whether the payment was a good idea or a bad one.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    2. Re:Magic Wand by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "Stories are leaving out what concessions I imaged Trump offered"

      FTFY...otherwise citation required.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    3. Re:Magic Wand by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you're saying that I'm not just speculating on what exactly Trump offered (and I totally admitted that tax breaks, influence in our government, etc were just example ideas, but hey, those are both pretty common ones so they're at least plausible), but that I'm imagining that he offered anything at all.

      Is that right? We're not arguing about the details are, but rather, we're arguing that details even exist? I think I'm probably misunderstanding you.

      My whole complaint was that the article was vague, saying things like

      Taiwan-based Foxconn did not give details of the plan

      and

      "...we will announce the details of any plans following the completion of direct discussions between our leadership and the relevant U.S. officials," Foxconn said in a statement. "Those plans would be made based on mutually-agreed terms."

      and so everyone is going to wonder what Foxconn's terms/details are. But if you needed a citation that there will be terms -- that TANSTAAFL is still a thing in our world -- then I guess the above quotations are the evidence. I cite TFA.

      I'm not getting it, am I? What am I not understanding?

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  21. Full circle by bickerdyke · · Score: 4, Funny

    So shifting jobs to low wage countries has come a full circle.

    --
    bickerdyke
    1. Re:Full circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES
      http://dilbert.com/strip/2003-08-03

    2. Re:Full circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SIMPSONS DID IT :)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_Kiss,_Bang_Bangalore

      No but honestly, this is what happens -->
          Homer learns that the nuclear power plant is being shut down and outsourced to India. After Homer is sent there to train the new employees he is put in total charge of the nuclear power plant. The employees worship him after he institutes American workplace routines like coffee breaks, early retirement, day care, personal days, and birthday parties & gifts. Homer treats the workers as good human beings in exchange for their outsourcing cheap electric power to Springfield. The big boss Mr. Burns views the office improvements as “madness” and decides to close down the plant and move it to an area 'where the workers are more desperate and ignorant... Springfield'. Burns fires all the workers, moves the operation to 'cheap Springfield' and the regular cast of plant workers go back to work with miserably low salaries.

  22. Be careful how hard you squeeze by Overzeetop · · Score: 0

    In a global economy, the balls your holding are often your own. It's great that manufacturing will be coming back to the US, but are Americans willing to pay 50%-100% more for their electronics? That's what Foxconn said it would cost if a assembly occurred in the US as US wages. Now, if you can believe Trump, they would be slapped with a 35% tariff if it was manufactered outside the US...but Apple and Samsung and the like are not going to be passing on that tariff to the consumer, with an appropriate mark up.

    Americans will pay a higher price for moving jobs into the US or pay a higher price (with money going into Federal Government coffers to be spent on wasteful programs) in their attempts to penalize foreign corporations. And the likely outcome of the latter will be retaliatory tariffs on American goods, causing companies in the US who sell to other countries to lose their competitive edge.

    All I can say is - be careful how hard you want Trump to squeeze, because you may not know you're the one who's balls he's holding until its too late.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So much crying and so little understanding of systems theory.

      Sure, americans want more money than chinese children. However, what does it cost to support all the unemployed people and to fight the higher crime and other problems that come with unemployment?

      Also, money goes in circles. The american worker paid well will spend a large part of his salary on some other american business (say, the fast food store near work, the gas station on his way to work, etc.) while the chinese child spends his money somewhere in China.

      Ford was the first to understand that paying his workers well would actually give him an advantage - if they can afford to buy one of his cars, they will. The same is true of this. Maybe the price of iPhones will rise - or maybe more people will buy them and the price stay the same. Or something inbetween.

      It's too easy to just cry that prices will rise. In fact, that's usually a strawman.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Foxconn said it would cost 50-100% more to assemble, not that the total overall cost of the finished product would be 50-100% higher. From some estimates when the info was originally released (too lazy to look) assembly costs were $10-20/unit for the iPhone. Doubling that does not seem too bad, especially given the 30-40% markup Apple enjoys on the product. Also, I would assume that were Trump's tax policies implemented some of that would be made back in the form of lower taxes.

    3. Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, Ford paying his employees a lot would give him an advantage. It also makes him a huge liability if they run into financial difficulty or they're not part of the "social consciousness". It's quite easy for a company perceived to be "the first" to maintain huge margins.

      Considering that i device sales have flatlined or in some cases decreased, good luck on that increasing sales. Not many people gives a shit where it's made - they just want it cheap. Sure, there's a few affluent people who will buy it because it's American made -- probably the same amount of people they'll lose due to the increase in price. Just take a look at the Christian right's Target's washroom boycott -- it didn't do anything.

    4. Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      but are Americans willing to pay 50%-100% more for their electronics

      No, but they are willing to increase the deficit and debt by allowing government subsidies to companies employing Americans. I suspect that's what will happen with more and more of these deals.

    5. Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The american worker paid well will spend a large part of his salary on some other american business

      You mean like how I spend 90% of my income on Chinese, Japanese, and Korean goods via Amazon?

    6. Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze by imgod2u · · Score: 2

      I agree with a systemic look. Which is why I'm against state-aided companies just to keep people employed. It's economically inefficient.

      Despite what people think, moving production to a cheaper location (like China) isn't just beneficial to the Chinese. If you follow economic theory, free-trade isn't just good for exports, it's good on the import side as well. Because you get cheaper goods for the same quality.

      You don't want to get rid of that. You don't want to slow down the economy by making goods more expensive. What you *want* is to allow companies to make tons of profit, *tax* that profit and use that money to pay people who were unemployed due to jobs moving away.

      In that scenario, you grow the overall net amount of wealth and use tax and UBI policy to distribute the wealth.

      In the scenario of using tax money to incentivize where manufacturing goes, you shrink the overall net wealth (because manufacturers are being less efficient in terms of money spent per goods produced) just to distribute wealth to those who would've been unemployed.

      Systemically, it's less efficient to go the later route than the former. Economically speaking.

    7. Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      In this case, it's Saudi Arabia taking on the debt. This has little to do with Trump and more to do with the Saudi's being desperate and needing to diversify from their single source of income (oil, which is bringing them less and less money). They see this as a 100B$ investment in the US that they can reap returns from. It's a good thing but again, less to do with Trump (though he's taking credit for it).

      The U.S. economy has been on an upward tick for a few years now and Trump is going to have the easiest job of any President before him. He just has to not fuck it up.

    8. Re: Be careful how hard you squeeze by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You rent a Korean house through Amazon? Pay less than 10% in taxes? Impressive load of bs there.

    9. Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze by Tom · · Score: 1

      You don't want to get rid of that. You don't want to slow down the economy by making goods more expensive. What you *want* is to allow companies to make tons of profit, *tax* that profit and use that money to pay people who were unemployed due to jobs moving away.

      Have you thought that through?

      So in the end, you will make everything abroad, only companies earn money, and everyone lives from the taxes? I don't think that is a sustainable economic model.

      What you want is a balance between a strong local economy and beneficial trade. You want to import cars from Germany because they just make the best cars, and movies from Hollywood because they make the best movies (bear with me, it's only an example) and iPhones from China because they make the best electronics. But you want to grow your food locally because shipping it halway around the world doesn't improve its quality, and everything where it doesn't matter where it is made you want to make locally because global shipping is a major contributor to climate change and it's just crazy.

      You do not want people permanently on unemployment benefits. There is no imaginable scenario where that is beneficial to anyone. You want unemployment to be a transition phase, for people between jobs.

      There is more to the system then just who makes profits. There is also the psychological damage of unemployment, there is the fact that you become dependent on your suppliers, there is the fact that you don't want to lose the capability of manufacturing, even if outsourcing somewhere else would be cheaper, there is the whole insanity of global trade which would be prohibitively expensive in its current form if most of the cost (especially the environmental one) wouldn't be externalized.

      There are reasons beyond profit that should guide an economy. The pure quarterly-profit perspective is the main damage the financial industry has done to the world. We now all think the way that stock brokers do, without realizing how narrow and limited their perspective is.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    10. Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze by Tom · · Score: 1

      Really? Your house is chinese, your gasoline japanese and your food korean? I mean, not by taste but manufactured there? That's amazing.

      You might spend 90% of your disposable income on some electronics from Asia, but for the average household, that is about 20% or so of the total income. The rest goes for rent (or mortgage), food, taxes, insurances and other stuff that is part of the local economy.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    11. Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze by Tom · · Score: 1

      . It also makes him a huge liability if they run into financial difficulty

      History proves you wrong. Fords model worked, your bullshit is just that.

      Considering that i device sales have flatlined or in some cases decreased,

      And Apple is still insanely profitable, so your point is what, exactly?

      Not many people gives a shit where it's made - they just want it cheap.

      That is my point. Because it's been drilled into our heads that profit aka "buy cheap" is the only margin of success, the only thing important. My mother still bought her meat and vegetables at farms whenever she could, because knowing where it comes from and being able to trust its quality was another important value. Having an actual business relation used to be important, now we just use some price comparison website to save ten cents. But when you buy the same stuff from the same guy all the time, things become possible that Amazon won't do for you. That has value.

      There are a few areas left where more than profit thinking is alive. Many people go to the same restaurants again and again, even if they're not the cheapest, but they're the best (in food quality, taste, atmosphere, whatever is important to you). I've had restaurants where I can sit down, say hi to the owner and order "the usual", and I don't care if there's another restaurant nearby where the food is ten cents cheaper.

      Yes, not many people care. But maybe they should. Maybe we should pay the real price of global trade. Just putting a price on the ecological damage of these container ships (have you seen them? What comes out of your cars exhaust pipe is refreshing clean air compared to theirs) would instantly make local manufacturing economically interesting again.

      People don't yet make the connection between the social systems downfall and the increase in global trade. Or that them buying cheap shit on Amazon is the reason their uncle is out of a job. Or that there is an inherent contradiction in the shouts of politicians who a) want you to earn less money and b) want you to spend more on consumption.

      If you put people out of a job because you outsourced the factory to a low-income country, there are less people left to buy whatever your factory makes. It really is that simple.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    12. Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      So in the end, you will make everything abroad, only companies earn money, and everyone lives from the taxes?

      I don't think I advocated for *everything* abroad. Simply things that *can* be done abroad more efficiently (generally equates to lower cost). You can think of it as a nationless scenario, where things are produced in the places they're most efficient and best at being produced. Just like within the U.S. you want your almonds to be grown in CA, your silicon design in various hubs and your auto manufacturing in SC and (more so again) Detroit, you'd want to take that model globally. The equivalent of "stop outsourcing" would be like Wyoming blocking imports of almonds from CA just because it wants its own local almond farmers to have business.

      What you want is a balance between a strong local economy and beneficial trade.

      I'm arguing that free trade finds that balance. The U.S. will invariably be able to do certain things better than anywhere else in the world. The world will naturally import that from the U.S. China will invariably do other things better, so the rest of the world buys that from China. Same with Germany. The point is, let free trade and supply/demand make the decisions of which nation produces what, not tariffs or governments.

      But you want to grow your food locally because shipping it halway around the world doesn't improve its quality

      If there's truly no loss of quality or cost of growing overseas vs locally then the local farmer will always win. The truth is that for many foods, other nations *can* do produce it more efficiently. Economically, it's better to let them do it and ship it. If your concerns are environmental (and I share those concerns) then impose carbon (and other pollutant) taxes such that the price of externalities like environmental damage are included in the calculation of cost. Once you setup the right framework, you let the market decide. Instead of a web of trade rules that don't get updated often setting "who should produce what".

      You do not want people permanently on unemployment benefits.

      People *are* permanently unemployed. Not a large percentage of the population but unemployment has never been 0. Ever. I'd say what well-intentioned tariffs we've passed to try to keep unemployment down aren't working very well. And with the upcoming onslaught of automation...I don't see how you *can* keep people from being unemployed for long periods of time.

      Rather than cling onto the idea that everyone needs to be employed (when reality obviously isn't letting that happen), perhaps it's time to revisit how we make sure every citizen is taken care of in a post-industrial society and this idea that "everyone needs to work".

      There is more to the system then just who makes profits.

      Of course there is. I'm talking about wealth, not corporate profit. Not money -- that's only supposed to loosely represent wealth. Trade and technology are the 2 pillars that create wealth: it invents new things (that either generates new resources for people to consume or stretches current resources to further utility) and efficiently allocates resources to where they have the most impact.

      Globalization generates wealth. It doesn't address how that's distributed. That's where government *should* step in, the part about distribution. But you don't wanna kill the golden goose in order to divide the eggs up more evenly....

    13. Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze by Tom · · Score: 1

      The equivalent of "stop outsourcing" would be like Wyoming blocking imports of almonds from CA just because it wants its own local almond farmers to have business.

      I agree that the question isn't borders. If you are in Texas, northern Mexico is more "local" than NYC. But in either case, China is not local.

      People *are* permanently unemployed. Not a large percentage of the population but unemployment has never been 0. Ever. I'd say what well-intentioned tariffs we've passed to try to keep unemployment down aren't working very well. And with the upcoming onslaught of automation...I don't see how you *can* keep people from being unemployed for long periods of time.

      The part that's never zero is called "structural unemployment", and was mentioned in the part that you cut. People between jobs, people who are moving, etc.
      But unemployment-because-you-cant-find-a-job is not god-given, and in fact in various countries around the world there have been periods when this unemploymend was zero.

      "the upcoming onslaught of automation" - the 60s called. They want their argument back.

      Rather than cling onto the idea that everyone needs to be employed (when reality obviously isn't letting that happen), perhaps it's time to revisit how we make sure every citizen is taken care of in a post-industrial society and this idea that "everyone needs to work".

      Oh, I agree on that. I've had periods in my life without a formal job (self-employed, my own small company, not working very much) that were wonderful except for the not-much-money part. If that were somehow covered, I'd immediately go back to working 20 hours a week, or 80 hours a week on stuff that I love.

      Trade and technology are the 2 pillars that create wealth

      How we are all caught in the Silicon Valley mantra and the Venture Capitalist religion. Most of the really large and powerful companies in the world are not called Google and Facebook. They are energy companies, food companies, and a dozen others. Trade and technology matter, but you buy an iPhone every year while you buy food every day.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    14. Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      I agree that the question isn't borders. If you are in Texas, northern Mexico is more "local" than NYC. But in either case, China is not local.

      But you're arguing for placing pre-emptive barriers on what you think are "the right level of local". I'm saying, if you have open trade borders and price in the cost of externalities (like a carbon tax), then the market will work itself out in terms of where the "right level of local source" is.

      The part that's never zero is called "structural unemployment", and was mentioned in the part that you cut. People between jobs, people who are moving, etc.
      But unemployment-because-you-cant-find-a-job is not god-given, and in fact in various countries around the world there have been periods when this unemploymend was zero.

      "the upcoming onslaught of automation" - the 60s called. They want their argument back.

      I don't know if I buy that. Employment participation rates vary from decade to decade. They vary because people give up on finding a job, not because they don't want one. You may be right that those *with no choice but to have a job* (breadwinner for the family) parts of the population who are systemically unemployed can reach 0, but that's not full employment. Moreover, it's not consistent. You're always going to have periods lasting as long as a decade where some giant shift (such as globalization, or automation) will wipe out entire job sectors. So even if your argument is "those jobs will eventually be replaced", you need *some* solution to the decade-long vacuum those things created. And I don't think impeding progress Luddite-style is the answer. Nor do I think impeding progress "anti-trade" style is the answer either. It's more economically efficient during those times to do something like UBI.

      How we are all caught in the Silicon Valley mantra and the Venture Capitalist religion. Most of the really large and powerful companies in the world are not called Google and Facebook. They are energy companies, food companies, and a dozen others. Trade and technology matter, but you buy an iPhone every year while you buy food every day.

      This isn't a Silicon Valley idea. Notice I didn't just say tech, I said tech and trade. This is well established amongst economist. All those energy, food, etc. companies are the "trade" part; they find ways to distribute resources more efficiently. Do this simple mental experiment: what if every city was to produce their own crops of every type instead of importing/exporting from other areas? Would that be more or less efficient? Expand that idea to a global scale and you have your answer to why shipping from China or Brazil for certain things can be better.

    15. Re:Be careful how hard you squeeze by Tom · · Score: 1

      But you're arguing for placing pre-emptive barriers on what you think are "the right level of local". I'm saying, if you have open trade borders and price in the cost of externalities (like a carbon tax), then the market will work itself out in terms of where the "right level of local source" is.

      That's exactly what I'm saying. That distance and cost of transportation should matter more. The only reason we have global trade at this scale is that a log of the costs are outsourced and externalised. The economic impact of global trade is incredible, easily dwarves private cars, for example.

      I don't know if I buy that. Employment participation rates vary from decade to decade.

      You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. When my father finished schools, company representatives were waiting in front of the schools to catch young men (mostly, at that time) immediately and offer them contracts. We were literally importing foreign workers because we didn't have enough people to fill all the available jobs.

      but that's not full employment.

      That's semantics. Nobody cares how many people have a job or not. What matters is if those who are looking for a job can find one or not. Employment as a percentage of population makes no sense at all (children, pensioners, etc.).

      And I don't think impeding progress Luddite-style is the answer. Nor do I think impeding progress "anti-trade" style is the answer either.

      We know that globalisation isn't the answer, either.

      But here's the thing: The more self-sufficient you are, as a country or continent or just ill-defined local region, the less you will be dragged down when some men in suits made a bad gamble at the casino called stock exchange, which by all rights should have zero effect on the real economy.

      what if every city was to produce their own crops of every type instead of importing/exporting from other areas? Would that be more or less efficient?

      Once you price in long-distance trade at something resembling the real cost to the planet, local crops are suddenly a lot more efficient. Ignore money and prices for the moment, argue just with natural resources, working time, etc. - things that are real. Now explain me how eating meat from cows bred in South America on wheat brought in from Russia can by any means you choose be more efficient than meat from local cows fed local wheat.

      Expand that idea to a global scale and you have your answer to why shipping from China or Brazil for certain things can be better.

      For certain things, sure.

      For everything? Not without a distortion factor, which is the monetary system.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  23. Twin lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool. So Foxconn or whatever brand it renames itself will operate two lines: one in China and another (1/10th in capacity) in the USA. World gets Chinese phones at ~550€ a pop, USA gets red/white/blue USA phones at >$1700, with $250 of that going into the Trump Family Perpetual Reelection Fund. Everybody happy, universe saved, undesirables served. After all, sales channels, warranties, service outlets and the like are already not international so little adjustments need be made.

  24. Dont worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iphone will still be made in China. Its a huge dongle factory they are making in the US.

  25. How many suicides will it create? by Wolfier · · Score: 0

    Given the company's uncanny ability to make their workers kill themselves, I wonder how many of these 50,000 jobs will get added to this Wikipedia article...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:How many suicides will it create? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      US labor laws are better then the ones in China and they have to pay OT as well.

    2. Re:How many suicides will it create? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll see about all that in a year. We'll also see how blue states are likely getting these 50,000 jobs.

    3. Re:How many suicides will it create? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is much more similar to China than to other Western countries in this regard.

    4. Re:How many suicides will it create? by Required+Snark · · Score: 0
      Foxconn's response to employee suicide was to put nets up to keep people from jumping to their deaths from their dormitories.

      When they set up shop in the US will the nets be made in China or here?

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    5. Re:How many suicides will it create? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      The suicide rate at Foxconn during 2010 remained lower than that of the general Chinese population at the time[6] as well as all 50 states of the United States.[38]

    6. Re:How many suicides will it create? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suicide rate within Foxconn lower than the national average? Does the suicide rate for Foxconn only include suicides that were registered to have happened within the Foxconn premises or is that the number of suicides of the entire workforce (on and off premises).

      Those two numbers might be quite different and might actually bring the national non-Foxconn related suicides down.

    7. Re:How many suicides will it create? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      We'll see about all that in a year. We'll also see how blue states are likely getting these 50,000 jobs.

      All of these jobs are related to venture capital. So it is very likely all of them will be in blue, metropolitan areas (sorry Rust Belt, no soup for you.)

  26. Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not tired of winning yet.

  27. Investing in the U.S. today is a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with all the locking of doors and tightening of regulations, favoring of U.S.-owned businesses, it's risky to invest that much money in the U.S. instead of your own country. They will literally own your manufacturing and infrastructure, and you PAY them for it.

    Create those jobs and manufacturing means in your own country, and sell to the U.S. instead, or this $100B technology fund will become a money sink for you, and free money for the U.S.

  28. Couple of thoughts by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    First, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple wasn't involved in this from inception on the grounds that rival companies have been copying Apple within weeks of a new product release if not before. Ergo, Foxconn in China must be the leakiest place on the planet. China is also one of the worst places for intellectual property rights. So, by manufacturing in the U.S., Apple might be able to maintain control over the IP. Maybe.
    Second, with regards to people laughing when Trump initially said that Apple would be making product in country, given his deep business experience, he likely knew this was going to happen early on. Good business people know things before everyone else does.

    1. Re:Couple of thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you might be right.

      But it's going to take at least 4 years to rebuild the infrastructure to have US manufacturing back on track.. Isn't that convenient? There's no way to get this done in a single term.

      "that rival companies have been copying Apple within weeks of a new product release if not before"

      Well lets be fair, Apple is straight up trying to copyright basic functions and features, then sues anyone who tries to use them. A store for apps? SUE. rounded corners? SUE. An interface? SUE. buttons? SUE. It plays music? SUE.

      I keep hearing about how Trump is a good business man.. Feel free to read up on him, he's actually a massive failure at almost everything he's done.

  29. Re: Hooray for Trump by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Why should USC be pushed out of work by Mexicans working under the table with little to no employment taxes, no workers comp (just show up at the ER and don't pay)

  30. Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China is now moving manufacturing jobs to America to exploit the cheap labor force? Congratulations! America's has now secured it's spot as an official third world country, complete with strongman dictator, tribal/racial unrest, poor public education and non-existent public healthcare. I fully expect an outbreak of malaria any day now.

    1. Re:Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is now moving manufacturing jobs to America to exploit the cheap labor force? Congratulations! America's has now secured it's spot as an official third world country, complete with strongman dictator, tribal/racial unrest, poor public education and non-existent public healthcare. I fully expect an outbreak of malaria any day now.

      Hyperbole much?

    2. Re:Congratulations! by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      China is now moving manufacturing jobs to America to exploit the cheap labor force? Congratulations! America's has now secured it's spot as an official third world country, complete with strongman dictator, tribal/racial unrest, poor public education and non-existent public healthcare. I fully expect an outbreak of malaria any day now.

      They're in North America so it will be Zika, not malaria.

  31. Remember the Foxconn suicides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great. Now American workers can be driven to suicide too.

    1. Re:Remember the Foxconn suicides? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Except here it will be robots jumping out of the windows.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Remember the Foxconn suicides? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Except here it will be robots jumping out of the windows.

      Incorrect! Everyone knows that robots use suicide booths (with the quarter tied to a string so they can yank it back). Bite my shiny metal...

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  32. iPhone Costs Triple in 6 months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck Trump

  33. Money Saving Measures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The main benefit of using robotics is that FoxConn would save all sorts of money on suicide nets!

  34. Trump Dump by Pjerky · · Score: 1

    Queue the news story about Trump taking credit for this project that has been in the works for well over a year now.

    --
    The Mind Is Speculative and Interpretive. So speculate all you want and interpret this 00101101 01001110!
  35. Who needs assembler? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most apps are written in high-level languages: Java, Objectionable-C, etc.

  36. How big was the bribe this time? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    70 million? 700 million? How many US firms is this displacing, this time? How many US employees is this indirectly putting out of work? Simple answer: More than the gain, because that is part of the definition of inefficiency and is what happens when political policy drives against real economic development.

  37. Nets by supertrooper · · Score: 1

    But who's gonna be making the nets to be used to catch people jumping from the windows?

    1. Re:Nets by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Who builds them now? Foxconn's suicide rate is lower than the US.

  38. $7 billion tax break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    more crony business that won't last

  39. WashPo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "About the only person, it seems, who disagrees is Bannon himself. "When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think..." he replied before trailing off. "A country is more than an economy. We're a civic society."

    is the quote cited here:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/17/donald-trumps-chief-strategist-doesnt-understand-what-makes-america-great/?utm_term=.237be1d37196

    1. Re:WashPo by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      Where does he actually say he opposes the asianification of Silicon Valley? He doesn't say that there. Bannon and Trump are discussing foreign students studying in America. Trump says they come here to study, get degrees, and then we lose them, to which Bannon replies with that line you quoted about Silicon Valley CEO's being from Asia. He does not say whether he thinks it's good or bad. He does not say that he opposes it. It sounds more like he's refuting Trump's claim about losing them. So do you have anything else, or was that it?

  40. Tax breaks implies paying some taxes by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Right now how much does the government get in taxes from a factory that does not exist?

    $0

    After the factory is built, let's say the government gets just $1 a year in taxes from the factory. How is that not still better than today? And of course we know the company will be paying more that that...

    If tax breaks mean the factory, and the jobs to build it, and the jobs to maintain it, and the jobs created by shipping material in and products out, gets built how is that not inherently better no matter what "tax breaks" are given?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Tax breaks implies paying some taxes by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Because it disrupts the competitive market, reducing efficiency and increasing costs for every other party. It disrupts the revenue of better managed companies that are not reliant on tax breaks and which actually pay tax benefiting the public at large.

    2. Re: Tax breaks implies paying some taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After the factory is built, let's say the government gets just $1 a year in taxes from the factory. How is that not still better than today? And of course we know the company will be paying more that that...
      If tax breaks mean the factory, and the jobs to build it, and the jobs to maintain it, and the jobs created by shipping material in and products out, gets built how is that not inherently better no matter what "tax breaks" are given?

      Factories have maintenance costs you know. They don't just exist and churn out goods. Now maybe you think the costs in road maintenance and pollution management and safety issues are worth the "tax expenditures" but you can't just handwave it away.

      Hell, there's a long history of supposed right-wing conservatives opposing just this sort of sweetheart deal (and of course, there are lots who have made deals like this part of their stock in trade), so don't be surprised tthat some people don't buy that story.

  41. Re: Hooray for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give everyone a basic income. Making life harder for animals is not the answer to man-made problems. The Border Patrol in Arizona harasses me daily when I am down in the desert. I am far more scared of the Border Patrol than of the few illegals who are polite and demonstrate great physical endurance crossing the desert on foot. Border Patrol is symptomatic of a police state. If Sessions directs them, they will throw me in jail for legal weed.

  42. Say what now?? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Because it disrupts the competitive market

    How doe s factory " disrupt the competitive market" in a market where most factories are winding down or closing? Where much factory and construction labor sits idle?

    increasing costs for every other party

    Are you writing this out of a fifty year old textbook or something? Give a concrete example of people who's costs increase when an Apple assembly factory is built in the U.S. Are you saying you are worried iPhone or Mac purchasers are going to have to pay a bit more?

    It disrupts the revenue of better managed companies that are not reliant on tax breaks

    SLAP. Back to reality, this is a FACTORY. It's not building anything that "better managed companies" are selling because there is no U.S. competition for Apple at this point... are you worried abut the "better managed company" Samsung???

    An Apple factory would mean no less in taxes being paid by other companies and would mean more government revenue from Apple, along with many, many more jobs (some permanent). You have to be eight shades of crazy to look at that and not be pleased.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  43. You don't understand OPEC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can't afford to ramp up production.

    They already did that which brought oil prices crashing down and big headaches for all non-US oil producers. The world is still in an oil glut.

    Look at Venezuela or Saudi Arabia's current bank balance over the last 5 years.

    We win when oil goes down. Pray it happens if you love America and Europe.

  44. Your auto anology by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Car makers have been doing this for years. Manufacturers like Honda and BMW have plants to build cars for the domestic market. It make good business and political sense.....

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  45. No spoon feeding! Sweet! by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Very pleased TFA does NOT tell us who to give credit for on this.

    I think Mr. average reader will figure it out.

    Bothered me a lot when I went to news.yahoo.com during a major stock dip and the headline was "This isn't Obama's fault." So I only learned what the news was after reading past the editorial headline. I'm kind of pleased to see these opinion pushers disguised as news companies sink and fail.

  46. One new Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would be enough.

  47. what about the nets? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Will the $50 billion include suicide nets, or will the taxpayers be on the hook for those?

  48. Apple Car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Foxconn wants to bend metal for Apple stateside

  49. Bend the knee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what happens when you act like a sovereign nation.

  50. In other news, US factory output near record level by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

    That's right, our factory output is currently almost identical to 2008 levels (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS), yet our factory employment is still way down.

    Our factory jobs have been given over to automation and increased productivity within our own country.

  51. Re: Hooray for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your "legal" weed is still federally unlawful, moron. They have every right and obligation to throw you in jail for (possibly running) drugs, dipshit.

  52. Re: Be careful how hard you... squeeeak!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    herp derp.
    all figured out .
    urdog2me.
    herp.

    derp.

  53. L-1 Visa Abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, FoxConn has petitioned the US State Department for 50,000 L-1 manager visas to overseas "managers" to come over and get the factory started. Foxconn says the process may take 30 years or more, during which time it may need to rotate through foreign managers on a continuous basis.

    Perfectly legal to do this, btw...

  54. Not bad... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    For the whole bring jobs back idea, honestly, it doesn't sound like a bad thing... of all the alternatives, this one sounds the most sensible I guess.

    Trump would never be able to force Apple (and other electronics companies) to bring all the manufacturing currently done in places like Shenzhen to the US... that would not only require absurd ammounts of taxation plus building up from scratch entire cities worth of infrastructure, you'd also need to close deals with a whole bunch of third party manufacturers to make it happen at absurd costs.

    An iPhone - as well as several other smartphones, tablets, laptops and whatnot - is nothing more than a huge assembly of parts from different brands on the hardware side. It works in China and has to happen there because manufacturing of all these third party parts happen closeby.

    The best case scenario I can see for companies like Apple bringing back a few jobs to the US would be by closing some sort of deal for them to build assembly centers in the US. Parts would still have to be shipped from China, and this will still come with a huge overhead in production costs, but for a company the size of Apple it could probably still be done.

    It isn't a great move in a general sense though. It'll make Apple products more expensive, lots of overhead costs with no advantages (other than the job openings), costumers will definitely pay for this, and it doesn't make any sense from a business standpoint. And the whole thing will make less sense for tech companies that don't operate like Apple - don't have a cult following, charges closer to manufacturing costs, etc.

    You see, Brazil has similar type operations. We have importation taxes here that can get up to 120% the original product costs. It's dumb protectionism. What the brazilian government did over the years was closing deals with electronics companies to bring some assembly factories into the country. It didn't really work. Electronics "made in Brazil" got shit reputation because it has always been outdated and more shoddily made than chinese counterparts. Tons of brazilian brands went bankrupt and lives in the margin being equated with generic no name chinese brands. They end up being as expensive as foreign products because of overhead costs to import all parts necessary, keep wages at the national minimum, among other stuff.

    It's just how the economy of electronics works these days. Specially for devices like smartphones and tablets, your assembly line needs to be close to where components are being made. This allows for a quick revision and upgrade turnaround. If you take assembly factories to the other side of the world, the upgrade cycle of several lines of products will have to change.

    Like I said though, this is probably the most sensible choice among several others to bring some of the jobs back to the US. Foxconn will just open a token symbolic factory in the US while keeping most of it's manufacturing still in China, Apple will deal with the extra costs, and the end consumer will pay the price. Apple also already handles well not having the latest and greatest specs since it controls hardware and software by itself, and their price point is flexible enough already.

    1. Re:Not bad... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Fact is, this deal was for 100 billion, mostly contributed by Riadyh, and was negotiated over the last year by OBAMA, and has nothing to do with Trump

  55. Oh, that's flamebait, little trumpling? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Here, mod this down, too. I need to take away your modpoints before you use them to hurt someone who won't get another shitload of upmods plenty soon enough.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  56. Investment funds the trade deficit by TheSync · · Score: 1

    When a country runs a trade deficit, it receives foreign currency, which is useless in another country. To be of value, these foreign reserves must be invested back into the country running a trade deficit.

  57. foxconn jobs in the U.S. by siamesevodka · · Score: 1

    The first suicide nets on a building in the U.S. Will the nets be for Humans or the Robots? Enjoy your new Iphone either way.

  58. Re:A new golden shower by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not so much having the world's balls in his hands as having Putin's member in his mouth.

  59. Of course, the Riyadyh money makes this 100 billio by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    and it was negotiated BY OBAMA, not Trump, is something needing to be mentioned.

  60. Re: Hooray for Trump by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Yes, let's deport the Orange one back to Germany.

  61. Brawndo available worldwide! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dumbass. The list of comparison items YOU PROVIDED to be held up against Britain aren't in Europe. English, being the same in UK & the US, does not always reference itself in an order from left to right. Sometimes sentences may reference a phrase 3 paragraphs back, or even *gasp* things not written yet! We had already determined 2 posts up that Britain was in Europe. Why are you still kicking the dead horse? Oh, because you have no other valid retort. A valid retort would have made some kind of observation about how the US, Canada, or Australia don't share 99.9% of the same culture as Great Britain. You could have also reinforced the statement by providing examples of how the US, Canada, or Australia do share 99.9% of culture with Great Britain. You could have also made the claim that you know nothing about how the cultures of the US, Canada, and Australia share or don't share 99.9% of the same things as Great Britain. Finally, you could have said exactly nothing and went about your day. You didn't do any of those four reasonable things. You went straight to a character attack because you got called out for being a dumbass and you can't help it. I'm glad you've really taken an interest in this entire thread though. I knew I originally didn't like you, but now I know you to be a 100% white supremacist. Sure maybe you aren't out burning crosses in yards (do you do that in Britain?) but I can definitely tell by all the statements that you've made that you completely subscribe to the "If it ain't white, it ain't right" school of thought. And to support that statement, I refer you to your first reply to the original AC. They stated that "European culture" is a dog whistle used to call in other racists. Well I'll be damned if you weren't the first dog barking! And barking angrily too as racists are wont to do...

  62. Good but theyre also protecting their own interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japanese and Taiwanese companies are basically scared of American companies like Apple coming under pressure to produce locally and employ locals and so these companies will try and move to the US. Im not sire its the best long term strategy for the US. Its better to slowly move towards protectionism as these countries do and habe American manufacturing companies produce American products in America employing only Americans. But its a step in the right direction.