Slashdot Mirror


Wisconsin Won't Break Even On Foxconn Plant Deal For Over Two Decades (theverge.com)

Last month, Foxconn announced plans to build a $10 billion factory in southeastern Wisconsin in exchange for $3 billion in tax breaks. While the factory was heralded as a big win for President Trump and Governor Scott Walker, a report issued last week says the plan is looking less and less like a good deal for the state. In the report, Wisconsin's Legislative Fiscal Bureau said that the state wouldn't break even on its investment until 2043 -- and that's in an absolute best-case scenario. The Verge reports: How many workers Foxconn actually hires, and where Foxconn hires them from, would have a significant impact on when the state's investment pays off, the report says. The current analysis assumes that "all of the construction-period and ongoing jobs associated with the project would be filled by Wisconsin residents." But the report says it's likely that some positions would go to Illinois residents, because the factory would be located so close to the border. That would lower tax revenue and delay when the state breaks even. And that's still assuming that Foxconn actually creates the 13,000 jobs it claimed it might create, at the average wage -- just shy of $54,000 -- it promised to create them at. In fact, the plant is only expected to start with 3,000 jobs; the 13,000 figure is the maximum potential positions it could eventually offer. If the factory offers closer to 3,000 positions, the report notes, "the breakeven point would be well past 2044-45."

309 comments

  1. Yeah, somebody there is making money from it. by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It wouldn't be happening otherwise.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Yeah, somebody there is making money from it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They promise to spend $10 billion to build a factory in Wisconsin. Yes, somebody is going to make money on the deal. A lot of money. Like, whatever the net on $10 billion in construction contracts is.

    2. Re:Yeah, somebody there is making money from it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (((somebody))) is making money from it.

    3. Re:Yeah, somebody there is making money from it. by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      a factory building doesn't cost 10bn. Maybe 1M for the building, 999M for the equipment in it purchased from, well - not WI, and 9bn in "intellectual property" purchased from some offshore shell company.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    4. Re: Yeah, somebody there is making money from it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the triple parentheseses mean Hillary? I think they do, but can't remember for sure.

    5. Re: Yeah, somebody there is making money from it. by Bartles · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised at the number.brr of automation companies in wisconsin.

    6. Re:Yeah, somebody there is making money from it. by Smidge204 · · Score: 2

      The factory is said to be 20 million square feet.

      Based on that I'd expect the factory building itself to cost something like $600-$800 million depending on the construction methods. Even a metal shack building will cost over $30/sq.ft. and I'm sure a factory with all the things required to support the internal infrastructure will cost more than that.
      =Smidge=

    7. Re:Yeah, somebody there is making money from it. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember all are equal, it was the declaration of something or other but nope some pay tax and some do not and it seems some one oddly tied to political campaign donations but no one knows why ;D

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re: Yeah, somebody there is making money from it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking jews.

  2. I-94 North-South Freeway Project may be moved up by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    I-94 North-South Freeway Project may be moved up!

  3. the brat stop can use more people eating there! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    the brat stop can use more people eating there!

    1. Re:the brat stop can use more people eating there! by pushing-robot · · Score: 2

      What's the postal abbreviation for Douchenozzle? DN?

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:the brat stop can use more people eating there! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      well it's not really in the downtown area it's like right next to the main road in that area.

    3. Re:the brat stop can use more people eating there! by LS1+Brains · · Score: 2

      Good thing they remodeled Mars Cheese Castle.

    4. Re:the brat stop can use more people eating there! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every Wisconsinite know that Kenosha really belongs to Illinois anyway.

    5. Re:the brat stop can use more people eating there! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      but they fucked the up sign with that full digital screen. Just like how they messed up Wrigley Field!

  4. Second time the prez is prescient by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, at least Trump was right about America making the "worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever". Only thing he got wrong was claiming someone else was responsible for it. "Big win" indeed.

    1. Re:Second time the prez is prescient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Literally everything in your post is wrong. This is a state thing, not a Trump thing. He might jump out in front of the parade and try to take credit, but this has been in the works since long before he came along and involves Wisconsin tax credits, not federal tax credits. It isn't a trade deal, it is a package of tax incentives to locate a factory in a state.

      The only thing you got right was being snarky about the deal, because crony capitalism and sweetheart deals are worthy of snark. But this deal is standard fare for big factories being newly sited. States bid against each other to draw investment, just like cities bid against each other to see who can give the most money to a billionaire to build a stadium for his NFL team.

    2. Re:Second time the prez is prescient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      This is an idiotic report. It focuses on the tax revenue from the announcement and plays with the employment numbers to proclaim failure from a success. Tax breaks always benefit the business at the beginning stages, but it's to play a much bigger game by impacting the local economy. My father worked in food processing when I was younger (he has since retired), but his plant had a similar effect on the local economy in small town North Carolina, albeit on a much smaller scale: their employees made much less than $50,000 annually and there were only hundreds rather than thousands.

      Towns form because of this quantity of jobs. 13,000 (even 3,000) jobs represents a significant number of families in an otherwise small area and those families need a place to live, eat, learn, and have fun. In the modern economy, the spouses in these families will often also work.

      Also, it's idiotic to think that the factory would instantly start at 13,000 employees and to effectively mock it for not doing so, but I do think it's fair to question when they may reach maximum employment. That is no different than the Tesla Gigafactory, which grew (is growing?) to full capacity rather than magically starting at it.

      Furthermore, from Trump's perspective, this is going to be a win for the federal government, which does not care if the employees live in Wisconsin or Illinois because the federal taxes apply regardless.

      It's a nice headline, but until it is a failure I think it's hard to proclaim it as one.

    3. Re:Second time the prez is prescient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      In related news, Foxconn has filed an application for 13,000 H1B visa workers for Wisconsin.

    4. Re:Second time the prez is prescient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      god damn you are a fucking retard - learn to read at least the summary because you are completely wrong

    5. Re: Second time the prez is prescient by Bartles · · Score: 1

      You obviously didn't read his post.

    6. Re:Second time the prez is prescient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trump says it's his doing, so claiming a state thing is wrong.

    7. Re:Second time the prez is prescient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great points. It reminds me of one of the larger employers in my area a few decades ago was a large Steel Mill. (It's gone now). A couple times to make the point of how heavily they influence the economy they paid out wages on pay day in $2 bills. And asked people to watch for the bills. in hours the whole region was awash in $2 bills, even far beyond reasonable commuting distance.

      The benefits of getting this plant are worth not getting the tax revenues they wouldn't be getting from a non-existent plant. Okay so Foxconn will get breaks on Property and other taxes, but the 3,000 to 13,000 employees, and all the businesses that support the factory and the businesses that will provide housing shopping and entertainment services will provide those employees (existing and new businesses) and all of the employees of all those support businesses will certainly generate far more in increased tax revenues. No not as much as if Foxconn was paying the taxes it's getting a break, but still a substantial increase in Tax revenues over what the empty farm fields and the otherwise unemployed, under employed or just employed elsewhere employees will be producing.

    8. Re:Second time the prez is prescient by TimothyHollins · · Score: 2

      While the factory was heralded as a big win for President Trump and Governor Scott Walker

      If he claims responsibility then the snark should be directed at him.

      Also, "Literally everything in your post is wrong."? You are the reason the word literally was changed to mean its opposite.

    9. Re:Second time the prez is prescient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo.

      Trump supporters want to be able to claim rare successes as wins for Trump but the endless pile of utter failures are always someone else's fault.

    10. Re:Second time the prez is prescient by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 1

      I was looking for this. You may have said this as a snark but don't be surprised that within a year or two, the company does start whining about not finding qualified people and requiring H1Bs to staff the company, at 1/3 to 1/2 the prevailing wages. The real skeptic in me says to then wait a couple more years and the company will whine they're not profitable, close the plant, and move the jobs to China or Indonesia.

    11. Re:Second time the prez is prescient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NYS did exactly this with the Quad-C in Utica, NY and other projects in Albany. Nobody was surprised when bid-rigging was exposed a few years later.

  5. Funny Accounting by cheer_emo · · Score: 0

    What is the state investing? Break Even implies a cash out flow for an investment. A tax break is uncollected revenue. So at worst the state collects no new revenue, and has lost no money. What's the difference if the plant was never there?

    1. Re:Funny Accounting by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You need to actually read before you comment.

      They are not being given a tax break on profits, they are being given redeemable tax credits which they can trade directly for CASH each year.
      So, it all becomes a simple matter of applying the Apple/Google/etal tax method of pushing a whole ton of 'licensing fees' back to china to make sure the factory never actually earns a dollar, and then claiming those nice fat credits yearly as cash payments.

      No wonder Foxconn are considering more factories in the US - its basically free money.

    2. Re:Funny Accounting by Kohath · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So? Governments don't exist to make a profit, and businesses don't exist to pay taxes.

      Businesses exist to provide goods and services for a profit, which is easier if taxes are low.

      Governments exist to serve the citizens, which is easier if the citizens have economically productive work -- like when the governments decide not to drive the businesses away with high taxes.

      Seems like both are doing the right thing to accomplish their purpose.

    3. Re:Funny Accounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. It shouldn't matter if it takes a while to break even. If it eventually breaks even and provides other benefits like lowering unemployment, then it's a no-brainer.

    4. Re:Funny Accounting by Boronx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe Foxconn should build it's factory somewhere where people don't expect their neighbors to help out with the schools, roads, police.

      By taking huge tax credits, these companies are showing how much they value the communities where their employees live.

    5. Re:Funny Accounting by Kohath · · Score: 1, Troll

      Roads, schools and police exist to serve the people, the people don't exist to serve the roads, schools, and police.

    6. Re: Funny Accounting by Bartles · · Score: 1

      You don't trade in a tax credit for cash. You use a tax credit to negate someone the taxes you would have paid. If the plant wasn't built they wouldn't have paid taxes anyway. So no worse off. The article is just stupid.

    7. Re:Funny Accounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The primary two refundable tax credits, which are capped at 1.5 and 1.35 billion, are based on percentages of payroll within Wisconsin and expenditures to Wisconsin Vendors:

      "The bill would create two refundable tax credits related to the Foxconn incentive package--a
      credit based on 17% of the company's EITM zone payroll, and a credit of up to 15% of the
      company's capital expenditures in the zone."

      So Foxconn will only get those credits if they employee enough people in Wisconsin and/or purchase enough things from Wisconsin Vendors. It's not that far fetched. Spend $100 on payroll to Wisconsinites, the state cuts them a check for $17. Spend $100 on capital from Wisconsin companies, the state cuts them a check for $15.

    8. Re:Funny Accounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. The roads, schools and police all just materialized out of thin fucking air about 100 years ago, who the hell knows where they came from? Certainly not from peoples' taxes. Retard.

    9. Re: Funny Accounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then jist parole the meth heads and give them the cash. They'll create jobs for strippers and bartenders. Then they all overdose creating jobs for morticians. Win Win win, except for meth heads, and fsck them anyway.

    10. Re: Funny Accounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if i create a profitless shell company in Wisconsin to launder, i mean redirect the purchases through?

      Yeah, that's what I thought.

    11. Re:Funny Accounting by Kiuas · · Score: 2

      Businesses exist to provide goods and services for a profit, which is easier if taxes are low.

      Businesses exist to provide goods and services for a profit, which is easier if taxes are low.

      Governments exist to serve the citizens, which is easier if the citizens have economically productive work -- like when the governments decide not to drive the businesses away with high taxes.

      It's easier for a singular company if it has to pay less taxes. But you eliminate taxes altogether, or lower them in massive amounts you start to lose key infrastructure and services critical for the operation of the whole economy, which in turn is detrimental for both the corporations and the consumers within an economy. If the US would do this for every company there'd be a massive downgrade in the standard of living.

      Opposing any given tax is possible on the basis that it's 'bad for business', but that's essentially leaving out everything that's being bought by the government with the taxes to help the population. My own government collects higher taxes than in the US, but because of that I graduated without student debt, and if I manage to grow our small company to the point that we can hire full-time employees (haven't quit my day job yet but we're not in a hurry), I don't have to worry about getting them - or myself - medical insurance,

      In fact it's a quite well known fact that the cost of (private) medical insurance in the US is massively higher than the per citizen cost of government funded health care here in Europe and elsewhere, which is just common sense when you realize that for the government that's 'insuring' us all, health care is a cost, so the point is to treat people effectively and with the lowest possible cost. Whereas in the US, where health is a private enterprise and one of the most rapidly growing sectors in the economy, the purpose of the hospitals is to treat the patients while also extracting as much money in the process as they can. Back before I graduated and moved to the IT side of our health care sector, I worked in hospital billing and we had to often deal with medical invoices of Finnish citizens that were treated in the US (they were often sent to us if the person lacked medical insurance as many here do) and we used to actually collect copies of them just for the ludicrous amount of overhead on them. I've seen 4 dollar aspirin pills, I've seen a simple X-ray and some stiches priced at like 1400 dollars which is equal to the price of 2-3 days of intensive care here (which the patient himself obviously doesn't pay, there's a flat fee of around 20 euros or so per day spent in hospital, the rest is covered by us). This was way before the ACA though, I do not know how that has affected it, but it is my understanding ACA deals mostly with insurers and does not set pricing rules for hospitals. Now granted it's not all because of greed, the US system is far less centralized for many reasons which also raises costs and the salaries of clinical staff tend to be higher as well (partially because doctors/nurses have such a high amount of debt when they start working that the starting salaries have to be higher for them to afford the same standard of living as someone in here coming through med school), but even with all those factors there's a lot air in the prices.

      So the small (but extremely vocal) right-wing libertarian segment of my fellow countrymen who keep copypasting this 'down with the public health care system, the Free Market is the life and the way, it's better for business' mantra from the US are in fact totally wrong. It's a known fact that the alternative cost of a privatized medical system is much higher overall and ends up being paid for by either corporations directly (employer-provided insurance) or by the individuals themselves. In either case the end result is people and corporations have less disposable income, not more.

      So no, it's unequivocally not true that less taxes always means 'better for business'. Of course this all hinges on what you actually do with the taxes that are collected.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    12. Re:Funny Accounting by sabbede · · Score: 1
      Not quite. They get two refundable credits, one for up to 17% of payroll and one for up to 15% of capital expenditure, if they are spending and hiring at the agreed rates. Those have a total cap of 1.5 and 1.35 billion respectively.

      There's still far more money coming into the State then the State government is refunding. While the government worries about when it breaks even, the people are getting good jobs and tons of compounding economic activity is going on.

    13. Re:Funny Accounting by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Would it be better to just let them stay in China then,and remove those potential manufacturing jobs from the US? Isn't that what democrats complained about whenever the 2nd Bush administration cited growing jobs, that none of them were in manufacturing?

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    14. Re:Funny Accounting by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      "Governments don't exist to make a profit..."

      Right, they exist so businesses connected with the President make a profit. Just like a certain former Vice-President did with no-bid military contracts.

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    15. Re: Funny Accounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes what is called a tax credit is indeed a cash payment.

    16. Re:Funny Accounting by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      If that's the case, then just reduce taxes for everybody. Having states and municipalities compete with tax breaks is corrupt and inefficient and not doing the right thing.

    17. Re: Funny Accounting by Bartles · · Score: 1

      In terms of the Earned Income Tax Credit it comes in the form of a tax refund even if you didn't pay any taxes.

  6. Politics.. by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While that is possible..

    The major factor here is mostly votes I suspect.
    Basically the local politicians can use public money to buy 'jobs' (at obviously stupid prices, as ITS NOT THEIR MONEY, so they dont care).
    The locals get pummeled with 'we bought new jobs! tech ones even!!' in elections, and vote accordingly.
    The downsides for the politicians are small, and far in the future (never pays off, jobs evaporate, etc), so for them its a win.
    for the locals? not so much (to say the least).

    Remember folks, a politicians ONLY priority is to stay in power, or even better gain more power.
    They sometimes rationalize this to themselves as 'helping' because after all, they see themselves as the best person to be in power.

    The only rational solution is to vote against over pending politicians, however the majority doesnt see that, so it is bordering on impossible.

    Democracy only works when coupled with *personal* *responsibility*. As that has basically been eradicated in public office jobs throughout the west certainly (but not exclusively), democracy is now just a way to swindle the voters.

    Solutions to this are all shot down HARD as not being 'inclusive' or 'fair' - which is likely why the powers that be are pushing such concepts so hard these days (and no, I dont mean removing womens votes, so dont play that stupid strawman, there are plenty of incompetent voters from all genders, beliefs, walks of life..)

    Just remember folks, you are paying the Chinese to give you a few measly jobs back, and you are paying more than the jobs will ever return...
    Does it feel good?

    1. Re:Politics.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "break even" in TFA is only based on tax revenue. Governments don't exist to collect taxes, they exist to serve the people. If you look at the overall gain in secondary business and employment the break even is way sooner than two decades.

      None the less, these tax breaks are really just a prisoner's dilemma. State offer them because other states offer them, but they would all be better off if no one offered them, and factories were optimally placed based on other factors. We would likely all be better off if there was a federal law to ban this nonsense.

      Just remember folks, you are paying the Chinese to give you a few measly jobs back

      Foxconn is not a Chinese company.

    2. Re:Politics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only rational solution is to vote against over pending politicians, however the majority doesnt see that, so it is bordering on impossible.

      Which members of the public would be most incentivized to vote for people who would reduce government spending? Would it be the minority who pay more in as taxes than they get back, or the majority who do the opposite?

    3. Re:Politics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #MAGA! /sarcasm

      Look man, don't try to confront red state residents with facts. It's a losing battle. Anyone with a brain and any shred of decency and self-respect has already fled to the Grey Havens.

    4. Re:Politics.. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, a tax break is not an investment, it is simply fore-going funds they wouldn't get otherwise. There can be great return to the state outside of those taxes, including the employment of workers, their income taxes, and taxes on their spending. If they don't have the factory, they never get any tax revenue of course.

    5. Re:Politics.. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 0

      I see now these may be tax credits and not tax breaks, so the terms of redemption might make part of my comment above wrong.

    6. Re:Politics.. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, a tax break is not an investment, it is simply fore-going funds they wouldn't get otherwise.

      Tax breaks mean that the public costs involved in starting up that new plant have to be borne by other taxpayers, other companies.

      You may not care about the free market, but this is a case of the government picking winners and losers.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Politics.. by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Foxconn is not a Chinese company.

      That depends on what you mean by Chinese. It's founded and headquartered in the Republic of China (Taiwan), which the US won't formally recognize as a sovereign country to avoid pissing off the People's Republic of China (China), who considers Taiwan part of China ("One China" doctrine). So there's a charade, where the US pretends it's dealing with a Chinese company, and Taiwan doesn't correct them, to keep everybody happy.

    8. Re: Politics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republican or Democrat doesn't seem to matter: American democracy is poorly informed voters making irrational decisions.

    9. Re:Politics.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If they don't have the factory, they never get any tax revenue of course.

      Many economists would disagree. If a labor pool is available, it is likely that someone else would invest or start a business there instead. So this factory may just be replacing one set of jobs with another. The difference is that the alternative jobs wouldn't get any tax breaks, so the people of Wisconsin might have been better off if they had declined Foxconn's offer.

    10. Re:Politics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also Taiwan believes they are the true China and hope that the other part will one day be merged back into Taiwan.

    11. Re:Politics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's a facade in Taiwan where people pretend to believe this. Everybody knows it will never happen.

    12. Re:Politics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the voters take *personal* *responsibility* in choosing their representitives? Sounds like another rational solution to me. Or, maybe they already are, but have a different opinion than you so elect different people than you would want.

    13. Re:Politics.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also Taiwan believes they are the true China and hope that the other part will one day be merged back into Taiwan.

      That is Guomindang dogma, but almost no one in Taiwan believes that. Most would prefer independence, especially after seeing how the CCP has treated Hong Kong.

    14. Re:Politics.. by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your reply. There's only one thing which needs to be added. The snow ball effect.

      Company gets tax break -> Builds factory -> More people move into town -> Wal-Mart (or other big company) gets tax break -> Moves into town -> Local businesses close -> No longer pay business taxes.

      Overall this means the $3 Billion is really a low-ball number.

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    15. Re:Politics.. by Whibla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Many economists would disagree.

      And many would agree, and many would disagree with both of the previous groups, and still more would disagree with all the others.

      Remember, economists assume everything except responsibility!

      If a labor pool is available, it is likely that someone else would invest or start a business there instead. So this factory may just be replacing one set of jobs with another.

      Except, of course, that free movement of labour is also one of the tenets of the free market. And, yeah, I know some people may not be able to move for 'social' reasons, but there's always plenty more people, somewhere, who can. So, other than starting a local business, the only reason to start is business there is because it's going to make more money there than starting it elsewhere.

      The difference is that the alternative jobs wouldn't get any tax breaks...

      Exactly my point above (Yes, you may call me cynical)

      ...so the people of Wisconsin might have been better off if they had declined Foxconn's offer.

      I suspect it's more a case that Foxconn said something like "We're going to be investing in a factory in the US, who's going to offer to 'benefit' from our largesse?" and the various states fell over themselves in an orgy of mutual back scratching: "We'll start the bidding at a 5% tax break, for 2000 jobs over a 10 year period", "No, come here instead, we'll offer a 10% tax rebate, for 3000 jobs, guaranteed for 10 years", and so on...

      And, just to return to the beginning: They say that Christopher Columbus was the first economist. When he left to discover America, he didn't know where he was going; when he got there he didn't know where he was; and it was all done on a government grant.

    16. Re:Politics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make a flawed assumption that there's an actual cost to be born. Is a tax break against taxes you wouldn't have otherwise collected a major problem? That depends on a lot more than will be chosen in a deliberately biased analysis.

    17. Re:Politics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure it feels good to Republicans, who love giving away billions in tax revenue to large corporations that don't need it, as opposed to, you know, spending it on things that the people who actually live in this country benefit from.

      I mean, I'd like to start a business and have somebody pick up 1/3 of my capital costs for free, wouldn't you? The only better deal is being an NFL owner and getting all your facilities free, a guaranteed territory, and financial support if you somehow manage to screw all that up.

    18. Re:Politics.. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Many economists would disagree. If a labor pool is available, it is likely that someone else would invest or start a business there instead. So this factory may just be replacing one set of jobs with another. The difference is that the alternative jobs wouldn't get any tax breaks, so the people of Wisconsin might have been better off if they had declined Foxconn's offer.

      An interesting possibility. I don't know the region in question, but if there hasn't been anyone else showing interest for a long time that would be an indicator those alternate jobs might not materialize, and would be less likely to if you don't also compete with other states by offering tax breaks.

    19. Re: Politics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The choice is to elect rich corrupted assholes preselected by other rich corrupted assholes or revolt and die. Yay freedom.

    20. Re:Politics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question not answered is should this tax burden be an obligation upon future non-voting generations.

    21. Re:Politics.. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Remember, economists assume everything except responsibility!

      Micro-Economists are wrong about specific things.
      Macro-Economists are wrong about thinks in general.

      Supply, Demand, Competition. Thats economics. Full stop.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    22. Re:Politics.. by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you look at the overall gain in secondary business and employment the break even is way sooner than two decades.

      Ah, the secondary business scam -- the one where businesses claim large multiplier effects on secondary revenue and employment that mysteriously do not apply to other employers in the area since, if true for all, small business owners would be swimming in gold plated swimming pools and unemployment would be -50%.

    23. Re:Politics.. by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

      None the less, these tax breaks are really just a prisoner's dilemma. State offer them because other states offer them, but they would all be better off if no one offered them, and factories were optimally placed based on other factors.

      No no no no.... This is a global market. The option of placing this factory in the USA anywhere is dependent upon these tax breaks, as the amount of taxes, fees, regulations, etc, to create this factory in some other country is vastly lower. Think about this for a moment... the state is not GIVING them $3 billion dollars. The state is simply NOT TAKING AWAY $3 billion dollars in the form of taxes for some amount of time up-front. You think if this plant was in China there would be a $3 billion dollars in taxes collected from a plant like this? LOL on the contrary, the government would probably be footing or subsidizing the cost of building the plant in the first place.

      We would likely all be better off if there was a federal law to ban this nonsense.

      And on a totally different note, the federal government needs to keep its grimy hands off of state business. The States have the right to certain modes of tax, or not to tax as they see fit. I'm sick to death of people advocating the loss of States' rights just because it happens to result in a ruling that aligns with their personal philosophy. New Hampshire has no sales tax, instead they raise their taxes through real estate taxes. Other states have high sales taxes and low real estate taxes. Diversity and many different personalities and tax structures among the states is a very good thing.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    24. Re:Politics.. by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      This does assume that extra import taxes would not apply against factories in china.
      In the face of import taxes for finished goods, factories in country can be less expensive.

    25. Re:Politics.. by LS1+Brains · · Score: 2

      I was born and raised in the area, lived and worked in Kenosha for many years until I moved out of state. There is a large skilled work force in the immediate area, having been home to a LOT of manufacturing jobs for decades. Many of those employers are now gone (Massey Ferguson, Case, AMC, Chrysler, etc.) but many remain (Jockey, Snap On, SC Johnson, InSinkErator) and more have moved into the area (Amazon, U-Line). For someone who knows the area and its people, I can't think of a location better suited.

    26. Re:Politics.. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I spent several months working in the Two Rivers/Manitowoc area back in the late 90s. Things weren't going so well back then. Great people to work with though. Too cold up there for me.

    27. Re:Politics.. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      The "break even" in TFA is only based on tax revenue. Governments don't exist to collect taxes, they exist to serve the people. If you look at the overall gain in secondary business and employment the break even is way sooner than two decades.

      A lot depends on how many people they actually employ and where they live. If the live across the border much of that money will wind up there. While it s true that secondary economic effects will reduce the payback time the tax breaks will be a, if not the, most significant impact on the return.

      None the less, these tax breaks are really just a prisoner's dilemma. State offer them because other states offer them, but they would all be better off if no one offered them, and factories were optimally placed based on other factors. We would likely all be better off if there was a federal law to ban this nonsense.

      I agree that it is just a race to the bottom for localities. However, there will never be a Federal law because Congress likes to play the same game by brining in "directed spending" (i.e. pork barrel spending) to encourage companies to locate somewhere and bring in jobs. That doesn't create jobs all it does is pick winners and losers.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    28. Re:Politics.. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Also, a tax break is not an investment, it is simply fore-going funds they wouldn't get otherwise.

      Tax breaks mean that the public costs involved in starting up that new plant have to be borne by other taxpayers, other companies.

      You may not care about the free market, but this is a case of the government picking winners and losers.

      Exactly, and for government the most important things is the winners are the incumbent politicians the next time tehy are up for election. Thus, all the "We created X jobs..." when all they really did was throw a bunch of money at a company that was going to build somewhere, and may leave when a better offer comes around.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    29. Re:Politics.. by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      use republican, not politician.

    30. Re:Politics.. by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      fuck you mainlander

    31. Re:Politics.. by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      Of course there's an actual cost to be borne. There's the infrastructure upgrades required to support a large factory (power, water, etc.), additional roads to be built, etc.

      In my area, the last time we bribed a company to come here, between the tax breaks and the additional costs the city had to pay, the city just about broke even -- but out of sheer luck. The company had planned to close the factory as soon as the tax breaks expired, but it they weren't quite ready and so hung out for an extra couple of years.

    32. Re:Politics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rejection of consensus economics is the same as the rejection of any other scientific consensus.

      You don't go up to a geologist and say "Igneous rocks are fucking bullshit" - It makes you look like a moron.

      Preemptive stfu: Austrian economics is not economics or credible. It's a school of thought that explicitly rejects empiric study.

    33. Re:Politics.. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      None the less, these tax breaks are really just a prisoner's dilemma.

      Every competitive situation is a "prisoner's dilemma"?

      State offer them because other states offer them, but they would all be better off if no one offered them, and factories were optimally placed based on other factors.

      Lots of business just wouldn't happen at all because it's not worthwhile to take risks for a tiny after-tax ROI. Businesses can decide to build nothing new and employ no one new. And very often they decide just that.

      States are better off with employed citizens, even if that means some government people can't cash in on other people's work.

    34. Re:Politics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled Keynesian.

    35. Re: Politics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Regulation. Without regulation, this country would be a total wasteland.

    36. Re: Politics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So states should be free to sell their land (and people) off for a tax break for a disloyal company who will close the factory as soon as the tax break dries up.

      That's what you're saying. Why does a state reserve the right to mistreat its people?

    37. Re: Politics.. by kenh · · Score: 1

      Basically the local politicians can use public money to buy 'jobs' (at obviously stupid prices, as ITS NOT THEIR MONEY, so they dont care).

      They aren't 'buying jobs' inthe conventional sense, but there is some validity to your argument.

      First off, the state of Wisconsin is not handing billions of taxpayer dollars to a corporation, they are letting the employer keep money that otherwise would go to the state. But why are they doing that? Well, at a minimum it creates 3,000/jobs paying a 'living wage', so that's upwards of 10,000 of Wisconsin families that can provide for themselves (once spouses and children are included).

      What does it really cost Wisconsin?

      Maybe the state pays for some road improvements leading to the factory, perhaps they build a fire house/police station near the factory as houses for the workers go up, and so on - in the big picture they turn an idle plot of land, currently paying minimal/no real property taxes, into something supporting 10,000 or more Wisconsin residents.

      Compare this to the other way of 'buying jobs' where make work projects are invented and workers paid directly from government treasury,

      With the jobs Foxconn is creating, the state can, at some point in time 'break even', throwing money at workers will never lead to 'breaking even'.

      --
      Ken
    38. Re:Politics.. by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      NO
      The tax breaks are EXPENSES the city and state will absorb, like roads, sewers, police, fire, schools
      This IS A GIFT TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF FOXCONN.

    39. Re:Politics.. by wallsg · · Score: 1

      In the ideal world, no government at any level would apply any unbalanced subsidy or tax on any business or private entity. There would be no tax breaks for building a plant, no subsidy for putting solar panels on your roof, and no star-struck local officials screwing their taxpayers financing a sports stadium (see Glendale and the Arizona Coyotes situation or the Diamondbacks trying to extort improvements under the guise of maintenance from Maricopa County).

      Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world. Tax code and public spending are used to punish and reward all the time.

      And just because you happen to LIKE one particular subsidy doesn't negate the fact that it's still crony capitalism. I read earlier this week that Elon Musk's companies have received subsidies and "green" tax benefits equal to half of his considerable net worth.

    40. Re:Politics.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly.
      New industry, new workers, new homes and lube and oil business, new fast food and serious restaurants, movie goers, school teachers, cops and first responders ... are all multipliers. Which you might legitimately say are subtractors/negative multipliers to other areas, but that's exactly why states and towns compete. And nationally, new money from offshore fills our US coffers.

  7. At which point the plant is obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and will be closed. Way to go!

  8. Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by DatbeDank · · Score: 0, Troll

    Eliminate corporate taxes on businesses with HQs and/or manufacturing plants located in the US and simply tax any income an individual makes.

    Businesses are what make and drive wealth. Make it easy for them to make money and everyone wins. European style wealth redistribution and regulation is the reason why the Europe measures their GDP gains in half a percent (if any).

    And count dividends and corporate gains against regular income and not discount it with some bullshit separate tax.

    This encourages domestic business growth. Take it a step further and restrict income distribution by multinationals to locales with favorable income taxes too. This can be easily done with a combination of enforcement and legislation.

    And no, automation isn't a problem and won't be a serious issue for the workplace at a minimum for 50+ years. Drones won't be delivering packages, self driving cars will continue to be dangerous and mediocre, bipedal robots will still hundreds of thousands of dollars, and overall automation will still be purpose built and expensive to test and implement. /unpopular opinion

    1. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by ghoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given that the govt does very little for individuals and spends most of its budget on creating an environment where businesses can operate without people just looting them or stealing their IP or bouncing cheques on them you have it ass backwards. Individual income tax needs to be abolished and only corporations should be taxed on their revenue (not profit). They are welcome to distribute all their after tax profits to the owners tax free once they have paid their fair share.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    2. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up

    3. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by meglon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. Trickle down economics doesn't work... never has, never will. Businesses are not what drives the economy, consumers are; if consumers don't spend, businesses blow in the wind and die.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    4. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Businesses benefit from business-specific government services that have costs. Why should individuals pay for all those services for business? Setting corporate taxes to zero shifts almost all the tax burden to individuals. Companies can make their profits, decide whether they want to pass any of them on to their employees, and not pay anything back to society other than employee wages (which are then taxed). Automation makes the problem worse, because it means you have fewer employees from which to collect tax.

      Granted, employment itself is a vital contribution of business to society, but I don't see how increasing individual taxes to make up the difference in tax revenue is a net benefit to ordinary people. It sounds more like a sly form of corporate welfare because unquestionably it would make business owners and investors more wealthy than they would be otherwise. Yes, being more profitable could lead to more employment, or they could just pay their employees the same salary and pocket the difference.

      I don't see how setting corporate taxes to zero is fair or desirable.

    5. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every dollar a consumer spends goes to a business you dumbass. Take a minute or two and think it over.

    6. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      I am 100% with you on abolishing individual income taxes.

      You lost me on this:

      corporations should be taxed on their revenue (not profit)

      - you run a store, you buy 1,000,000 USD worth of goods in a month and you sell 1,080,000 USD worth of goods in a month. Beyond the cost of goods to you (1,000,000 USD) your costs include renting a store for 20,000 USD, utilities and maintenance for 5000 USD, salaries of lets say conservatively 25,000 in a month.

      1,000,000 + 20,000 + 5000 + 25,000 = 1,050,000

      0.5-2% of your stock is stolen, broken, lost somehow, that's between 5000 and 20,000. You may be left with something between 25,000 and 5,000 in a month out of which you need to pay interest on the initial 1,000,000 loan and other expenses that I am not going to bother with right now.

      In your scheme you will tax the operation on the amount of 1,080,000 USD. What is the rate you will tax it at? Current taxes on the books are what, 35% or so federal and another few percentage points State and local, between this and that, let's say 50% to be conservative (it's more than that, but whatever).

      Please explain how taking half of the revenue allows the store to exist?

      Thank you.

    7. Re: Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would tax at something's like 10% not 35... You would have to jack up your price by 10%

    8. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      I'm forced to concur with AC; where do you think consumers spend their money?

      It's a symbiotic relationship. Consumers have the power, ultimately, but it's businesses which create wealth.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    9. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by eriks · · Score: 1

      First off. I also agree that the 16th amendment should never have happened. Ideally we should probably just repeal it and have all tax collection fall back to the state (or even local) level, and let it "trickle" up -- but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

      On those figures though: most retail shops aim for 50% (known as keystone) markup on the sale price. If you're bringing in $1M in stock each month, you should have receipts of $2M, or more, since most businesses these days provide value-added services that increase their margins beyond pure product sales.

      Oh, and food? (A very low-margin business.) Shouldn't be taxed (or subsidized) at all, but I digress.

      Anyway, You wouldn't have to pay your employees as much, and would get to keep more of your profits as salary if there were no personal income tax.

      Broken/stolen stock is a write off.

      I'm not sure if a tax purely on gross corporate income is the way to go or not, to replace the personal income tax, but something like that would probably work better than what we have now. Clearly any such scheme would have to be designed so that businesses could still exist, and the owners and employees would have to be able to earn a living. It's somewhat nonsensical to suggest that a (hypothetical) taxation scheme would fail to recognize that it would shutter 100% of all businesses. Humans are stupid, but not *THAT* stupid. At least taken in aggregate.

      In any event, businesses would treat this tax essentially like a sales tax (which it essentially would be) and pass it on to the consumer anyway, but if it were designed properly, It would keep more wealth in circulation (i.e. use) than the current system.

      Eliminating the personal income tax and taxing wealth earned (and held) by corporations is (IMO) one of the few things that could reverse the trend of increasing wealth concentration, where literally (yes, really literally!) a few people have as much wealth as half the world. It's an untenable situation.

      Perhaps counter-intuitively, it could also spur efficient economic activity, since if people have more money to spend, businesses would have higher revenue. Businesses also wouldn't have to deal with the bureaucracy of payroll taxes. It would also discourage corporations from hoarding cash, rather than reinvesting wealth in the broader economy. On the government side, instead of keeping track of what 300M Americans make, The IRS could just keep track of what a few million or so businesses make, which it already does anyway, so *poof* there goes a huge bureaucratic machine.

    10. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by meglon · · Score: 1

      I get it, you're a fucking idiot.

      A business can make anything it wants, but unless a consumer buys it, the business will be nothing. Business isn't about what a business wants to do or sell, it's about what consumers want. Take a minute or two to think that over.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    11. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by meglon · · Score: 2

      A business can make anything it wants, but unless a consumer buys it, the business will be nothing. Business isn't about what a business wants to do or sell, it's about what consumers want. Take a minute or two to think that over. It's a symbiotic relationship ONLY as long as the business is providing what the consumer wants... once it fails to do that, it's dead.

      Trickle-down economics DOES NOT WORK, AND NEVER HAS.... no matter how much you want to defend it. Take a look at Kansas.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    12. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Eliminate corporate taxes on businesses with HQs and/or manufacturing plants located in the US and simply tax any income an individual makes.

      I'm generally quite a bit left of center, and I actually agree with this idea, at least in general. I would be fine with eliminating corporate taxes and replacing them with increased taxes on wealthy individuals. There are definitely some loopholes that would need to be closed (such as executives having their company pay for most of their food, housing, travel, etc. and claim them as "business expenses"), but if the math can be worked out so that total tax revenue is the same and the individual increases are only for the upper class, I would be fine with it.

    13. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh huh. See how far your businesses get if consumers can't earn enough income to buy from them. They'll spend what little money they have on basic necessities only, and all the non-essentials sectors of the economy will crash.

      There's no action a business can take to save themselves, if their customers simply cannot afford to buy.

    14. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Businesses create a product, not wealth. They can trade that product to their customers in exchange for wealth - but only if their customers have enough wealth to offer in the first place.

    15. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      The 16th amendment actually does not allow government to force people to give up income as taxes, it was the courts that incorrectly interpreted it that way, but of-course it must be abolished and the only taxes that government should be able to collect (Constitutionally) are excises, duties, direct apportioned and capitation taxes.

      However going back to the shops, 50% markup does not happen on all products. Actually some products can have hundreds of percent of markup. Something can be bought in bulk for 10 cents a piece and sold for 20 cents and nobody would even notice. However the more expensive an item is the smaller is the markup. Of-course even a 50% markup does not at all equal the profit margin, a 50% markup could be only enough to cover all costs before any taxes whatsoever, it totally depends on the business.

      In fact (something that you are clearly unaware based on your writing) many stores do not generate profits from sales, sales only cover their expenses and the profits are made on retrobonuses, advertising, selling services to smaller stores and such. You would kill nearly 100% of stores and store chains by taxing gross revenue.

    16. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Not sure I understand the connection you're trying to draw. Are you saying that because people want to buy what they want, and if you don't sell what people want to buy, then leaving more money in the hands of people will crash the economy?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    17. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mark up on the wholesale price of 100% doesn't equate to 50% profit. A typical grocery store, accounting for all costs, works on closer to 2% profit, and this can dip into a loss at certain points. Charging tax on revenue would lead to a downward spiral and so to avoid this a grocery store would need to increase its margin over 2% after a revenue tax to help it bridge lean periods. You would have to model the overall effect on the economic system to then determine if people ended up worse or better off. Those who pay a significant fraction of their income on food would likely be worse off as they already pay little to no income tax.

      The other concern is how to start a business when you have sales but high costs, and possibly no profit over costs to pay a revenue tax.

    18. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European style wealth redistribution and regulation is the reason why the Europe measures their GDP gains in half a percent (if any).

      I am not a fan of wealth distribution, but the Europe economy is currently growing faster than the US in absolute terms and Europe has historically enjoyed greater per-capita GDP growth most of the time. The population growth in the US is a strong driver for nominal GDP growth that distorts the picture when making comparisons.

    19. Re: Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because taxes are financial disincentives controlled by the state to moderate human behaviour.

      More taxes on business moderates profit, which decreases investment, which lowers stock and therefore decreases wages.

      Taxes on consumers discourages spending, which increases savings and investment, which leads to higher wages.

      It's incredibly simple, this principle goes back to Adam Smith and yet neo-"liberals" spend their every waking moment opposing every principle of classical liberalism.

    20. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bit more complicated than that as many businesses don't offer products to consumers but to other businesses. The ultimate pull is still from consumers, but changes in resource availability and the methods to efficiently exploit them will, provided consumers have spending power, tend to amplify demand. An aggregate slump in demand is pretty catastrophic, but increases in demand that also demand more primary extraction of resources are not sustainable forever.

    21. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by stinerman · · Score: 1

      So long as corporations claim to be people, they should be taxed identically to people.

    22. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Trickle down economics doesn't work... never has, never will. Businesses are not what drives the economy, consumers are; if consumers don't spend, businesses blow in the wind and die.

      ...and where does the money they spend come from? ...and where did the business get the money to begin come from (ya know, the one that pays the consumer so they can spend the money)?

      Nah. It doesn't work at all, although you likely live it every day.

    23. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. I'd also be quite happy for corporations to not be people.

    24. Re:Businesses Shouldn't Be Taxed by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      It's a symbiotic relationship ONLY as long as the business is providing what the consumer wants... once it fails to do that, it's dead.

      Well yes, that is how it works. Hence "symbiotic".

      Note: I never said anything about "trickle down" anything. I was merely responding to your notion that businesses don't drive the economy, which is utterly false. Businesses and consumers drive the economy, they are fully integrated in this regard. Think about it; you can't really talk about one without implicitly referencing the other. Where do consumers get their wealth? Where do business sell their product?

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  9. Fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is faked news. President Trump did FANTASTIC work bringing thousands of jobs to Wisconsin just like he promised. Once again we see how liberls twist and lie about basic facts to push their agenda.

    1. Re:Fake news by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      While I realise your just joking. Its probably worth noting Foxconns interest in setting up in the US probably has more to do with increasing quality of life in China. Theres an entirely plausible future out there where americans struggle on terrible wages to make cheap junk for wealthy chinese.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  10. You are looking at it wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

        Use republican math!

    1. Re:You are looking at it wrong! by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

      I'll give it a shot: looking only at tax revenue from people working at the plant is incorrect accounting. A large factory creates more jobs in the supplier ecosystem it supports, everyone from vending machines to lighting to plastics and on and on. That's people recouping more money, and that's people who aren't as likely to end up on the welfare roles than if the factory weren't there.

      Here's the Republican math: the best social program is a job.

    2. Re:You are looking at it wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And THIS is why Trump is president of these United States. With some help from Putin, of course, but that's the price to pay for WINNING. Now to put those nukes to work. A thermo-nuclear war is just what this country needs right now. Imagine the $ALE$. The job$. U$A! U$A! U$A!

      But first, we must get that lefty Mueller FIRED and then free sailing to get to work.

      All give thanks to Putin for letting our people go.

  11. Really? by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    At least with MA/CT, you pay state taxes to the jurisdiction that you work first, not where you live. You then take that money off of whatever you may owe the state you live in. This is actually good for the Wisconsin as other than the roads the only thing an out of state resident worker costs is road upkeep. A drop in the bucket compared to what residents taxes fund. Now you can talk municipalities losing revenues. But really their budgets are based on number of residents and is geared to break even for the most part. Considering most of these workers would be the age to have a family and most of a towns expenditures are for schools this really isn't a big deal having out of state workers either.

  12. I lost $60... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...because I was going to steal $100 from someone but only got to steal $40.

    Bottom line is, people in the area will be getting jobs, and they will be getting more tax revenue than if the plant didn't come to the area altogether. The fact that an increase in a population's wealth and production can be spun into the state losing money is amazing.

    1. Re:I lost $60... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Ahhh the mantra of race to the bottom.

      Be glad of the five crumbs we're tossing you... or we might well go to your neighbour for four...

  13. Will it even be built, though? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In previous years, Foxconn has promised to build other large plants in other US states - but never actually built them.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Will it even be built, though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You've got to shop around for the biggest multi-billion-dollar tax break. Some states have politicians more willing than others to sell out the taxpayer for the sake of jobs. Got to see where you can get the best corporate welfare deal.

    2. Re:Will it even be built, though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In previous years, Foxconn has promised to build other large plants in other US states - but never actually built them.

      Note that Wisconsin didn't give them any money, they promised them lower taxes. So if the factory is not built it doesn't cost the state anything (except perhaps the opportunity cost of doing another deal).

  14. Analysis is incomplete by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Fiscal Bureau did not consider the substantial savings that the Social Security and Medicare programs will realize over the years.

    Every employee that jumps off of the roof of the factory will save the state well over $100,000 in retirement benefits that will never need to be paid, which will make the break-even point much sooner. That's why part of this deal stipulates that the plant buildings must all be at least 15m tall, and they must be directly abutted on all sides by concrete pathways.

    1. Re:Analysis is incomplete by ghoul · · Score: 1

      The analysis also does not count the money that local manufacturers of safety nets will make selling anti-suicide nets to the factory. Enough suicide nets and the breakeven point comes closer.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    2. Re:Analysis is incomplete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize Trump was building the border wall in Wisconsin.

      --sf

    3. Re:Analysis is incomplete by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Concrete pathways are not sufficient. A small percentage survive with expensive life long injuries thus counteracting the savings. They must be bordered with a 10 foot border of 10 inch rusty rebar spikes, with the 15m fall sharpening is not required.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    4. Re:Analysis is incomplete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta keep out all those Canadians with their delicious syrup and bacon.

    5. Re:Analysis is incomplete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aim for the bushes!

    6. Re:Analysis is incomplete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well first of all, how is the state not going to "break even" on the tax breaks? It's not as if the State is giving 3 billion dollars to build the factory and trying to make back a return on investment. How much tax revenue is the state going to get if no factory is built? ZERO! Basically the article is saying it's going to take the state longer to make the same money they would have mad had Foxconn decided to build the factory there without any tax breaks.

  15. Re:"tax breaks" by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not "breaking even" because they did not pay any money out to begin with. If Foxconn pays even one dollar in taxes, then Wisconsin has more revenue than it would otherwise.

    That is ridiculous. Of course the state will incur extra costs because of this plant. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

    Then, there is the fact that such an approach has knock-on effects: it becomes a race to the bottom. Other companies will demand similar deals just to stay in the state.

    Go ask Kansas how well things work when you run your budget at the bottom. Ask people how things work when you can't pay your teachers.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  16. So capitalism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I thought lefties hated capitalism? Now they're afraid a state government won't break even quickly enough?

    Get your story straight proggies. You either hate profit motive or you don't.

    1. Re:So capitalism? by pedz · · Score: 1

      Nahhh... many many people just hate.

  17. Wisconsin Won't Break Even On Foxconn Plant Deal. by whoever57 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wisconsin Won't Break Even On Foxconn Plant Deal

    FTFY.

    Or to be really clear:
    Wisconsin Won't Ever Break Even On Foxconn Plant Deal

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  18. Re:"tax breaks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Wisconsin Foxconn deal being about "tax breaks" is a fiction propagated by the two sides making the deal. It's best to forget that phrase here. Instead, almost all of the $3 billion that Foxconn is eligible to get is in the form of INVESTMENT and PAYROLL CREDITS. Each year, if they hit certain targets, the state cuts them a check.

  19. It's called Alt-Right conservativsim by rahvin112 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's called Alt-Right Conservativism, you give a ton of Tax Payer money to a foreign company to open a factory, they open the factory for a few years then automate the jobs away and walk away with all the Billions of tax payer money. The tax payers are fucked over and rich people get richer, what's not to like?

    1. Re:It's called Alt-Right conservativsim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called Conservativism

    2. Re:It's called Alt-Right conservativsim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socialism for the rich.

    3. Re:It's called Alt-Right conservativsim by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From what I read, Foxconn only gets an annual credit IF they employ a certain amount of people in the first place. So when they automate - they stop getitng credits. They don't get bilions up front, they get it paid out over years. Years in which they have to employ so many people to get the credit in the first place.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:It's called Alt-Right conservativsim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What idiot marked that insightful or informative? There is nothing "alt-right" or "conservative" about corporate tax credits.

      This is crony capitalism at its finest. Corporatism for the lovers of -ism labels. It is kinda the opposite of conservative values and is absolutely anathema to anything "alt-right", even though that label is almost meaningless.

      What it does align with is both the modern Republican and Democrat parties. They both wallow in using special handouts from government to buy favor with various companies. What city doesn't participate in this sort of thing? Every Democrat worth his name loves giveaways for sports stadiums and "minority community investment". Every Republican loves some special tax breaks for their favorite defense contractor or multinational.

      This is one reason the "small government" part of the conservative mantra never quite happens. You can't grant special exemptions from government burdens if the burdens aren't there in the first place.

      Alt-right..... sheesh.... what an idiot.

    5. Re:It's called Alt-Right conservativsim by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      I would add that they don't get anything "paid out" ever. This is money that the government declines to collect.

      I'm doing some napkin math here - 3 billion divided by 20 years is 150 million per year. If we figure that an idle body costs the state of Wisconsin $30,000 per year in programs, benefits and lost taxes, which is probably a low estimate, how many jobs to break even? 5000.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    6. Re:It's called Alt-Right conservativsim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What idiot marked that insightful or informative?"

      It was me.
      I also marked you down.
      You're welcome.

    7. Re:It's called Alt-Right conservativsim by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      "We reduced the government gut punching we do to a business a little bit. A loss to us!"

      This "logic" only flies if you view government as a profit center rather than a facilitator, which is the original reason a free people create a government.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    8. Re:It's called Alt-Right conservativsim by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Nope! They get the credits if and only if they hire all the people they promised to, and do all the construction they promised. That's 13,000 people making an average of $54k/year, or Foxconn has to give it all back.

    9. Re:It's called Alt-Right conservativsim by houghi · · Score: 1

      How many and is that head count or FTE or a combination of both? I can imagine it being headcount and they hire 10 people working 4 hours, instead of 1 person 40 hours.

      Also: with that amount of money, they can hire people just to get the monies. These people do not need to do anything and the benefits pay for it, while they pocket the profit.

      And from what we have seen with e.g. Internet providers who promised to get fast Internet and took the money and did nothing, it does not mean a lot.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    10. Re:It's called Alt-Right conservativsim by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Rofl ...
      Imagine how much more you can produce if you hire the required amount of people to get the Tax Break and buy enough robots on top of that?

      You have no clue how automation and robots actually work ... the US is decades behind in robotics.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:It's called Alt-Right conservativsim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't giving them any money. They are going to take less money than the maximum possible to attract business. It's as if the moment you think about building a factory, the tax revenue instantly appears, then any reduction in the tax bill is "taking" money from the state.

  20. Re:"tax breaks" by alvinrod · · Score: 0

    Yeah it's bad math. Whatever tax % they have of $0 is the same as 0% of whatever they get from a Foxconn plant in the state. Actually it's not really the same because they get to collect income tax from the workers and there's a small knock on effect because the workers spend their income on goods and services that generate additional business taxes and result in some sales tax for the state. While that sounds great and net positive, it would be dishonest as you allude not to mention any additional costs incurred to the state. For instance, if the workers are earning a mere pittance and the state is paying benefits to them it's really just a funnel for tax payer money into Foxconn. Road costs are at least partially covered by fuel taxes, so unless the employees and shipping contractors are all buying electric vehicles it's not a problem.

    Really though I think it's just a consequence of the global economy working closer towards an equilibrium. America got to ride high from a post-war economy firing on all cylinders while much or Europe had to rebuild and many countries were just beginning to industrialize. Those same third world countries that saw an influx of jobs due to their cheap labor are starting to emerge from their rapid development and their growing middle class has reduced the supply of cheap labor so it's no longer strictly the best move to completely outsource all production overseas and ship products back.

    Assuming that these jobs are taken up by people from Wisconsin, I think the state wins out in the long run. Look at the decimation of inner-city communities and towns in states like West Virginia where unemployment wiped out a large percentage of jobs and the people had no ability to leave for greener pastures. Drug use skyrocketed and people became utterly despondent. I think that one of the worst possible things a person can experience is a lack of purpose.

  21. Think about the alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) The state did not outlay any cash.
    2) The state gets thousands of new jobs, not including the thousands of secondary jobs that will benefit from the hundreads of millions in salaries/expenses provided by foxconn.
    3) Thousands of people with decent jobs, means less draw on public funds.
    4) Income tax revenue to the federal goverment coming from everyone involved as opposed to nothing if they left the country.

    They alternative, they dont setup shop and none of the above happens. This is an amazing deal for the state.

    1. Re:Think about the alternative by AaronW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet the state still has to cover the cost of things like unemployment, sewage treatment, roads and all the other things that Foxconn and their employees will make use of but won't pay for, since there will be no payroll taxes. The state will have to pay for unemployment when the jobs are automated away, and Illinois will clean up since many of the people will just commute from there over the border. Foxconn now gets the city and state to pay for maintaining all the roads for the workers without paying a dime. Similarly, there are all the other services Foxconn will use and again not have to pay for and the income taxes on the employees won't cover it. The employees won't be paid a huge amount either with an average wage of $53K. The payback time is only the best case scenario. The area already has very low unemployment with companies already having a hard time filling positions. The unemployment rate is 3.3%. It would make a lot more sense for Wisconsin to encourage the plant to be built in an area where there is high unemployment or underemployment, not a place where there is already full employment.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    2. Re:Think about the alternative by AaronW · · Score: 1
      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    3. Re: Think about the alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unemployment? So you would rather the 13,000 people never get hired in the first place, for fear that some of them might get fired eventually? Your right, lets just cut to the chase and start paying unemployment to the 13,000 people now.

      By that logic, perhaps we should ban hiring across the state, we would save billions in unemployment years down the road.

      With reguards to roads and bridges. The argument is silly. Your still going to have the same 13,000 people driving somewhere, reguardless if they work here or if they eventually find a job at walmart for much less pay.

      Lastly 53k is damn good money for allot of people.

    4. Re:Think about the alternative by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      1) The state did not outlay any cash. 2) The state gets thousands of new jobs, not including the thousands of secondary jobs that will benefit from the hundreads of millions in salaries/expenses provided by foxconn. 3) Thousands of people with decent jobs, means less draw on public funds. 4) Income tax revenue to the federal goverment coming from everyone involved as opposed to nothing if they left the country.

      They alternative, they dont setup shop and none of the above happens. This is an amazing deal for the state.

      I was tempted to post one of my "Donald is that you?" quips as a response to your post but then I noticed that the coherence of your sentence structuring as well as your spelling and grammar, while not perfect, are on a level that is way above anything Donald Trump will ever master. Still, extra credit is awarded for the very Donald-esque use of the word 'amazing'.

    5. Re:Think about the alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But at least Apple will gain billions and pay 100.000 Dollar tax in Ireland.

    6. Re:Think about the alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I was tempted to post one of my "Donald is that you?" quips [...]

      Careful. Perhaps this babbling, incoherent mess that Trump is perceived as is just an extremely well-studied public persona. When posting on /. under a pseudonyme, he might be much more coherent.

    7. Re:Think about the alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Props for including a citation, but it doesn't support your argument. You suggest that nobody employed there will spend any money that gets taxed in WI, that property values won't rise in the area increasing taxes, and that magically this will be just a bad thing. a refundable tax credit is still a credit, not a handout.

  22. Re:"tax breaks" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    That's good to know, thanks.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  23. Re:"tax breaks" by guruevi · · Score: 1

    I think people would be more than happy if more companies demanded the same treatment, since they would all be creating jobs and building $10B factories.

    They are SPENDING $10B in-state, I did the calculation when the original announcement broke, Wisconsin breaks even pretty much within the next few years when it comes to the amount of money the state 'gets back'.

    Let's say they're not even hiring anyone, Wisconsin gets ~0.5B back in income taxes when Foxconn gives the money to anyone that builds the plant.

    Let's say this building and the economic increase in spending within the area results in 10,000 people that no longer collect unemployment, there is another ~0.5B in state services they no longer have to spend.

    There you go, 3 year payback and you haven't even calculated the ancillary services that building a facility like this produces, 10000 people need houses, need cars, need appliances, need repairs, need contractors, ... You're pumping $0.5B/year into the economy on wages alone.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  24. No, it will never break even by RhettLivingston · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Assuming it even gets built - the lifetime of these highly automated plants is not two decades. It will need to be rebuilt in order to not close down prior to that point. There will be a whole new set of "incentives" at those points in time to keep the plant.

    But, the construction companies - often owned by the associates and family of local politicians - will make a killing. The "incentives" likely won't even cover their planned cost overruns. That's all that matters to the powers that be - the kickbacks and other gains to be made during the up-front expenditures.

    The goal of those in power has been reached when the construction money has been spent.

    Does anyone not understand that our President is in the business of real estate?

    1. Re:No, it will never break even by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The incentives are if they meet requirements with number of employees, and then the second part is deductions for goods and services provided by local companies..

      As long as the incentive is lower than the total amount of taxes collected from employees, sales-tax and taxes on their profits it will still be a big gain.. You also have the benefit of lowering unemployment ie less medicare/social-security and bringing in capital to the state that will boost the economy and allow other companies to expand too.

    2. Re:No, it will never break even by sabbede · · Score: 1
      Not even close. http://docs.legis.wisconsin.go...

      They spend and hire as agreed, or get nothing. If they do as you say, they have to pay it all back.

    3. Re:No, it will never break even by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      Read it again.

      WEDC could require a business to repay any tax benefits the business claims for a year in which it failed to maintain employment levels or a significant capital investment in property required by an agreement between the business and WEDC.

      Also, note that the previous law would have required them to repay five years of their benefits, not just the current one.

      I have lived in an area destroyed by the boom and bust cycle caused by the introduction of a large corporate plant promising jobs and collapsing within a decade - because the plant had built the generation of products it was designed to build.

      The only good thing that I see about this is that it appears that they are placing it in the Chicago / Milwaukee metropolitan region which will likely be more resilient to the cycle than the rural areas often chosen for these projects.

    4. Re:No, it will never break even by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Even if it's limited to a given year, that's fine by me. In any year they do live up to their end, the money brought into the State is almost six times more than the credit.

  25. Help me out here... by pedz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    10 - 3 = 7. It sounds like Foxconn is dumping $7B into the state. How long will it take the state to break even from the $7B opportunity cost?

    50 years ago, IBM came to Austin and set up shop. Texas Instruments followed. At this point, it is a thriving tech mecca sucking many people away from Silicon Valley. Why?

    Its not just because of IBM but it is also because of the "pro" business attitude of Austin and Texas in general. At the same time, California has become fairly hostile to business resulting in a carrot and a stick: Texas offering the carrots and California whipping with their sticks.

    Yes... there are pros and cons to each side but you either want growth or you don't. If you don't want growth, that's fine but politicians would run on "no growth" platforms if that were the case. But they don't because generally growth is considered progressive, positive, futuristic, blah blah blah. Voters vote pro-growth. The confusion comes when they find out that pro-growth equates to pro-business. Then they have ambivalence and second thoughts.

    Wisconsin could build upon this seed and over the next 50 years build up to a viable competitive center for high tech manufacturing; or... they could botch it.

    $100 says they botch it.

    1. Re:Help me out here... by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      50 years ago, IBM came to Austin and set up shop. Texas Instruments followed.

      And how many employees do those companies have in Austin now? For TI, how many ever?

      10 - 3 = 7. It sounds like Foxconn is dumping $7B into the state. How long will it take the state to break even from the $7B opportunity cost?

      The naivete of people here never fails to amaze me. Or is it ignorance, or even shilling?

      Foxconn is going to spend $10B, but how much of that will be in the state? They will buy equipment, materials, expertise and more from out of state; perhaps even out of the country. For all we know, they might be spending $9B on a license to build products from their parent company.

      It's a race to the bottom and the end result is that there is no money left for the state to operate. Why should not every company in Wisconsin demand a tax break of a similar magnitude, under threat of moving to another state?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Help me out here... by hyades1 · · Score: 2

      On the list of states with the most industrially-caused air pollution, Texas is third. California, which has a bigger economy, doesn't even crack the Top 20.

      But hey, breathable air is for hippies and tree huggers, right?

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    3. Re:Help me out here... by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      Why should not every company in Wisconsin demand a tax break of a similar magnitude, under threat of moving to another state?

      For the same reason you can't just go out and bluff yourself out of every poker hand.
      A lot of companies can't just uproot and move.

      --
      I tend to rant.
    4. Re:Help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the poster said, California is so hostile to businesses that there is hardly any industry there; they've smugly exported their pollution to China.

    5. Re:Help me out here... by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      fuck you. i hope you die. serious.

    6. Re:Help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the poster said, California is so hostile to businesses that there is hardly any industry there; they've smugly exported their pollution to China.

      California GDP: $1.9 trillion
      Texas GDP: $1.3 trillion
      New Your GPD: $1.2 trillion

      It is funny to listen to the talk radio types talk about how horrible California is doing.

    7. Re:Help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quality post.

    8. Re:Help me out here... by pedz · · Score: 1

      References?

      This appears to disagree. California is last. Texas is near the buttom.

      I'm sure you have counter references (honestly... I do). This was just the first Google hit. But, here is another. California is midway (top is bad, bottom is good) with Texas in the lower third or so.

  26. Just give the money to taxpayers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just take that money and give it to taxpayers instead?

    1. Re:Just give the money to taxpayers? by enrique556 · · Score: 1

      I can't tell, after skimming through TFA, whether they're actually handing foxconn any money, or just giving tax breaks to that amount. If the latter, then there's no money in the first place, it's $3 billion in taxes they would have if foxconn built its factory in their state and paid full taxes, which is something that would never have happened anyhow.

    2. Re:Just give the money to taxpayers? by starblazer · · Score: 1

      they are handing them the money. It's not in tax deferments.

      It's getting so bad they are now starting to throw Packers crap at it to try to sway the idiotic masses.

    3. Re:Just give the money to taxpayers? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Why don't they just take that money and give it to taxpayers instead?

      Because... Give a man a fish and he's fed for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for life.

      Giving away government money directly to citizens is just such a situation and why Welfare is usually a bad thing for those who receive it for extended periods.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Just give the money to taxpayers? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      First line says "TAX BREAKS".. So they are NOT just handing Foxcom money.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:Just give the money to taxpayers? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      WRONG! They are tax abatements.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Just give the money to taxpayers? by caseih · · Score: 1

      Welfare? Now I think I've heard everything. So taxing people to raise revenue to give to companies through tax breaks and incentives is actually helping us by not giving us free money that was already ours to begin with? Because incentives to companies are the same as subsidies, and they have to be paid for from tax revenue.

      To rephrase the original poster, why not just cut taxes and allow citizens to spend their hard-earned money the way they want?

      And as far as real welfare or charity goes, conventional wisdom, such as what you describe, may in fact be not the case. Poverty is a cycle and often money with no strings attached is enough of a trigger to get people out of that cycle. There are several long-term experiments going on with charities giving people money, rather than clothes or wells or goats, and so far the results are looking very promising indeed. People are lifting themselves out of poverty, establishing habits of setting aside and saving money, and planning for the future. Something they never could do before. It's quite remarkable. It seems like those who say "give a man a fish and he's fed for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for life" might be the ones who already have the money to buy the fish.

    7. Re:Just give the money to taxpayers? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      And for a counter example... Why do we not feed the bears in national parks? Because, it encourages dependency on the handouts.

      I'm not opposed to welfare per say, but the longer you allow able bodied people to stay on welfare roles, the more you foster a culture of dependence. We have allowed GENERATIONS of people to stay on welfare in some places (like where I grew up) and we have thus created a culture that fosters dependency on welfare. How do you fix that? How do you wean those bears off handouts in the national parks?

      See the problem yet?

      I'm not advocating the end of Welfare, but I am advocating that we put definite time limits on how long you can receive it if you are otherwise able bodied. Why? Because I know folks who simply choose not to work. I knew multiple kids in High School who's main goal was to turn 18 and then move to get their own address so they could start collecting their own welfare checks. How do you fix this kind of thing?

      For the truly needy? Those who are disabled and cannot work (and I know people in this class too), by all means we need to keep supporting them. But the ones who could work, they need to work doing something... Perhaps some kind of vocational training or low skilled government tasks could be provided as a condition for welfare? Working for a living seems to be the answer to getting people off welfare and not sucked into the culture of dependency.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Just give the money to taxpayers? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Giving away government money directly to citizens is just such a situation and why Welfare is usually a bad thing for those who receive it for extended periods.

      By that logic, it is just as bad to give welfare to corporations. Especially corporations who aren't down on their luck.

    9. Re:Just give the money to taxpayers? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I would agree with that. We shouldn't give away government money w/o getting something in return, especially over the long haul. Short term tax credits used to stimulate economic activity *might* be OK in some instances, but should be the exception rather than the rule. Industry that depends on government supporting it (say solar/Wind power generation) in the long term, are generally bad ideas.

      Examples of this government intervention would be the latest GM bailout. Where I didn't think it was a good idea to do this (bankruptcy court would have been better), I understand the reasons it was done. Bailing out some of the Wall Street banks after the sub-prime meltdown was another example. Short term tax abatements or credits are fine with me, as long as the underlying idea is to spur on economic activity and there is at least SOME hope of accomplishing something good overall. Just dumping money in the form of tax abatements, rebates, tax credits or loan guarantees on some industry that has no hope of surviving w/o the government money is a bad idea...

      So, if you want to compare this to welfare.... Dumping money on folks with the view of getting them back on their feet and working to support themselves is a great idea... Dumping good money after bad for years on people who could work but refuse to is a bad idea... Same with business "investments" by government. Dumping money into businesses temporally to get them started and working on their own, works for me... Supporting then forever, not so much.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re:Just give the money to taxpayers? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Dumping good money after bad for years on people who could work but refuse to is a bad idea

      I literally have never heard anyone who disagrees with this. The argument is how large that group is.

  27. Ah yes, the are of the bad deal. by Blinkin1200 · · Score: 2

    The best thing for Wisconsin would be for this to end up like the Foxconn factory in Harrisburg, Pa - they didn't build that one.

  28. Governments don't make profits by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The government of the State of Wisconsin doesn't exist to "break even" or make a profit. They exist to serve the people in the state. A huge factory directly employs thousands, and indirectly employs many more at support businesses and businesses that will provide goods and services for Foxconn employees.

    If Wisconsin becomes a prime location for manufacturing of display panels, it will be a huge win for the people of the state, regardless of whether Foxconn ever pays a dime in tax.

    1. Re:Governments don't make profits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhm, yeah. That's exactly their point. If they wanted to they could pay thousands 240,000, and not have polluted rivers that downstream will pollute Chicago and Lake Michigan even more. That would be serving the people.

    2. Re:Governments don't make profits by jeffreyjakucyk · · Score: 1

      If the state doesn't at least break even then it goes bankrupt and can no longer serve the people.

      Spending without considering how the benefits can be recaptured with taxes leads to this perverse situation. Say the government builds a new overpass that saves people 5 minutes on average in their commute. The benefits are calculated by multiplying those 5 minutes by the average wage in the area and the number of people driving that route. Say it's 2,500 people per day who make on average $20/hour. That's $4,167/day in supposed benefits, and $1.5 million/year. For a $2 million bridge that's going to last 30 years it sounds like a no-brainer. However, nobody actually gets extra money by having a shorter commute or quicker trip to the grocery store. Plus now they're incentivized to move farther out of town causing more problems. Even if these people really did realize those benefits in actual cash money, how much taxes on that income or property value increase, or supposed new retail sales will actually be generated, and how much of that will go to the town itself that built this overpass? The answer is usually low single-digit percentages. So what looks like a slam-dunk in the benefit/cost analysis is actually a huge loser. The government spends real cash money to build this thing, and to operate and maintain it over its lifespan (lighting, snow plowing, painting, repair work, repaving, etc.) but the benefits are just nebulous feel-good stuff that's given an imaginary dollar figure. These sorts of things are why governments are going bankrupt on all levels, because such investments are not returning enough to cover their actual costs.

      If "government should be run like a business" then it can't run in the red or else it will fail.

  29. Re:"tax breaks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think people would be more than happy if more companies demanded the same treatment, since they would all be creating jobs and building $10B factories.

    A race to the bottom is one we are sure to win, and that is a pity. Infrastructure, defense, and yes social programs for those that need them do cost money.

    There are only two questions really.
    1. How much of those things are we willing to pay for.
    2. Who is going to pay.
    3. (Yes I said two.) The unwritten third is if you don't pay for certain programs and such then how much are you going to pay for law enforcement and jails? That may be higher.

    Some of the best places to live also have high taxes, but then those taxes go to making it some of the best places to live. The real problem is the really crappy places have no real tax base, plus once you get crime and all the rest, you can't afford to fix it. Sure you can jack property taxes up to stupid levels, but then more people leave. Dropping property taxes doesn't magically fix such places, because then you have even less money to work with.

    Personally I think we need fewer sweetheart deals for companies. It invites corruption. We also need it nationwide. A state can lower or raise taxes, but not for specific companies, though taxing pollution and has potential.

    Foxconn didn't get where they are by providing great paying jobs. I'm not sure I buy that they are going to suddenly do so now. To build a factory in America means they believe they can profit more than the same good or service built elsewhere and shipped here, so basically your increase in salary is the shipping costs. When you factor in actually having some environmental controls, assuming Trump's wrecking crew don't ruin them all, well I can't see many people getting paid much.

    Personally, I bet they automate almost everything and that is how they make it profitable. So you likely have some engineers making some decent money, and thats it, and even then, those engineers don't have to be American citizens. They could develop offshore and transfer the results.

    MARGA - Make American Robots Great Again?

  30. Standard Trump by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2

    In the short term, looks like a win. It's just enough to wave in front of his fans and claim he's making America great again. Made a deal, brought in 3000 jobs, hooray a win.

    15 years from now when it closes, still not having made back the tax break that brought it here in the first place? Not the part he's interested in.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Standard Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time this was posted on slashdot, the Foxconn deal was still considered good and naturally people pointed out that it was signed during the Obama administration. Trump clearly had nothing to do with it.

      Now that the deal is considered bad: Typical Trump.

      New heuristics: If it's good Obama did it. If it's bad Trump did it, even if both are the same thing!

  31. Businesses aren't taxed. by jcr · · Score: 1

    Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Corporations only collect taxes.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  32. Campbell Soup in Sacramento, CA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They threatened to pull out if the city or county didn't offer them massive tax incentives. As soon as the incentives were up, even though the contract was supposed to be for a number of years after that, they shuttered the plant, laid off a few hundred full time workers, plus all the seasonal staff.

    Big fuck you to everybody who'd been working there from up to 50+ years before. As a result I've been boycotting Campbell's and Pepperidge Farms for over 5 years now. Look into your region situations and you will likely do the same.

    People blame globalization for all the woes without looking at how much of it is really the people and companies closer to home.

  33. Re:"tax breaks" by Raenex · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not "breaking even" because they did not pay any money out to begin with. If Foxconn pays even one dollar in taxes, then Wisconsin has more revenue than it would otherwise.

    Nope. I checked the PDF linked in the summary. Foxconn will be receiving a refundable tax credit, which means the state is forecasted to write them a check for hundreds of millions for several years, in addition to any infrastructure expenses the state will occur.

    Don't believe me? Check the PDF yourself, which outlines the estimated payments in Table 1 on page 13. Table 4, on page 17, shows the break-even analysis, which compares the net of state payments and increased taxes.

  34. The workers there make money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people working jobs there make money! Minusmod this like you did before and you make me look all the more correct.

  35. backasswords by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    1) Jobs are dead. "it's jobs stupid" might have been everything in the past but now jobs are becoming stupid. There will not be enough jobs and we already have a massive shortage of meaningful or purposeful jobs (in the USA, but more so globally.) Automation will illustrate this as it advances and capital uncontrollably pushes it forward.

    2) Corporations are not job creators. Demand creates markets, it fuels black markets despite huge obstacles. Being hard on corporations does not put them out of business if there is demand... their product does not have to be addicting... the real threat is:

    3) Free trade is an economic war crime. Tariffs. A flat world only works with 1 world government... otherwise it's exploitation at scales beyond comprehension. Fascism thrives in such an environment... You can't beat the efficiency of Fascism + inhumane behavior.

    4) TAX corporations MORE! That is actually forward thinking!!
    REASON: We tax production in many ways, where shifting the burden to workers is a never ending debate. As the number of workers shrinks it makes more sense to shift the burden to corporations and idiotic to shift it towards a shrinking revenue source. Taxes (the fuel of civilization) needs to come from the economic system we have; how much is just splitting hairs while missing the bigger picture.

    5) The few workers there are get no taxes and everybody lives on a base income just for being alive. Everybody benefits from productivity; those who do work to increase it get extra benefits-- there will always be such people. In fact, the creative, innovative types who are responsible for most our progress were not motivated by money. Not forgetting those who are great at maximizing production who are usually motivated by money, there will be no shortage of them.

    6) Cap individual incomes. Governments last longer when they separate powers and if you do not address individual power (and the hybrid of person+gov=corp ) then non-government entities will overpower and corrupt government. Functionally, this has already happened in the USA to the point it is no longer a working democracy.

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

      BAH SOCIALISM BAD. MAH FREE MARKET. FUCK COMMUNISTS. Cause Ayn Rand said so! Universal Healthcare is slavery! Vote Trump!

  36. Sounds Like .... by WindowsStar · · Score: 1

    Sounds just like the Huge Facebook Data Center put in New Mexico. With the tax breaks they will break even in 2090 if everything goes well. The 1000 jobs, well that turns out to be about 100 maximum. It gets worse, the skills needed for those 100 jobs are specialized which means that most of the positions will be hired out of state or worse out of country. Worst decision ever!!!!

    1. Re:Sounds Like .... by dwillden · · Score: 1

      A not very slight difference in the two projects. My state Utah was a close competitor for that data center, until someone did the math on the fact that it will only employ 100 specialized but not really top paying jobs as well as required a rather significant amount of water, which is always a precious commodity in a desert state, even more so smack dab in the middle of our highest concentration of population. And so we pulled out, letting New Mexico have the boondoggle.

      This plant will instead employ thousands, up to 13,000. Far too many to hire a significant portion of via H1B visa's, there are only so many of those to go around.

      This deal is nothing like the FB Datacenter.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  37. Will foxconn even be relevant in 10yrs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really, with the other players in korea and mainland, will foxconn even be around or absorbed in 10yrs? And those tax breaks become tax burdens by raising the cost of living there but bring in no revenue.

  38. $3 billion in tax breaks is not the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $3 billion in tax breaks is not the same as losing/spending $3 billion you didn't have.

  39. average $54k salaries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that doesn't sound right. not for foxconn. not even foxconn in the midwest. you know damn well the average wage is going to be a hell of a lot lower for personnel inside this facility. anywhere and everywhere foxconn has a facility.. they don't make any money unless they DON'T pay a decent wage to the workers. federal minimum wage applies in wisconsin, and state law prohibits local jurisdictions from exceeding it (thanks for that, governor shithead). expect closer to $30k for an average wage, and only $1-2 over minimum for the majority of the plant's workers.. which is typical for large plants like this in wisconsin.

    1. Re:average $54k salaries? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      In that area of Wisconsin, average floor factory wage is around $20/hour, or $40K, and factories already can't find enough people at that range. Toss in a few HR types, managers, engineers and the like and you get to $54K pretty quickly.

      Also noticed that this report assumed that wages will remain flat for the next 20-30 years, and that there's no inflation working against state payments. (Fixed payments are worth more the later you pay them - look up "time value of money".) Adjust a few numbers in that report for reality and you'll end up with a "break-even" in about a decade.

    2. Re:average $54k salaries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time value isn't relevant here. If you want model that then the value of the tax credits given over time is really an annuity with much greater value also.

    3. Re:average $54k salaries? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      Show me a "break-even" without TVM, and I'll show you a marketing graduate. :)

      More seriously, take a look at the original numbers on page 17 of the study:
      http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lfb/bill_summaries/2017_19/0001_ss_ab_1_foxconn_fiserv_legislation_8_8_17.pdf ...and you'll see it's a "sensitive" model that changes quickly when you apply real-world inflation.

      If you apply an inflation rate of 2% (bringing down the impact of future costs) and a wage growth rate of 3% (evening out to 1% over inflation, reasonable since labor markets are tight) your break-even becomes 2036 (a six-year difference) and there's a billion extra in the coffers in another five years. Run the same model with inflation at 3.5% (likelier if the economy continues to heat up) and wage growth at 4.5% (still only 1% above inflation) and the break-even drops to 2034. Etc.

  40. Re:"tax breaks" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Cool, thanks for reading the PDF.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  41. It's not an opportunity cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The article's logic assumes that there is some sort of opportunity cost on this tax break - that is, that Wisconsin is somehow transferring money to Foxconn and by doing so, giving up other investments ie. infrastructure, health, etc. the obvious alternative to not giving a tax break is not getting an investment from Foxconn. any investment benefit should be seen as a net positive, and the taxation in the long run as gravy on the top. There is no transfer of money from the state to private hands, it's a subsidy that would be commonplace anywhere in the world

  42. Lifespan of factory: 5-10 years, tops by jsepeta · · Score: 2

    I doubt Foxconn will keep the factory operational for 20 years. We're moving into an era of robotic automation, and those 3000 jobs will not last 30 years.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    1. Re:Lifespan of factory: 5-10 years, tops by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Then they have to pay it back.

  43. Re:"tax breaks" by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    The State will also get taxes, indirectly. Those 13,000 jobs that average $54,000 a year will each pay about $2700 in State income tax. So that's about $35 million a year right there. And the State share of sales tax is 5%, so assuming 25% of that income is taxable when spent, that's another ~$9 million a year in taxes. So the State will make about $44 million a year just from the jobs alone. That should cover a fair amount of extra costs...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  44. Re:"tax breaks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're assuming the need for houses is a need for new ones, and then also saying it will reduce unemployment. It won't be both to the fullest extent, but a mix, or people simply moving jobs. Thus the demand for housing is likely to be rather less, and even less than that in Wisconsin if some workers commute from Illinois.

    One of the effects of an influx of well paying jobs to an area can be raising prices such that young people starting out in that area cannot afford them and move away, although that may simply displace demand for new housing unless there is excess elsewhere.

  45. Someone can't math by opensourcespace · · Score: 1

    The state is paying $270,769 each to purchase jobs that will pay its citizens an average of $54,000 each. Math 3,000,000,000 divided by 13000 is 270,769. If you presume that the citizens don't immediately flee the state in terror the payback to the state (not the state government) is 4.27 years, less if you assume that the businesses that they spend their money at turn around and also spend their money in state or that the original 10 Billion is actually spent in state. Now we face a typical political question do governments exist to make the state richer or to make the state GOVERNMENT richer? Would you pay $270,769 to get your kids an extra average of $54,000 per year? Sounds a lot like college doesn't it? What if I doubled it and made it $541,538 to make an extra $108,000 per year? Now it sounds like Medical school. Are parents suckers for putting their kids in Medical school?

    1. Re:Someone can't math by doctorvo · · Score: 1

      The state is paying $270,769 each to purchase jobs that will pay its citizens an average of $54,000 each

      Actually, the state is paying nothing at all.

  46. that's a bullshit analysis by doctorvo · · Score: 1
    If you give a company a $3b tax break on a $10b investment in order to lure them to your state, that costs the state nothing. And calling a $3b tax break an "investment" is absolutely ludicrous.

    Wisconsin doesn't want the Foxconn plant? No problem, I think Foxconn is happy to put it somewhere else.

    1. Re:that's a bullshit analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 10B isn't going to the state. The state is handing over 3B in taxpayer money in exchange for the income tax on a payroll of approximately 150M on 3000 $54k/year jobs, which is about 9M a year at 6% (assuming no deductions), using the initial 3000 job figure, because the "best case" figure is bullshit.

      That'll take 333 years assuming money stays constant (0% interest).

      Of course this is oversimplified but at the end of the day it is not too hard to see that the other, smaller factors that come into play cannot possibly make enough of a difference for this to be a good deal.

      Typical government sticking it to the taxpayer in the name of big business and the 1% investor ruling class.

  47. Re:"tax breaks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nope. I checked the PDF linked in the summary. Foxconn will be receiving a refundable tax credit, which means the state is forecasted to write them a check for hundreds of millions for several years, in addition to any infrastructure expenses the state will occur.

    The primary two refundable tax credits, which are capped at 1.5 and 1.35 billion, are based on percentages of payroll within Wisconsin and expenditures to Wisconsin Vendors:

    "The bill would create two refundable tax credits related to the Foxconn incentive package--a
    credit based on 17% of the company's EITM zone payroll, and a credit of up to 15% of the
    company's capital expenditures in the zone."

    So Foxconn will only get those credits if they employee enough people in Wisconsin and/or purchase enough things from Wisconsin Vendors.

  48. Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jobs = WIN.

  49. Re: "tax breaks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would take over two hundred years to break even, without adjusting for inflation losses, even if your figures were entirely new revenue. Tip: It's not.

  50. Is this new math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the first sentence:
    Last month, Foxconn announced plans to build a $10 billion factory in southeastern Wisconsin in exchange for $3 billion in tax breaks.

    It would seem to me that they'll break even before 1/3 of the factory is complete.

  51. Re:"tax breaks" by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    So, $44m/year, for a tax break of $3bn, which works out at 68 years to break even. The calculations that came up with two decades must have included that and around double that from other sources.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  52. Re:"tax breaks" by Raenex · · Score: 1

    The primary two refundable tax credits, which are capped at 1.5 and 1.35 billion, are based on percentages of payroll within Wisconsin and expenditures to Wisconsin Vendors:

    It's not clear to me that capital expenditures have to go to Wisconsin vendors. For example, if they bought $10 million in concrete from outside the state to be used within the state, by my reading that's still a capital expenditure within the state, and they would receive a tax credit.

  53. An application of NFL welfare logic by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Wisconsin is applying the same form of governmental logic that motivates cities to build expensive stadiums to give away to sports franchises. Taxpayers have to hope that Foxconn innovates enough, such as by making robotic assembly better and cheaper than the slave assembly the company has been famous for at home, to make the deal pay off sooner.

    1. Re:An application of NFL welfare logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even close to the same thing. Wisconsin is just saying "hey if you build your factory here, we'll reduce your tax bill if you meet these criteria" they aren't taking out bonds to pay Foxconn to build the factory.

  54. Average wage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An average wage of $54000 for factory workers? That's a good one! I've got this bridge you might want to buy,,,

    Translation: Thee executives each earn $40M and 3000 workers each earn $14.5K.

    1. Re:Average wage? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      An average wage of $54000 for factory workers? That's a good one! I've got this bridge you might want to buy,,,

      It depends on the factory.
      I work for a company that employs a good number of factory workers. Most of these hold engineering degrees or similar, and earn in the $60-120,000 range. There are lower paid jobs too, like cleaning crews, forklift operators, mail operations and cafeteria staff, but those are fewer.

    2. Re:Average wage? by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      Now consider that for 54K average wage, perhaps 90K all-in employee cost, for a station with three shifts, that's 270K a year, or a cool million you can spend on a robot, per employee you might otherwise employ, who will pay back after four years.

    3. Re:Average wage? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Now consider that for 54K average wage, perhaps 90K all-in employee cost, for a station with three shifts, that's 270K a year, or a cool million you can spend on a robot, per employee you might otherwise employ, who will pay back after four years.

      The robots is precisely why the engineers are well paid; five robots and one employee with the skills and interest to run them is still cheaper than ten low-paid employees. The automation has made the average salaries in factories go up - there are just fewer employees than before.

    4. Re:Average wage? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      The average wage for people in Wisconsin generally (not just manufacturing) is around $67k. $54k doesn't sound ridiculous.

    5. Re:Average wage? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      An average wage of $54000 for factory workers? That's a good one! I've got this bridge you might want to buy,,,

      You're an idiot, no other way to cut it. When my dad was still working at a "big 3" warehouse, he was making $32.80/hr plus benefits(that's 35 years in). That same warehouse was hiring new people at $18.80/hr first 3 months, 19.80/6mo. Full hire after 1 years for 22.93/hr plus benefits. Canada or the US, the average factory worker wage is in the $44k-60k/year range, if not a bit more.

      To the people saying WOOO ROBOTS. Problem is, GM has tried this repeatedly(so has Ford, Chrysler, Toyota and so on), for whatever reason it fails every time. Outside audits found that it was never an internal sabotage issue, it's simply the systems attempted never worked.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:Average wage? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      The average wage for people in Wisconsin generally (not just manufacturing) is around $67k. $54k doesn't sound ridiculous.

      $67k? The page said otherwise.

      Also, the AC GP makes sense because it is the current business model nowadays. Sad isn't it?

    7. Re:Average wage? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Your link cites the median wage (which is a much better measure -- I just failed to find it). Mine cited average. Both of our figures can be correct at the same times.

    8. Re:Average wage? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The median only has any meaning when you also know the average, otherwise the number is completely pointless.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Average wage? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      That's not even remotely close to being true.

      Median and average are telling you two different things. You don't have to know one in order for the other to be meaningful. Indeed, except in degenerate cases, knowing one gives you a general idea of what the other is likely to be.

    10. Re:Average wage? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The median tells you nothing at all about the likely average.
      And comparing two medians is even more meaningless.
      If you don't have the avarage as well, you need to know the total sum.
      E.g.
      [1 3 100]
      [2 4]
      Have both the same merdian. and have mothing in common to each other.
      And neither has: [-100 2 4 10000] something in common with the first to sets, besides naving the same median as well.

      I leave it tto you to calculate the sums and avarages.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Average wage? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      You're ignoring my qualification excluding degenerate cases. Your examples are degenerate cases.

      It's true that knowing the median all by itself doesn't tell you much. Additional information is needed, as you correctly point out. That additional information does not have to be the average, though. The number of data points and total range of data is plenty enough.

      The median and average are measuring different things, but those different things are themselves related. So, with most real-world datasets, knowing one gives you a ballpark estimate of the other. Take, for example, having a dataset that is perfectly uniform (there are an equal number of data points at every point in the range): the median and the average will be the same.

      Or, take the income figures citing earlier -- if you know the median income is, say, 47k, then you can be pretty confident (but not certain) that the average income is not 10k or 100k.

    12. Re:Average wage? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Or, take the income figures citing earlier -- if you know the median income is, say, 47k, then you can be pretty confident (but not certain) that the average income is not 10k or 100k.
      Yes, but it does not tell you what the average income is. So it is meaningless. It tells you actually nothing except a value and a fancy name for it.
      90% of the americans here on /. think that median is just a more fancy name for average.
      You don't know if the median is below, above or close to average at all. So why handing out that single number?
      The median is only interesting if you know more ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:Average wage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An idiot? You are describing something from the past, from a previous generation.

      Show me a current job posting for an unskilled manual labour factory job in North America that pays more than $15 an hour and I will be well and truly shocked. I'm pretty sure such jobs don't exist anymore, because they are unsustainable.

    14. Re:Average wage? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      unskilled manual labour factory job in North America that pays more than $15 an hour and I will be well and truly shocked.

      Yes an idiot. Try vutec, for example. The starting wage in Woodstock, Ontario is $18.80/hr. In Indianapolis, IN, it's $16.23/hr, those are both starting wages. $22-25/hr after 4 years is common. You just don't know what you're talking about, because you think white collar work has out paced it. It hasn't.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    15. Re:Average wage? by Dr_Terminus · · Score: 1

      Kind of... the two only have a relationship to each other if you make assumptions about the distribution of samples. In a normal distribution, you'd expect the two to be close, but in other situations, they could be completely unrelated. However, knowing both the mean and median can provide information about the nature of the distribution (e.g. is it heavily weighted one way or another, are there outliers, etc).

  55. Re:"tax breaks" by asylumx · · Score: 1

    Also, what make a vendor a 'wisconsin vendor'? As an IT example, if Wipro had an office in Wisconsin, would they be considered a Wisconsin vendor in this case? I'm honestly not sure, tried to google it but haven't found much of use yet but if so, you can bet the jobs that get created aren't going to citizens of Wisconsin...

  56. Re:"tax breaks" by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

    That is ridiculous. Of course the state will incur extra costs because of this plant. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

    How much? If you have numbers, please present them. That would be good info and a strong argument.

    FWIW, the infrastructure required to support the plant will almost certainly have to be built or upgraded from what exists today. Roads, water, sewer, public safety, etc. I think the project is almost certainly a net win for Wisconsin but I agree with the OP that saying the state will not incur costs because of the plant is indeed disingenuous.

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  57. Government doing business... by mi · · Score: 2

    Won't Break Even On Foxconn Plant Deal For Over Two Decades

    Sounds much like installing solar panels on your roof — barely even after decades with governmental subsidy, ruinously expensive in a free market.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Government doing business... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't Break Even On Foxconn Plant Deal For Over Two Decades

      Sounds much like installing solar panels on your roof — barely even after decades with governmental subsidy, ruinously expensive in a free market.

      That's a poor calculation. It neglects to factor in the expense of a roof as a baseline. You should find a better link.

    2. Re:Government doing business... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Did you even look at your own link? It appears to contradict what you're saying. Here...let me help you:

      "Despite recent cuts by the government to the Feed-in Tariff, plummeting solar costs mean that solar panels are still cost effective and will deliver earnings and savings of around £8,080 over 20 years on average. "Although solar panels under the old Feed-in Tariff in 2015 used to earn households around £13,450 over 20 years, falling solar costs mean that in 2016 typical return on investment for solar panels is a healthy 4.8% over 20 years."

      And where does one find this "free market" you speak of? Do the $5 TRILLION in subsidies given to fossil fuel corporations get counted, or do they just get a pass for some reason?

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    3. Re:Government doing business... by mi · · Score: 1

      plummeting solar costs mean that solar panels are still cost effective

      They aren't. According to their own numbers, you'll make about 2000 quid over 20 years, under the most optimistic assumptions — that is, you will never have to repair your installation or otherwise spend any money on it after the initial installation. And even then only if that initial installation is sponsored by the government.

      Do the $5 TRILLION in subsidies given to fossil fuel corporations

      Citation needed.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Government doing business... by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      cut your cock off, you are not qualified to breed.

    5. Re:Government doing business... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once a troll, always a troll.

    6. Re:Government doing business... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      The Google is weak in this one...

      First of all, according to the guy's own data, you're looking at a 4.8% ROI after 20 years. Anybody who complains about that is an idiot.

      Second, solar panel manufacturers offer warranties that will be in the range of 80% of original output after 25 years. Maintenance isn't really an issue. They're built to last. Where I live, solar panels stand up just fine, and our weather makes yours look like a joke.

      http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/

      Third, the staggering size of fossil fuel subsidies is a matter of record in many, many places. Here's an easy one:

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Facebook

      So how 'bout next time you make the teensy little bit of effort needed to inform yourself rather than expecting everybody else to do your work for you.

      So answer the question: does the fossil fuel sector get a pass with respect to subsidies? Even if you try to quibble about the amount (which would be unwise, because it's probably conservative), it's a plain fact that the entire fossil fuel sector has been suckling at the public teat with nary a peep from people who whine constantly about how renewable energy is "sponsored by the government". And it's been doing so for nearly a century.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    7. Re:Government doing business... by mi · · Score: 1

      The Google is weak in this one...

      You can not expect your opponent in a debate to do the research for you. You make a claim, you substantiate it.

      according to the guy's own data, you're looking at a 4.8% ROI after 20 years. Anybody who complains about that is an idiot.

      I really hope, you didn't mean to call me an idiot... Stipulating the figures you quoted are true, that's pitiful... I can put money into a saving account at 1.20% today. In 20 years that will have grown about 27% — and, unlike with purchased hardware, I will always have the option of pulling it out at a moment's notice. Other safe investment options exist without this immediate withdrawal option, but offering higher rates in return.

      Third, the staggering size of fossil fuel subsidies is a matter of record in many, many places. Here's an easy one: [theguardian]

      The Guardian carelessly (or deliberately?) conflates subsidies of different places. But they do refer to the original study:

      Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years). Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%. China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion). Eliminating subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP.

      So, the real offender is China, where the market is decidedly not free and we do not know, how exactly they count in the first place. If, for example, they include road-building for accessing drilling sites, then that's not valid.

      When I was complaining about solar subsidies, it was about direct help to the manufacturers and the incentives to buyers. In the US alone, that's been $4.4 bln just at the federal level — not including the state and town spending.

      Even if you try to quibble about the amount (which would be unwise, because it's probably conservative)

      Probably? Ha-ha... Try your Google strength again to find the real numbers.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Government doing business... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      1. Take your pick:

      https://www.iisd.org/gsi/fossil-fuel-subsidies

      http://grist.org/climate-energy/imf-says-global-subsidies-to-fossil-fuels-amount-to-1-9-trillion-a-year-and-thats-probably-an-underestimate/

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867

      http://www.iflscience.com/environment/fossil-fuel-subsidies-7-percent-global-economy/

      Now answer the question: Do fossil fuels get a pass when people whine about "subsidized" renewable energy?

      2. You seem to believe cash in a savings account and investment in property or businesses are the same, which they are not. Currencies tend to depreciate in value over time.

      So the fact remains, the cost of using fossil fuels has been kept artificially low for decades thanks to subsidies and because many of the real costs have been externalized. Meanwhile, the cost of solar generation just keeps going down...and there's every reason to believe it will continue to do so. You can't just blame it on China, I'm afraid, though they're certainly one of the main reasons why the cost of an actual solar panel has declined more than 92% since the mid-1970's (Bloomberg). Fossil fuels, of course, have gone in the other direction.

      Not that any of this matters, in a sense. We're getting to the point where pretty soon unsubsidized solar generation will be cheaper than (still subsidized) fossil fuel generation.

      https://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/12/is-this-the-best-solar-chart-yet/

      Even Scientific American gets it:

      https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/the-price-of-solar-is-declining-to-unprecedented-lows/

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    9. Re:Government doing business... by mi · · Score: 1

      Take your pick:

      No, you take a pick of a citation, that supports your assertions.

      Do fossil fuels get a pass when people whine about "subsidized" renewable energy?

      They certainly don't, if this conversation is any guide.

      You seem to believe cash in a savings account and investment in property or businesses are the same, which they are not.

      Of course, they aren't.

      the cost of using fossil fuels has been kept artificially low for decades

      I don't know, if "low" is the right term, but I agree, that "lower" is correct. And that's a shame, though some people claim, much more subsidizing is needed — the better to destroy what little is left of America's capitalism.

      But fossil fuels would've been usable — and profitable — without the subsidies too, whereas the solar panel wouldn't be. They just barely pay off (and not always) even with the subsidies and incentives.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:Government doing business... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      You're really falling behind, here. First of all, any of those links adequately address the original point...that fossil fuels have been subsidized forever, but people like you only get your knickers in a twist when renewable generation gets a tiny fraction of those taxpayer dollars thrown its way.

      You should probably use your formidable Google skills to check out "no true Scotsman"...which is the fallacy you've been trying to perpetrate.

      I have to admit, though, your belief that the United States has ever been a capitalist nation rather than an oligarchy is truly amusing. Thank you for that.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    11. Re:Government doing business... by mi · · Score: 1

      any of those links adequately address the original point

      I couldn't find anything relevant there, sorry. If you have, quote it here.

      renewable generation gets a tiny fraction

      Renewable energy, according to the link I found, gets not "a tiny fraction", but 27% of all electricity-production subsidies. That's despite producing only 14% of the country's electricity.

      As I said, it wouldn't survive without government's subsidies, whereas the traditional means would do just fine.

      And that takes us back to the original point — even with all of these subsidies, adopters of solar panels would barely break even in the best of circumstances. Which is similar to chasing foreign factories with specially-sweetened deals.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    12. Re:Government doing business... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      If you couldn't find anything relevant, it's because you didn't look.

      But thank you for answering the question, finally. At last you admit you believe solar, wind and other renewable generation must compete without subsidies against one of the most heavily subsidized energy sectors on the planet...fossil fuels. It would appear you decided that because these fossil fuel subsidies have persisted for decades and are still in place, they're somehow grandfathered in, and shouldn't count. We'll leave the health care costs picked up by the taxpayer thanks to fossil fuel emissions for another day.

      Thank you for making it clear that you do not, in fact, favour a level playing field, but one where the established giants keep suckling on the taxpayer teat, but renewables deserve no such opportunity.

      Fossil fuels will still lose, it will just take longer.

      You could have saved yourself a lot of writing if you'd just admitted right off the bat that you believe subsidies for oil, coal and gas are fine, but subsidies for wind, solar, and geothermal must be denied because...um...whatever it is that allows you to maintain such a textbook case of cognitive dissonance.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  58. Typical Republicans - Stick It To The Taxpayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical Republicans... welfare for big business at the taxpayers' expense...

  59. Re:Someone didn't read the manual by sabbede · · Score: 1
    No, the cap on the payroll credit is $1.5 billion at a rate of 17% a year. Read the law - http://docs.legis.wisconsin.go...

    So, they can get a credit equal to 17% of their payroll each year until it reaches a total of $1.5b. They can get a credit for 15% of their annual capital expenditures up to $1.35 billion. The remaining $.25b is a preexisting manufacturing credit.

  60. Can't Break Even on $0??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but people are starting to be pretty moronic in terms of concepts related to taxes. Wisconsin hasn't invested anything. They simply offered a reduction in fees paid for something that largely won't increase any expenses that they have as a state, I mean, within a margin of error, it has basically cost them $0 to do this. For this, a company comes to their state and creates jobs there that are an average of $53K and folks are whining that it isn't a "huge amount"... the same folks that want to complain about a living wage, most likely... well, $53K is about $26.50/hr... and the living wage proponents are wanting to start out in the $15/hr ballpark.

    So, had Wisconsin not offered the tax breaks, Foxxconn would have gone somewhere else that did give them and Wisconsin wouldn't get these jobs. And unemployment numbers are never really representative of reality... there are folks that stop looking for jobs and they don't count towards that 3.3% number. Jobs in the $53K ballpark might offer an opportunity for these folks.

  61. Re: "tax breaks" by SirSlud · · Score: 1

    A big long comment that shows your private school and parents failed you. And you failed Catholicism, hehe.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  62. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make no positive progress because it's a win by the opposition party. Got it.

    Slashdot is moderated by some seriously brain dead people.

  63. While I too am skeptical... by Junta · · Score: 1

    Mainly that Foxconn has a history of bailing out and it's highly likely they will bail if not before even starting, not too long down the road. Also, even if not bailing out, it means robots in here instead of overseas. Getting all excited about this as the glorious return of mfg to the US is crazy,

    But people act like tax breaks are giving them money, rather than electing not to take as much money. So the claim about 'breaking even' really only applies if there was some other company was going to spend 10 billion dollars, pay the full tax rate, *and* were somehow unwilling or unable to do so because of the Foxconn deal.

    I don't know what the ultimate tax bill is, but let's say it's 100 million dollars to have something to speak to. The government could have had 1% of 10 billion, or 30% of 0 dollars. It's doubtful that such a plant would represent 3 billion dollars of govermnent spend burden (e.g. lots of new roads or such). It's more likely that $10 billion is just well in excess of usual spend, so a 30%+ rrepresents better the increased government costs for smaller investments and it doesn't scale up linearly.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  64. mod +1 insightful by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    wish I had mod points right now

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  65. Chinese exporting pollution as they get wealthier? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    FTFY: "There's an entirely plausible future out there where Americans struggle with terrible pollution as Chinese-owned robots in America make cheap junk for wealthy Chinese."

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  66. Failure to Understand. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    You can spend money on permanent jobs (Foxcon), Temp make work projects, or welfare.

    Foxcon is a better deal for Wisconsin that it seems.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    1. Re:Failure to Understand. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The spending of money has to come from somewhere--notably, taxpayer pockets. That reduces the capacity of consumer demand, which is what creates jobs. (Corporate taxes reduce agility--the capacity to change rapidly to a rapidly-changing market and supply the appropriate jobs--but it has a much-smaller impact on total job availability than consumer buying power and, thus, consumer taxation.)

      The other side of this is Wisconsin wants a factory producing a product that sells outside of Wisconsin. From the perspective of America as a whole, producing these things using American labor increases costs, and so has an impact of reducing total available jobs if we buy from them rather than picking up the cheap (and identical) Chinese one. From the perspective of Wisconsin, if America loses 87,000 jobs and Wisconsin gains 35,000 jobs, Wisconsin has boosted its job market and increased its tax revenue (never mind that America is at a net 52,000 loss of jobs--fuck America, this is Wisconsin and Wisconsin cares about Wisconsin first!).

      The ultimate win for Wisconsin is for people to actually buy the stuff they manufacture while they import from China instead of dogfooding their own product.

    2. Re:Failure to Understand. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      The spending of money has to come from somewhere--notably, taxpayer pockets.

      It already does. Paying for services for all those people without jobs.

      if America loses 87,000 jobs

      If the white whale beaches itself off the coast of Africa. (See how anyone can make any statement at all by just typing and nothing more need be done.) If you think that the idea that an iPhone will cost $40.00 more because of increased labor costs will cost the US 87,000 jobs, show your work their bucko.

      f we buy from them rather than picking up the cheap (and identical) Chinese one.

      Tell that to the dead pets and children eating lead paint. Chinese products can be identical for a few bucks less. They can and often are dangerously different.

      this is Wisconsin and Wisconsin cares about Wisconsin first!

      Umm, Yes.


      You seem young. University was not the education that you thought it was. Learn some history, grow out of your bubble, work hard for a decade and fail a few times and survive and learn from that. If you are smart and you learn well from your experiences you might just become a complete person.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    3. Re:Failure to Understand. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      If the white whale beaches itself off the coast of Africa. (See how anyone can make any statement at all by just typing and nothing more need be done.)

      Right, didn't put in context.

      If you think that the idea that an iPhone will cost $40.00 more because of increased labor costs will cost the US 87,000 jobs, show your work their bucko.

      It was a demonstrative statement illustrating that what's good for Wisconsin is not necessarily good for America. Still, if you want the demonstration of the basic concept, we can do that.

      $40 can't be spent on other things if it's spent on an iPhone that's $40 more expensive. Do consumers not buy iPhone but buy other things, or not buy other things and still buy iPhone?

      If they don't buy as many iPhones, the factory creates fewer jobs than projected based on how many laborers are needed to produce some number of iPhones.

      If they do buy iPhones, how many per year? Let's use nonsense numbers, since you proposed $40, and I'm tired of doing this with pants (for which I've used real numbers).

      Some guy on Quora uses a lot of black magic to claim 36 million iPhone purchases per year. ... okay, whatever, I wanted real sales numbers, but I guess we're committed to this nonsense anyway, so I'll take it.

      36 million x $40 per year = $1,440 billion.

      $1,440 billion is 87,000 minimum wage jobs, just about. That's your ceiling. It's 26,700 median-wage jobs. If we assume median distribution, then that's 26,000 lost. Truck drivers represent a $19.36 average hourly wage and roughly 50% of shipping; retail workers at minimum wage represent a small part of other costs chained to most goods. If we call it ~$15/hr, it's 48,000 jobs.

      Why truckers and retailers?

      You only put so much on a truck. If you buy less stuff, the per-good cost of shipping doesn't decrease; the number of trucks and shipping hours does. (By the by, shipping a pair of pants from China costs 6 cents; the ground shipping that eventually gets those pants to the retail outlet totals something like $10 after moving from warehouse to warehouse.) The same goes for cashiers scanning 980 items per hour, people stocking shelves, and the like.

      As for consuming the whole cost, the United States has a stable economy. It's drawing money in through exports, sending money out through imports, and has productivity and growth making up the difference (else our trade imbalance would mean we'd be losing more and more jobs each year, and recovery from a recession wouldn't be a thing). The whole cost of that $40 is lain on the economy each pay cycle--it goes into an American pocket to be spent in the *next* cycle--else we'd have essentially infinite spending capacity in instantaneous time (i.e. we'd violate the laws of thermodynamics--all of them--by violating the laws of causality).

      So you have one of two situations: a loss of purchasing of iPhones and a creation of fewer jobs, or a loss of purchasing of other things and a creation of fewer jobs. The loss of purchasing of iPhones may also cause the loss of jobs, either at Apple (as people jump to lower-price Android phones) or in retail and shipping as well as Apple (as people simply go longer between iPhone purchases).

      When you do this with real numbers, you compare the labor-hours worked to afford a purchaseable product. That inevitably shows that Americans work longer to purchase the same products, which takes us right back to the first law of thermodynamics--because you can't just magic up time and the energy expended over time. If you work 6 hours instead of 3 to buy some pants, then you can't trade the product of 3 more hours of work to buy whatever else you used to buy unless you work 3 more hours, assuming that other thing isn't more-expensive. The result is less labor trade, meaning fewer supportable jobs: the factory workers get work at someone else's loss, and less work is traded in

    4. Re:Failure to Understand. by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      First.
      The thought that most (Even though you did the math for ALL) iPhone buyers will buy $40 less stuff because their phone cost $40 more is a fallacy.
      Many iPhone buyers have disposable income and most of the $40 will come out of savings. There are some working poor that can not really afford an iPhone and some of them may spend less elsewhere as a result. Some of them may hold on to their phone longer or buy a less expensive phone.

      Chinese manufacture is the best in the world.

      No it is not. It is just really cheap.

      I don't even know how to relate to some of the mature-class mechanisms--but I'm at a point where encountering painful thoughts just leads to a lot of screaming until the pain goes away.

      And running for office.

      I would guess you simply have too many holes in your understanding of economic history and economics in general

      Yes. That would be a guess that you make.

      are working off political ideals you've let define your identity; as I seem to be altogether better at an objective examination of a situation (rather than ranting about whether an action is right or wrong or a disaster because $REPUBLICANS $DEMOCRATS), and have made statements which would invalidate some of your ideals, you feel threatened and need to diminish me to below your life experience.

      I do not work off political ideals. I work off ideals.
      Thinking that stating that some guys got fucked by the Chinese and a statement of "Chinese manufacturing is the best" do not invalidate my ideas. Your simple math attempted that. Thinking that $40 to be spent, must be taken from somewhere is false. If it were true we could not have had the economic growth we have had for the last 100 years. The economy is not a strictly zero sum game.
      I mentioned nothing about democrats or republicans. They both care more about a letter, "D" or, "R" than the country or the people in it.

      I look down simply because your ideas are shallow.
      You can not agree, but even your rebuttal math shows that you do not have an understanding of how economies work.

      People who pay more for luxury items do not all have to pay less elsewhere. There is a qualitative difference between the tax money given to government to be doled out as services for under and unemployed and receiving less in taxes to give people real jobs. If you want to judge Chinese manufacturing maybe you should look at the quality of LED strips, Tools, Vaping Equipment, or many other things they make in China. It is cheap, it does mostly work. It is not good quality and China does not have the best manufacturing in the world. Bad Math - Zero Sum Economics - Best Manufacturing in the World - and the thought that iPhone users all have to stop spending in other places to buy an iPhone are all things that point to you not having a firm grasp on the subjects you are speaking on.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    5. Re:Failure to Understand. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The thought that most (Even though you did the math for ALL) iPhone buyers will buy $40 less stuff because their phone cost $40 more is a fallacy. Many iPhone buyers have disposable income and most of the $40 will come out of savings.

      You should tell Apple that iPhone buyers are universally willing to spend $40 more and they can't find anything else they'd like to spend an additional $40 for than the iPhone they're already buying. Apple has obviously screwed up royally in setting their price at such a steep discount, and would profit greatly by raising the price of the iPhone $40 without actually adding anything to the model.

      No it is not. It is just really cheap.

      Not mutually-exclusive. The Chinese have the greatest experience with manufacture in the world, and are able to deliver the same results with lower labor investment and faster turn-around compared to any other developed market. They also have a rather low wage market, although the per-hour compensation has been increasing rapidly in recent years as the Chinese export economy has allowed a greater capacity to bring expensive, modern technology into the country, allowing the Chinese to supply even more output with the same labor--enough that doubling the labor cost-per-hour in under a decade still didn't raise the cost-per-unit.

      And running for office.

      I have shit to do.

      You seem to have assumed that burning the pain out of my head is a bad thing. If you've ever had long contact with a schizotypal, you'd quickly learn the dangers of distorted thinking. I've watched people rewrite history--I've seen people alter what just happened while the physical evidence is still around them--and it's unnerving, at best. I've broken someone's little fantasy world and made it impossible for them to return to the same location--not functionally, anyway, instead just devolving into a pile of confused muttering about not being able to remember when they were there, and then forgetting the whole episode afterwards.

      I don't make decisions on a fantasy that excludes those experiences which I'd rather forget. I have somewhat-extreme defenses on that front, and a habit of looking directly toward anything that slightly upsets my thoughts; it has served me well.

      Yes. That would be a guess that you make

      It is one you have demonstrated, at the very least, for your grasp on economics is obviously poor.

      I do not work off political ideals. I work off ideals.

      Contradictory. You have a belief system to which you adhere, and so you ignore the world around you. When someone challenges your ideals, you move to protect them, and argue to maintain your stance instead of to enrich your knowledge. Welcome to politics.

      Thinking that $40 to be spent, must be taken from somewhere is false. If it were true we could not have had the economic growth we have had for the last 100 years. The economy is not a strictly zero sum game.

      Purchasing power spent in one place must necessarily be taken from another place. In the absence of inflation, $40 spent in one place must necessarily be taken from another place.

      When technical progress occurs, labor time to produce is reduced. That means a full-time wage of the same amount--say $10 per hour--can pay wages equivalent to a greater volume of produced goods. As such, an increase in purchasing power occurs. The economy is not a zero-sum game.

      When no such process occurs but an increase in price occurs--as will happen when an increase in cost occurs by increasing the cost expended per hour of labor--a reduction in purchasing power necessarily occurs.

      Growth in the economy for the last several thousand years has been based entirely on trade and technical progress. An economy grows by population as well; and populati

    6. Re:Failure to Understand. by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      The very first line you type lets me know that this discussion is a waste of my time.

      You should tell Apple that iPhone buyers are universally willing to spend $40 more and they can't find anything else they'd like to spend an additional $40 for than the iPhone they're already buying.

      You are not a fucking moron. Therefore you know I did not come close to stating that, or implying, "universally". In fact I stated very clearly that some would have less to spend and that some would buy cheaper phones. Since we both know that I stated that, it is clear that you will lie to get your point across. Not only will you lie, but on line one, you felt so incapable to defend your ideas that you started out with lies about what I said.

      It is a good thing you are trying to be a politician. You are unable to defend ideas, you lie to try not to look like you are losing and I am sure you will do the same in your campaign. I hope only that others in your area see the levels that you will stoop to in order push ideas that you can not truthfully defend.

      Much like comparing people to Hitler, when your first line is based on a blatant lie the conversation must end.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    7. Re:Failure to Understand. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Therefore you know I did not come close to stating that, or implying, "universally".

      Yes, and you know damned well that you implied that more consumers would spend an extra $40 if iPhones cost more than would move to cheaper options to save $40. You are implying that the overall spending would be higher and thus that an increase in spending won't cause a decrease in economic activity. Note that an increase in spending on iPhones just concentrates wealth at Apple.

      If all of this is true, then Apple should gain higher profit by raising its prices, since people who have the money to spend will spend it.

      It is a good thing you are trying to be a politician. You are unable to defend ideas, you lie to try not to look like you are losing and I am sure you will do the same in your campaign. I hope only that others in your area see the levels that you will stoop to in order push ideas that you can not truthfully defend.

      Nice ad-hominem attacks. I suppose, after being blasted for trying to claim I was treating economics as a zero-sum game, that it was inevitable you'd bail out in embarrassment. I can do it better, though.

      My perspective is based on a large examination of complex economic systems; experience with products and services supplied in the real world (you know, a lot of the best and worst stuff on the market is manufactured in China); and an understanding of complex fiscal decision making by consumers.

      Your perspective is based on "people with a lot of money will always spend more money if prices go up because they have it" and "China makes cheap shit, so China must only be capable of making cheap shit."

      Very shallow, blunt, single-step reasoning on your part. You live in a very simple world based on very simple ideas, and you ignore anything complex. It's cold outside today, so all that climate change stuff isn't real.

      Anyway, this is pointless, since I'm yelling it at your back as you flee with your tail tucked firmly between your legs.

    8. Re:Failure to Understand. by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      My Statement.

      Many iPhone buyers have disposable income and most of the $40 will come out of savings. There are some working poor that can not really afford an iPhone and some of them may spend less elsewhere as a result. Some of them may hold on to their phone longer or buy a less expensive phone.

      Yours.

      You should tell Apple that iPhone buyers are universally willing to spend $40 more and they can't find anything else they'd like to spend an additional $40 for than the iPhone they're already buying. Apple has obviously screwed up royally in setting their price at such a steep discount, and would profit greatly by raising the price of the iPhone $40 without actually adding anything to the model.

      Nothing more need be said. I am done with you.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  67. Tax breaks are always difficult to value by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    I live in a high-tax state, and places like North Carolina, Texas, Florida and others are constantly begging large companies to move some or all of their operations there. Sometimes it works, and the usual method for doing it is these big tax deals. The problem I've seen is that state governments are easily swayed by companies promising large amounts of high-quality jobs...only to find that someone like Amazon, Apple or Microsoft is just building an unmanned data center in the middle of nowhere. Or, the company does the absolute bare minimum to comply with the agreement, then shuts everything down and moves to the next jurisdiction they're able to convince. An autonomous data center for AWS or Azure probably needs a handful of people - security guards, one or two higher-level engineers on site, and a couple of "equipment pullers" installing and replacing hardware.

    I question whether Foxconn is actually going to employ workers at these factories long-term, or if they're just going to say "sorry, we're automating our operations and laying everyone off" a couple of years in. The problem is that for these tax deals to work out for the states giving them, they have to make back the money they're losing on tax waivers, free power and infrastructure, etc. - and the way they do that is through payroll and property taxes. This is what New York is doing to try to get companies to locate here -- they're betting that by waiving direct corporate taxes for a few years, they'll get companies to hire people who will pay people, who will pay into the system through taxes.

    The state economies in the US vary significantly. High-tax states like New York, California and a lot of New England fund their education systems to a much higher degree than low-tax states. Some states have way more infrastructure to maintain than others. Some have to remove snow in the winter and fix potholes. The long-term problem is that companies are much more mobile than they were, and need fewer workers. A large employer will think nothing of moving 1000 workers to a different state if the tax deal they get is right, and that seems to be a change that's happened in the last 30 years or so. I'm assuming they feel they're doing workers a favor by not offshoring the work.

  68. Doing the numbers... by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

    Let's see... $54/hour average wage.

    Call it $10/hour as a minimum wage, that's $44/hour/worker. Time approximately 3000 workers is $132,000/hour. With a year at ~2000 hours, that's about 260 million / year for the CEO of the Wisconsin Foxconn plant. Who can telecommute from China.

    Trim about off to give the managers $15 to $20/hour and it's still a nice take-home.

  69. Re: "tax breaks" by blindseer · · Score: 1

    How and why did I fail? Your short comment proves nothing, it only makes a claim. Did you not learn how to make an argument at public school?

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  70. Streisand effect by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    What this report fails to point out is that there will be a big associated economic boom because of Foxconn. Lots of related businesses will open up shop in the area and lots of supporting businesses e.g. retail will open up because those employees have to buy stuff somewhere. And there will be infrastructure work too. Stuff like this doesn't happen in a bubble. You take a look at a major economic event like discovery of gold in the Yukon. Fortunes were made supporting the gold mining. Levi's jeans exists because of it, for example. The smart play is to invest in the companies that will be needed to support Foxconn's operations there.

  71. Wasn't that obvious? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    Wasn't that obvious? The per-job cost of the Foxconn bribe is insanely high. There's no possible way that the state or its people can come out ahead on the deal.

  72. Re:"tax breaks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if they don't offer it, they likely got $0. Better to take $44m/y than $0 -- plus you're citizens find employment. It's a tax break; they're not losing much in the deal.

  73. Why not give credits after proof of job creation? by RunningDude · · Score: 1

    I don't know why governments want to promise big dollars up front. Why can't they negotiate a $ amount for each new job created and at the end of the tax year the company (FoxConn) provides proof of full time employment for X number of workers and they can get their credit. No job creation, no credit. I understand there may need to be some credit up front to help cover capital expenditures, but you can't take all of the risk out of it for the company. They need some skin in it too.

  74. Who would have thunk it... by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

    A corporation out-negotiates a bunch of stupid politicians.

    Jeesuz, why is this even news ?  It would be news if politicians out-negotiated Foxconn.  Call me when that happens.

  75. To Summarize... by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Company brings jobs, SJWs lose their shit.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  76. Re:Wisconsin Won't Break Even On Foxconn Plant Dea by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they should plant something different? E.g. weed?
    Or go even a step further and try Poppy or Coca?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  77. It's a broader effect by Tighe_L · · Score: 2

    Think of all the other jobs that it would create supporting the local community, restaurants, stores, etc. There's more the it than just State Tax revenue. It' also dumb because the state wouldn't me making anything if Foxcon didn't move there. It's not lost revenue. MAN.

  78. Complaining about success here? by micahraleigh · · Score: 2

    6 months ago everyone in the media was decrying the LIES Trump was telling about how businesses will come back to the US.

    A lot of people (including my friends) said, "Micah, those jobs are gone FOREVER!".

    Well, like a lot of industries recently, the jobs start coming back and the columnist mills are apoplectic about it. This wasn't supposed to happen! Things weren't supposed to be better under Trump! Jobs are bad! We are supposed to be building a post-jobs economy. That's what Nancy Pelosi basically said when she mentioned some people would be removed from the burden of working after the ACA.

    My guess is voters will forget in the mid terms they wanted this and not really notice this campaign promise was basically delivered, unlike others.

  79. How does nobody understand this??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, the company and the people who work at it are making money from it. What's your point? The headline and the conclusion all of you are rushing to is moronic. $3 billion in tax breaks is not the same as giving somebody $3 billion. $3 billion in tax breaks is saying "we won't take this money from you." Giving a tax break is not equivalent to losing money, it's forgoing income. The state is creating jobs and losing nothing, just for promising to waive $3BN of extra tax revenue which, if they said no to the deal, THEY WOULDN'T GET IT ANYWAY. This is definitely a win for everyone and a loss for nobody. So what's the problem???

    1. Re:How does nobody understand this??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better to put a tariff on Foxcomm if they don't open a factory in Wisconsin. Now that would be a win-win.

      Another, maybe even better solution is to declare all their patents and copyrights null and void and just have regular Americans open the factory. I mean, really, fuck the Chinese. They just copy our shit anyways.

  80. Business, disrupted by Manqueman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember the old days when someone would start a business, maybe take out a loan to do so, maybe not, then manage the business to make profit while paying a reasonably fair wage, maybe provide health insurance. Apparently that’s no longer considered the proper way to manage a business. Going public with an unprofitable business is considered the right way as well as shaking down the government for handouts as perks. Me, I can’t understand how the new way is better for society. (Yes, I understand that the Foxconn deal, were it to actually happen, would probably be a net good for the hires, but I don't see how the state benefits.

  81. Perfect example of liberal vs conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So here's a perfect example of liberal vs conservative.

    Liberals GIVE solar companies billions of dollars as "investment" and the companies go out of business one after the other because the business was formed by liberals specifically to get government money and once they have all they can get they close up shop.

    Here is an example where the government gives the company NOTHING, but says they'll tax them less for a number of years if they put their plant in their state. Liberals go bonkers that the company is taking money from the State, but the state still gets all of the future benefits of having a plant in their state. Idiots is the best word I can use to describe the liberal reaction.

    1. Re: Perfect example of liberal vs conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so perfect, that loan guarantee program was a Bush administration program, part of a large effort, which you can see the results of it working if you check the whole.

      Furthermore, Solyndra actually built a factory, and sold a product, but cheap dumping of Chinese-subsidized panels priced them out of the market.

      Not only that, the state is actually going to be on the hook for building a lot of infrastructure, including the supported citizens and even cleaning up the results afterwards. We have plenty of experience with these supports. They aren't necessarily all that great.

      Sorry, but ignorance is on you, but that is common behavior for conservative stalwarts.

  82. Re:"tax breaks" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Wisconsin company is considered one with Nexus in WI, iirc.

  83. Re:Someone didn't read the manual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly, the analysis does NOT consider the $10 billion going into local employee pockets over the time for Foxconn to get $1.5 billion in payroll credit.

    It should be noted that the analysis focuses only on the impacts of the Foxconn project on
    the state treasury, but does not account for other benefits to the state's economy and residents. For
    example, based on the assumptions outlined above, the capital expenditure credit and sales tax
    exemption would have a value of approximately $1.5 billion, but would induce private investment
    of $10 billion from Foxconn alone, for a leverage ratio of $6.70 of private investment for each
    $1.00 of public outlay. Likewise, the 17% payroll credit implies a leverage ratio of 5.9 to 1, just
    considering Foxconn's payroll. The leverage ratios are even higher if the indirect and induced jobs
    associated with the project are considered. Most state expenditures do not result in private
    investments of this nature. The project would also provide greater employment opportunities for
    the state's present and future workforce, and add a new sector to the state's manufacturing
    economy.

  84. Look at who they vote for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why stop them from Republicanism let them eat sit and die reap the harvest bitches.

  85. Puh-leese! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So when they automate - they stop getitng credits."

    This is how the game is rigged. Sure, that's the deal now, but later you find the rules changing. Here's how it works.

    The plant gets set up so now everyone is invested. The company is invested, the workforce is invested, the broader community is invested, and the politicians are invested. All is well for a while, say 10 years or so.

    Then the company looks around and sees that competitors are automating. They think, "hey, we need to automate too! Don't want to be left behind." But if they do that they lose those sweet tax credits, which devalues the automation drive.

    NO PROBLEM! The company approaches the politicians with a deal. They explain the problem, and how they really, really don't want to pull up stakes and leave. However if automating causes loss of the sweet, sweet tax credits, well they just won't have a choice in the matter. Mexico (or China, or Thailand, or the Philippines, or, well anywhere cheap really) beckons, allowing automation and a new round of sweet tax credits.

    Next thing you know the politicians are on board. We cannot lose this keystone employer! And before you know it the company gets both automation and those sweet tax credits.

    The deal just got changed. Pray they do not change it further.

  86. So for next 20 years, taxpayers pay the bill by PlaynBass · · Score: 1

    So for Trumper's good PR, Wisconsin taxpayers get to pay Foxcomm's $3 billion tax bill.

    Once again, taxpayers get duped, big business takes a walk on taxes.

    After all, Trump has lots of experience doing this with his own taxes (for which that asshat lied about releasing the records).

    But that's just fine because like Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize before he actually did anything,

    Trumper gets credit for fake jobs when big business was sitting on tons of cash and withholding jobs, waiting for Obama to get out of office, just to keep from giving a black president any credit.

    (Yes, I'm saying they were playing the race card during Obama's entire two terms!)

    More smoke and mirrors, same political garbage. Nothing new. Politicians are still corrupt, lying sacks of cow dung and voters are still incredibly stupid: dumber than a box of jello hammers!

    Ah, but USA is still the best country in the world for a dumb-ass to blend in. Fucking idiots!

    --
    PlaynBass
  87. And when the two decades are up? by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Two decades from now, the company will threaten to move the facility out of state unless tax breaks continue. Even without ordinary corruption (bribes, etc), this sort of thing is awful. Businesses too small or too hard to move end up getting stuck with taxes, instead.

    But it does illustrate that tax rates matter, which some dolts have a hard time understanding.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.