Slashdot Mirror


Wisconsin's $4.1 Billion Foxconn Boondoggle (theverge.com)

"A story from The Verge reports on Foxconn's substantially scaled-back plans for the heavily subsidized Wisconsin "Gigafactory," writes Slashdot reader kimanaw. Here's an excerpt from the report: The details of the deal were famously written on the back of a napkin when [Foxconn chairman Terry Gou] and the Republican governor first met: a $3 billion state subsidy in return for Foxconn's $10 billion investment in a Generation 10.5 LCD manufacturing plant that would create 13,000 jobs. [...] But what seemed so simple on a napkin has turned out to be far more complicated and messy in real life. As the size of the subsidy has steadily increased to a jaw-dropping $4.1 billion, Foxconn has repeatedly changed what it plans to do, raising doubts about the number of jobs it will create. Instead of the promised Generation 10.5 plant, Foxconn now says it will build a much smaller Gen 6 plant, which would require one-third of the promised investment, although the company insists it will eventually hit the $10 billion investment target. And instead of a factory of workers building panels for 75-inch TVs, Foxconn executives now say the goal is to build "ecosystem" of buzzwords called "AI 8K+5G" with most of the manufacturing done by robots.

Shortly after the Wisconsin deal was signed, Walker was touting the Foxconn deal in campaign-style speeches across the state. But by October 2017, just a month after the legislature passed the Foxconn deal, a poll showed only 38 percent of the people in southeastern Wisconsin, where the plant would be located, thought the plant would be a net positive for the state. This was followed by March 2018 poll, which showed that 66 percent of people in the state believed their local businesses wouldn't benefit from the Foxconn deal, and only 25 percent thought it would be beneficial. This was dreadful news for Walker, who suddenly stopped talking about Foxconn. He didn't even mention the deal in a November 2017 speech announcing his run for re-election. It was also bad news for Foxconn, as every Democrat running for governor proceeded to condemn the deal. Both Walker and Foxconn now needed to sell this deal to the voters.

183 comments

  1. Wisconsin by Narcocide · · Score: 0

    I also condemn Wisconsin.

    1. Re:Wisconsin by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Foxconn is nothing in comparison to the $100B boondoggle known as the high speed bullet train in California.

      So are you saying that the FoxCon 4 billion is a really good thing that you support?

      You whataboutism types don't realize that what you think is condemning the Liberal stuff that you hate is actually saying that it is good because you support the other side of your whatabout statements.

      Awaiting your APK emulation.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:Wisconsin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problew is he used Logic. They don't know what that is.

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

      But if we browse at 0, how can we read your fifteen other sick pockets?

    4. Re:Wisconsin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I browse Slashdot at 0."

      What happened to your highly valued contributions and quality of your posts here, Chris?

    5. Re:Wisconsin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " high speed bullet"

      Yeah yeah, you saw "bullet" and read that as "high speed buffet" and did a double take, right?

    6. Re:Wisconsin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He thought the food would fly into his gullet at breakneck speed!

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

      Huh? The Foxconn plant is a boondoggle. The Calif bullet train is a boondoggle. The train is a boondoggle 10x bigger than the Foxconn boondoggle. That doesn't make the Foxconn boondoggle ok. It just shows that Calif can run with the best of them when it comes to boondoggles, and that boondoggling is a favorite feature of all political parties.

    8. Re:Wisconsin by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Huh? The Foxconn plant is a boondoggle. The Calif bullet train is a boondoggle. The train is a boondoggle 10x bigger than the Foxconn boondoggle. That doesn't make the Foxconn boondoggle ok. It just shows that Calif can run with the best of them when it comes to boondoggles, and that boondoggling is a favorite feature of all political parties.

      Sorry, but mentioning Whatever is happening in California has exactly zero noth8ing nada to do with Wisconsin, unless you have an agenda that somehow the California situation excuses th eWisconsin situation.

      It is the fatal flaw of whataboutism. While you are trying to show that hypocracy excuses one, it merely says that both situations are okay.

      Whataboutists do not get that flaw in their whataboutism.

      You hesar that your chosen people do something wrong, and you cannot accept that. So instead of saying What a crock of bullshit, you decide that an attack on your enemies in California is exhonerating your good friends in Wisconsin, and since the amount in Wisconsin is less, your friends are innocent because it is less.

      Illogical arguments 101, but widely accepted by a lot of people. For a while.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. Uh huh ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... company insists it will eventually hit the $10 billion investment target ...

    ... and Duke Nukem Forever was eventually released too... Just sayin'.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Uh huh ... by guruevi · · Score: 0

      The whole op-ed seems contradictory in what Foxconn is saying it is doing and what the writer speculates is happening (without hard proof or facts to back it up).

      Foxconn promised this factory but then a supplier company wanted subsidies too so they decided to go with another model - what a failure
      Foxconn promised 13,000 blue collar factory jobs but now is saying that they will hire 90% higher paid knowledge jobs and 10% blue collar - what a failure
      Foxconn is buying land all across the state close to Universities - oh noes, those Universities aren't as good as other ones, that is bad
      Foxconn is still saying it will pay back all the subsidies - well I think they won't, at least not in the next few years, what a failure

      It seems Foxconn has to adjust over the years to new markets and different supply/demand curves here in the US compared to China but so far it doesn't seem like Foxconn is packing up its bags any time soon.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Uh huh ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd see an optician about that problem with your eyes. Or a proctologist, as you appear to have your head stuck up Scott Walker's ass and there's shit on your corneas.

  3. Paul Ryan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Where is Paul Ryan in the Foxconn Boondoggle?.
    How has this "great leader of Republicans" dodged responsibility?
    That's better than teflon.

    1. Re: Paul Ryan by reanjr · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Foxconn deal was a deal with the state of Wisconsin. Ryan is a member of the United States Congress. Though he represents the people of Wisconsin, he does not have a say in how the state operates.

    2. Re: Paul Ryan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry but you don't seem to understand the difference between politicians and whores.

      Whores have ethics and morals.
      Paul Ryan was all over this deal when it looked good.
      If it wasn't falling apart, he would be taking credit.

      For example -
      Paul Ryan Lauds Foxconn Decision
      https://paulryan.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398716

      Paul Ryan Praises Foxconn Deal During Wisconsin Stop
      https://www.wpr.org/paul-ryan-praises-foxconn-deal-during-wisconsin-stop

      Paul Ryan: Foxconn deal is a game changer
      https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/08/22/paul-ryan-town-hall-wisconsin-foxconn-deal-sot.cnn/video/playlists/paul-ryan-town-hall/

      Paul Ryan calls eminent domain takeovers wrong, but won't help homeowners in Foxconn case
      https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/2018/03/26/paul-ryan-decries-eminent-domain-seizing-private-property-economic-development-not-foxconn-homeowner/454233002/

      Congressman Paul Ryan Breaks Ground at Foxconn Development
      https://paulryan.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398808

      Even Trump was giving it his stamp of approval.

      From Wikipedia -
      Foxconn and President Donald Trump announced at the White House on July 26, 2017 that Foxconn will build a US$10 billion flat screen TV manufacturing plant in southeastern Wisconsin. The Foxconn deal, promising 13,000 high paying jobs, is the largest corporate attraction deal in U.S. history, in terms of pure number of jobs. Foxconn is expected to contribute $51.5 billion to Wisconsin's GDP over the next 15 years, which is $3.4 billion dollars annually. However, the deal is being criticized for the $3 billion in tax-payer funded incentives given to Foxconn, though every $1 in state incentives is estimated to generate a return of $18 in additional state GDP.

      Foxconn will also be exempt from an environmental impact statement, water quality certification and permits for some activities on or near waterways, but must comply with air, solid waste and hazardous waste standards. Given water concerns, Foxconn is spending $30 million on zero liquid discharge technology, nearly eliminating any industrial waste water discharge. Foxconn is also required to replace wetlands at a higher ratio than other companies; Foxconn must restore 2 acres of wetland for every 1 acre disturbed instead of the ratio of 1.2 to 1 for other companies.

      As of October 4, 2017, Foxconn agreed to locate their plant at Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, and broke ground for the plant June 28, 2018. President Trump was in attendance to promote American manufacturing.

    3. Re: Paul Ryan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      he may not have 'signed the check' from the state but the damn thing is in his fucking district. you know damn well shithead ryan was involved, and enough so that he collected enough 'favors' to retire from the house.

    4. Re: Paul Ryan by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The deal was for $10 Billion, they can write a cheque for the rest.

    5. Re: Paul Ryan by vlad30 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hmm when you deal with foreign companies you should slap some of the same rules they apply in their countries try owning 100% of a company in many countries. Personally why not look to an American company and give them a subsidy after all isn't it being paid for by the American taxpayer for their benefit.

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    6. Re: Paul Ryan by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whores have ethics and morals.

      My ex proves the opposite.
      I assume you where talking about prostitutes.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    7. Re: Paul Ryan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ouch. A pedant with a heartbreaking story.

    8. Re: Paul Ryan by bobschneider8 · · Score: 2

      The Foxconn plant will be in Mount Pleasant, which is in Paul Ryan's district. I'm sure it was just coincidence that they decided to locate the plant in the district represented by the Speaker of the House.

    9. Re: Paul Ryan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound fun

    10. Re: Paul Ryan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ryan agreeing that is was a good deal is not the same thing as actively participating in in the process. from the initial agreemnet it WAS a good deal for WI. But the Chinese ( surprise surpise) didn't keep their word.

      sorry komrade, no rubels for you

    11. Re: Paul Ryan by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The Foxconn deal was a deal with the state of Wisconsin. Ryan is a member of the United States Congress. Though he represents the people of Wisconsin, he does not have a say in how the state operates.

      Except that this plant happens to be located in Ryan's district

  4. They went off the rails by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They completely lost sight of what made the USA an economic powerhouse in the first place: In the past, corporate welfare was always doled out to American companies.

    1. Re:They went off the rails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      True but now this type of welfare is less about creating jobs than bleeding the budget so the perpetrators can say:
      "Oh we have no money for your liberal spending programs and there's a deficit now so we need to Cut Cut Cut".
      It's all part of the wealth transfer operation against the middle class perpetrated by the republicans.

    2. Re:They went off the rails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every time. Every. Fucking. Time.

      This happens in other countries as well, and it's infuriating how the taxpayers get the shaft on shit like this, from roadworks projects, to stadiums, to pie-in-the-sky promises of new buildings and factories that "just can't seem to get built" without massive amounts of taxpayer money which then gets used to line the pockets of the private interests and with almost no benefit to the people who actually paid for the thing to get built.

      These fucking thieves and their puppet politician bagmen need to be held accountable for their crimes.

  5. Some deals work, many don't by crow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are two issues with subsidies like this. One is that most companies will look for loopholes and try to take advantage of the deal, doing only the bare minimum to get everything they can. The other is that the government usually doesn't structure the deal such that the payouts are tied to meeting promises.

    I'm under the impression that Nevada's deal with Tesla is a case where both issues were handled correctly, because Tesla really wanted to do everything they promised, so they had no reason to try to wiggle out, and because the deal was well-structured and tied to jobs.

    I expect in most cases the people writing the deal for the government just don't have enough experience to put all the right teeth in them. I know from my experience in my town's government, we have sometimes failed to correctly specify details in agreements that have come back to bite us.

    1. Re:Some deals work, many don't by ChesterRafoon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I live in Reno, so the Tesla project is front and center on the radar out here. Tesla did build a factory and continues to expand it. I haven't seen the latest numbers on employment but it is well into the thousands and growing from both continued construction jobs and existing and expanding production jobs. The big beef that is talked about is the wages being much lower than promised - Tesla said average wages would be $26/hr not including benefits, but the actual wage has been more like $15/hr, more after being on the job for a while but not much more. This is in an area where the median home price is $400K and a one bedroom apartment is $1500/mo. Even with a couple of people you really can't afford to live very well out here on Tesla wages.

    2. Re:Some deals work, many don't by gtall · · Score: 2

      I doubt the "deal" was ever about creating jobs and such for Wisconsin from Wisconsin's point of view. It was merely Walker and fellow travelers (Paul Ryan) figuring that they'd get a short term pop to get through the next election without looking like knobs. Now that its failing to produce, they figured if they don't talk about it, it doesn't exist.

    3. Re:Some deals work, many don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla has already sold some/most/all of the tax credits it received for building giga. They sold them to the casinos. No Nevada was absolutely insane to allow tax credits to be sold.

    4. Re:Some deals work, many don't by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      The other thing is incentives are complex.
      There's direct incentives. Like here Company, we give you 1 billion dollars and you build a plant and employ X workers...

      There's also incentives which really don't cost the state much.

      For example, if a state says Company we exempt you from paying property taxes for 10 years as a value of 1 billion dollars. That might not cost the state much. At worst you can think of in a big city like New York, where property is expensive, sure you can definitely get a more tangible cost of lost revenue... as you could theoretically have that space used by another company who would pay property tax. But for say Wisconsin, there might not be another company who would pay that much property tax, so it's not like the state would have 1 billion in property tax revenue otherwise.

      The other more real costs like roads/infrastructure that would otherwise not need to be built.

      Then you consider the plus side of workers and additional tax revenue they bring (income/property/sales...)

      It's a crazy equation on if it's a good deal or not.
      It's just rarely as simple as thinking the government is handing foxconn 3 billion dollars.

  6. Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Corporate welfare like this has to stop. (Also, see Amazon for another example.)

  7. Repeat after Me by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and the Republican governor first met: a $3 billion state subsidy in return

    If you're a Republican, be sure to chant the mantra:

    Corporate welfare: GOOD

    Individual welfare: BAD

    1. Re:Repeat after Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And if you have a brain, and don't vote Democrat or Republican, then you know all welfare is bad.

      Fuck the left and the right.. They are bankrupting us. You deserve each other for what you've done.

    2. Re:Repeat after Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Welfare' is never defined the same way twice. The left wants to count any kind of tax break as the same as the government writing out a check. If a company only has to pay $1M in taxes instead of $2M they want that to mean the same thing as if the government wrote them a check for a million bucks.

    3. Re:Repeat after Me by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      If a company only has to pay $1M in taxes instead of $2M they want that to mean the same thing as if the government wrote them a check for a million bucks.

      That's because they are.

      If you owe me two dollars and you only want to pay me one dollar, I can either reduce the amount you owe me by a dollar, or hand you a dollar and then have you pay me two dollars. The end result is the same - You've paid a dollar less, and I'm a dollar poorer.

    4. Re: Repeat after Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pedantic

    5. Re:Repeat after Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a company only has to pay $1M in taxes instead of $2M they want that to mean the same thing as if the government wrote them a check for a million bucks.

      That's because they are.

      If you owe me two dollars and you only want to pay me one dollar, I can either reduce the amount you owe me by a dollar, or hand you a dollar and then have you pay me two dollars. The end result is the same - You've paid a dollar less, and I'm a dollar poorer.

      The thing is there is no Foxconn plant yet, so Foxconn owes Wisconsin zero dollars. Also you're analogy is way off, unless you're one of the fools that belief all money belongs to the government and anything we're left with after taxes is a gift. For instance if a landlord knocks $100 off the monthly rent to attract more renters, did the landlord just gift the new tenants $100? If you thinks so, that's absurd.

    6. Re:Repeat after Me by Powercntrl · · Score: 2

      We don't actually have a conservative party anymore. We have two crony capitalist parties with opposing views on a few social issues, to keep the masses from realizing they're really just fangirling over which set of rich people get richer.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    7. Re: Repeat after Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you're a Democrat just start foaming at the mouth attempting to reconcile the fact that opposition to this deal puts you on Trump's side.

    8. Re:Repeat after Me by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Informative

      We don't actually have a conservative party anymore. We have two crony capitalist parties with opposing views on a few social issues, to keep the masses from realizing they're really just fangirling over which set of rich people get richer.

      Except there is no such thing as a non crony capitalist society, you guys are fed so much pro corproate propaganda you never check to see whether your society works as advertise. There has never been a time your government has worked for you, there was a brief moment after the great depression but after that, the rich got mad and went to claw back all working peoples gains and you all fell for it.

      US distribution of wealth

      https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

      http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesa...

      Princeton study

      https://scholar.princeton.edu/...

      Here are billions of dollars in energy subsidies, aka when politicians are saying social services need to be cut, they are speaking out both sides of their mouths because they know most people don't look at what companies are getting free handouts from subsidies.

      https://www.imf.org/external/p...

      Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Manufacturing consent:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      https://vimeo.com/39566117

    9. Re:Repeat after Me by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Did you ever have an actual conservative party? History seems to be full of corporate welfare of some type or other with the rich buying politicians for as long as there has been politicians.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    10. Re: Repeat after Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... opposition to this deal puts you on Trump's side."

      You lying divisive prick; Trump from even before the beginning supported this kind of shit. Trump would pimp his own children out if he could claim with a straight face that he was putting _Real_ Americans to work.
      In fact... he already has.

    11. Re:Repeat after Me by Dr_Terminus · · Score: 2

      In this case, I would say it is definitely spending money, as most Wisconsin taxpayers will see little benefit from this deal.

    12. Re: Repeat after Me by shilly · · Score: 1

      Literally the first picture of the linked article is of Trump next to Walker pretending to use a shovel to break ground on the plant. (Props to him: it was more convincing than his pretense at using an umbrella)

    13. Re:Repeat after Me by shilly · · Score: 1

      If you're so smart, how come you can't do a fucking NPV calculation? Not all investments are a good idea, amazingly enough. This is a prime example.

    14. Re:Repeat after Me by jbengt · · Score: 1

      If I'm a business that doesn't get the same tax breaks, you bet I'm going to view that as if the government was writing a check to my competitor.

    15. Re: Repeat after Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea why not invest in an America company? Why does a foreign company get these tax breaks but if we mention Apple, the right bitches about them not paying taxes.

      You have been robbed. Period.

    16. Re: Repeat after Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sucker. Hand me another dollar and then you will be claiming I owe you three. Because why would I pay that off? Better hope you got a receipt.

    17. Re: Repeat after Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Democrats are the conservative party. The Republicans are the batshit crazy people that used to decide they were going to take out a position right of center, and failed to notice the center shifter way, way to the right.

      Reagan, the greatest Republican in modern history, so the mythology goes, is a left wing liberal compared to today's crop of Rs.

    18. Re:Repeat after Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're a Leftist, be sure to chant "I can't tell the difference between investing money and spending money because I'm an ignorant, uneducated person."

      An investment implies that there is a payback of some kind that equals or exceeds the amount put in.
      So, if you're a conservative be sure to chant "I can't math, it's too hard because I didn't get a public education".

  8. Bottom by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These bug tech companies only GO to a place that is willing to give up so much that it eats up any benefit for the citizen. That particular race to the bottom is already pretty much at the bottom.

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

      That's Wisconsin for you.

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

      These bug tech companies only GO to a place that is willing to give up so much that it eats up any benefit for the citizen. That particular race to the bottom is already pretty much at the bottom.

      BULLSHIT! WE CAN ALWAYS DIG DEEPER!

  9. Wisconsin's population is about 5.7 million.... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...22% of those are under 18, so that leaves about 4.5 million. Figure at least half a million of those are too old or disabled to pay taxes, so that's about 4 million taxpayers. A $4.1 billion subsidy means Walker took over $1000 from each taxpayer and handed it to Foxconn. No wonder he doesn't want to talk about it.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    1. Re:Wisconsin's population is about 5.7 million.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that's not correct. The "rich" pay the vast majority of the taxes, which is who you want to "pay" for this, don't you? What about businesses? Your oversimplification shows your bias. And nobody is paying Foxconn $4.1B in cash.

  10. Not Socialism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, at least it ain't socialism!
    (sarcasm)

  11. first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neener neener

  12. Gov, Scott Walker by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess the sun ain't gonna shine any more for him.

  13. Apparently nothing was learned... by Zephyn · · Score: 1

    ...from the 38 Studios debacle. All you have to do is dangle the promise of providing theoretical jobs to a politician for their reelection efforts, and you'll get state budget dollars hanging off your hook in no time at all.

    1. Re:Apparently nothing was learned... by dk20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plus if you do it amazon style with their "HQ2" proposal you can turn things around. Instead of you (amazon) shopping around, the states and cities will come to you with the varoius forms of coporate welfare.. you just get to select who wil give you the most.

      If states really want to compete for jobs like this, we need federal laws to prevent one state from undermining its own people to "win" a "major HQ" which almost always employ far fewer people vs. the primise and the "investment" will also be a lot less.

    2. Re:Apparently nothing was learned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, an office building (like "HQ2") actually means real jobs, as opposed to a factory or datacenter which are mostly automated. And something like a factory is easy to move because you can get the workers anywhere, while your knowledge workers are much harder to pick up and move.

      dom

  14. Playing poker by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further.

    Foxconn knows, once they have promised jobs, that the governor will try to salvage the deal to avoid being accused of chasing jobs out of Wisconsin.

    Meanwhile, the governor screams: Look, over there, a unicorn...

    Facts no longer matter...

    2+2=5

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:Playing poker by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, Registered Coward v2, you misheard the governor. He said, "Look, over there, a union..."

      And then taxed you to pay for the torches and pitchforks.

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  15. Please..... by scrout · · Score: 0

    https://wisconnvalley.wi.gov/D... The tax credits are tied directly to number of jobs and the value of capital investments. All the credits can be taken back by 2022 in there is non performance.

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

      ... but they won't be... because government doesn't have the stones to do it, and a US State government has no authority to sue a Chinese company over a contract dispute.

    2. Re: Please..... by makerfixer · · Score: 1

      He cancelled the high speed choo-chop even after the massive penalty of you break these contracts were signed as Doyle packed up his stuff. So yeah, he has the balls.

  16. Simple enough by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    Base tax cuts on the number of jobs created (and of course the pay)

    13K jobs would create additional state tax revenue from the newly employed.

  17. $3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by aberglas · · Score: 4, Informative

    Worse, neither politicians, journalists nor many public servants can do arithmetic. That is about $200,000 subsidy per job! There are not many small businesses that could not create jobs for a fraction of that!

    1. Re:$3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

      That can be fine. If I offer you $10B in tax write offs if you spend $100B in the state on businesses but only hire one person to oversee that $100B in spending you aren't paying "$10B per job" since theoretically the $100B in other spending is going into local businesses and they will hire people to handle that.

      Also you can offer a $10B subsidy and get 0 jobs if you are a tax shelter and stole the $100B in investment from another locality.

      That's the problem with subsidies. It's a prisoner's dilemma where a state can "give away" tax revenue it never would have otherwise gotten. So it's revenue positive except for every other state is doing the same thing and screwing over everyone else.

    2. Re:$3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      depending on the subsidies that can still be a fantastic deal for the state. e.g. if those subsidies are for taxation then that is $3 billion they didn't have to start with and certainly will never have if they don't manufacture there. even if they never make a cent in tax from them in the next 20 years they still get the jobs and flow on services.

    3. Re:$3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that tax revenue is needed to provide services to citizens. Let's say Amazon makes an office in Detroit because Detroit offered massive tax breaks. It's good that it brings 50,000 jobs to Detroit, but most of those employees won't want to live in Detroit. They'll move to the surrounding suburbs, and those suburbs will get all the income tax revenue, while Detroit only gets scraps from the employees who eat lunch in the city or go to sporting events, or whatever. That leaves Detroit with precious little money to maintain the roads or pay for police.

      Since Detroit will have to pay more for things like roads and police but will not have that much additional money coming in, the subsidy is actually a net negative.

    4. Re:$3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      I'm curious if it's possible (legal) to tie the subsidy to residency requirements. "Whomever you hire must have their primary residence within Detroit city limits."

      Really such a deal would just force the suburban localities to come to the table and offset some of the money in exchange for inclusion.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    5. Re:$3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      since theoretically the $100B in other spending is going into local businesses

      Where did you get that Foxvcon's 10Billion investment is spent in Wisconsin? What if they but 100 MM in land and ship 9.9Billion in parts from China?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    6. Re:$3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Well what you are looking at is a five year pay off at an average of a little over $46k/year for 13,000 jobs. With such a large initial investment tied up in the factory it's likely to continue providing jobs for at least 10 additional years.
         

    7. Re:$3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is over 12 years numbnuts. You can find the agreement online very easily.

    8. Re: $3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There won't be any fucking jobs. Most of it will be automated. 90% management, 10% everyday workers.

    9. Re: $3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually there is a simple way. The city of Covington KY has a payroll tax. You work in Covington, you pay the tax, no matter where you live. I worked in a federal office but lived in Ohio across the river. Still paid the tax. At least Cincinnati gave me a credit on my income tax.

    10. Re:$3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foxconn's claim that the average pay being $50k is a lie, they barely pay more than minimum wage, far less than other employers in the area and certainly not enough to pay the rent in Racine County. https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Foxconn/salaries

    11. Re: $3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      that is still awesome for the state. the reality is even a few jobs is worth it. without the manufacturing plant you get zero dollars and zero tax, it isn't like you somehow get to keep the $3 billion subsidy for other stuff, it is money you don't have and will never have,

    12. Re:$3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then tell your government, you don't want the jobs and don't want to benefits of a large manufacturer coming locally and you would rather people stay unemployed and local businesses to do without the revenue. It really is your right to refuse that (as fucking stupid as that decision is).

    13. Re:$3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50,000 people each lunch and going to sporting events isn't "scraps" it is a massive cash injection. people like you are morons where you seem to think if 100% of the benefit isn't to me then it must be fought against. If you want to make Detroit better then you need to first attract the big players which in turn brings all the medium sized and little players.

    14. Re:$3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well what you are looking at is a five year pay off at an average of a little over $46k/year for 13,000 jobs. With such a large initial investment tied up in the factory it's likely to continue providing jobs for at least 10 additional years.

       

      Not even close https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Foxconn/salaries

    15. Re: $3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make that deal and I will hire myself for the ten billion credit you gave, and buy a hundred billion in triple tax free federal bonds.
      On day two i will leave. Thanks for the ten billion!*

      * just kidding, if i hired myself for the ten B I might owe taxes. I'll pay myself a hundred k or so to max my SS, then set up a couple shells to loan myself the rest, then take out a collateralized loan against that and never work/pay iff/owe taxes again.

      Either way, thanks for the ten billion of Wisconsin sucker's cash!

    16. Re:$3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then you are still 100 m better off plus the benefits of having local manufacturer consuming services. Or are you one of those idiots that think a tax subsidy somehow means you are paying for it? hint you don't, whether they build their on not you don't get $10 billion, if they don't build not only do you not get the 10 billion but you also don't get any of the other benefits that come from having a large manufacturer consuming services locally. So many people confuse tax subsidies as somehow something that they are paying for.

    17. Re:$3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      hen you are still 100 m better off

      Except, you're 4 billion worse off,because you spent 4.1 billion to get 100 million. And that money went to (absentee?) landowners as opposed to into your state's economy.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    18. Re:$3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you didn't spend a fucking cent retard. They are subsidies in the forms of tax breaks. i.e. it is money you currently aren't getting nor will you get. If they don't come you don't save 4 billion, you lose 100m.

    19. Re:$3 Billion for 13,000 Jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then tell your government, you don't want the jobs and don't want to benefits of a large manufacturer coming locally and you would rather people stay unemployed and local businesses to do without the revenue. It really is your right to refuse that (as fucking stupid as that decision is).

      We did, they forced it through and both parties are guilty at all levels involved in the project. neither party is accountable to the constituents and the voters have Stockholm Syndrome and are too afraid to vote for anyone not blessed by the parties.

  18. Cost per job by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    3 billion USD for 13,000 jobs means taxpayers give 230,000 USD per created job. Let us hope the factory will remain active for a few few years .

    1. Re:Cost per job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is over 12 years, min stop date is 2032, so $23k per job per year.
      That "cost" is money that the state never received, and would never receive since Foxconn would not build there without a deal.
      So it is numbers on ledger, not something that made it into your pocket.

    2. Re:Cost per job by jbengt · · Score: 1

      That "cost" is money that the state never received, and would never receive since Foxconn would not build there without a deal.

      You are mistaken. Part of the costs are actual expenditures that the governments make, such as purchasing land through eminent domain. (I thought conservatives were supposed to dislike eminent domain, but I guess not if it feathers their beds.) Also, you are assuming that the people getting the promised jobs would not do anything else if it weren't for Foxconn, and that the state therefore would not get anything if it were not for Foxconn. Plus, $23,000 a year for 12 years is an awful high price to create a job, even if the job pays well, which it probably won't.

    3. Re:Cost per job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, $23,000 a year for 12 years is an awful high price to create a job, even if the job pays well, which it probably won't.

      https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Foxconn/salaries Far below the minimum needed to afford a place to live in the ghetto in the city of Racine.

  19. Re:No doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Look, this probably will get modded to nothing, but Trump and Hillary both SUCK ASS. They are BOTH utterly corrupt and are both unfit to be president. Crap like pretending that either of them was going to be good for the country and the average citizen, and not the rich and corporations is just you being god damned retarded.

    Trump sucks, Hilary sucks and our country is worse off because of both of them, and yes the third party candidates were pretty much ass too. Welcome to the bed of shit your 2 party first past the pole system has created for us all.

  20. Boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another expensive Republican boondoggle demonstrating that crony capitalism is a farce that will cost Wisconsin tax payers billions.

    Smart move Trumpublicans!

    1. Re: Boondoggle by makerfixer · · Score: 1

      Where was the previous republican boondoggle under Walker?

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

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Walker_(politician)#WEDC

      https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/07/06/scott-walkers-own-party-rejects-his-milwaukee-highway-boondoggle/

      and succeeding...

      https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/09/13/scott-walker-asks-senators-return-pass-kimberly-clark-incentives/1289256002/

    3. Re: Boondoggle by makerfixer · · Score: 1

      I don't see how the zoo interchange expansion was a huge boondoggle. The road budget has been tight and doing two large projects at once without near Milwaukee with no support from Milwaukee does cause a lot of problems with outstate republicans. As far as Kimberly clark, they asked for state aid to affect their decision to stay, I don't see how that makes it a boondoggle for Walker. I'll admit WEDC was a waste of money, I don't like trust funds but I understand how they can encourage small business and help larger businesses in a competitive market. I understand they didn't meet their targets but $124 million isn't exactly a huge loss and boondoggle to me means something more than that. I understand how someone else may have a lower threshold. The state did blow $50 million alone in the termination clauses to contracts with Talgo in the hope that a bunch of last minute too poisonous to kill contracts would be enough to save the train.

    4. Re: Boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but you don't get to define what a boondoggle is.

  21. Responsibility? by guygo · · Score: 1

    I just love people who expect responsibility and good-faith from a mega-corporation that thinks putting up suicide nets is a good response to non-existent worker morale. Hey... I might just have a bridge I can sell you...

  22. Is this really "news for nerds" or the weekly "why by makerfixer · · Score: 1

    So, how is this a boondoggle? Maybe if you've never worked in architecture, engineering or business you expect plans to remain like government projects and not evolve in concept or execution but otherwise you are just misrepresenting a normal process. Tech moves quickly, the legislature structured a deal that gives Foxconn very little unless they follow through. The potential economic multipliers are massive in this project. Think about a smart device maker. Right now you base yourself in California and then fly to your Asian production resources regularly. Since there is no overall infrastructure for domestic production you simply deal with all the problems. Now you have a plant like Foxconn in the US, then you have entire supply chains open up and move into the domestic environment. These suppliers will fight to supply new domestic manufacturers. It's a very nice problem and helps leverage the "ballpoint pen problem" found in China. It also helps the Midwest become attractive for data center providers. Base yourself in one area to build your web app and devices with a single engineering team that is highly integrated. (It also helps a Taiwanese company prepare for the potential "challenges" being in China, when they might need to nationalize some businesses or otherwise take charge of their island) If Wisconsin had spent $4 billion on a high speed rail then we'd likely have the few miles of track to nowhere like California and no economic growth to show for it. That would have been an awesome way to use money. Finally, a rant with some collected facts isn't persuasive. A few weeks ago their civil engineer didn't check quickly enough after a storm and footage of muddy water and an overturned silt fence was turned into a emergency.... that same weekend the sewerage district used its EPA approved permit right and dumped millions of gallons of "partially treated" sewage right into the Great Lakes a few miles away without a whisper from any of the enviromentalist pearl clutchers. Before that the water was going to be taken from the lake and used in the process and evaporate processes like cooling and that was an emergency, then the plant announced a close loop system and evaporative uses only and suddenly the critics moved onto the next thing.

  23. Re: No doubt by makerfixer · · Score: 1

    The politicians actually cutting budgets and slashing regulation are the ones crippling the opportunities for graft... Yet, all these people who claim to be against graft are demanding I denounce those politicians and giving me one or two things where they actually were okay with government spending and shouting "corruption."

  24. Why, and what next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like for $3B, the state could/would/should have done enough homework to make sure this would work out, so why is it not?

    Perhaps it is not in the Chinese culture to have ever followed though?
    Perhaps the tariff stuff soured the deal?
    Perhaps despite how much technology has flowed to China, FoxCon could not bring themselves to let anything flow back?
    Perhaps FoxCon could not work with the available labor force?
    Perhaps the supply chain would not stretch back to the US in a profitable manner?

    This seems an interesting test case.
    Unless all tech is to move to China, the US critically needs to understand why this baby step is not working out.
    If it wakes up the US, not following through may have been a tactical error on the part of FoxCon.

  25. Re:No doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a completely irrelevant screed. Just the sort of divisive BS that social media manipulators put out

  26. Um... that's not what makde American a powerhouse by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    we were the only country with a functioning manufacturing base after WWII and the cold war meant companies were scared that if they invested overseas their assets would get seized by the big bad communists. Nixon showed everyone that was bullshit, the middle east gave us a way to keep our endless war machine going and that meant it was open season on offshoring and outsourcing.

    You need manufacturing to have a strong economy because you need lots of workers all working together in the same place with the same interests. In other words, Unions. What made the US middle class grow was Unions fought (and died) to pry money out of the hands of the working class. You can't do that at a WalMart, there's just not enough of a concentration. Also, the ruling class got this Union busting down pat.

    The one thing that did _not_ make the US a powerhouse is corporate welfare. We had all that during the Robber Baron era and Gilded Age in spades. There was money, but it all belonged to our aristocracy.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  27. This deal was never going to work by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and everyone knew it. There were klaxons going off day one. It was painfully obvious that Wisconsin was chosen because their gov't is bought off and hopelessly corrupt. It as a $4 billion dollar give away on a few hundred million in jobs. The other cities saw that and said "Hell No". Under Scott Walker though companies can get away with damn near anything.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This deal was never going to work by Dr_Terminus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And what really pisses me off about this whole thing is Walker turned down government money to build a high-speed rail between Chicago/Milwaukee/Madison/Minneapolis, which would have provided many tourism and rail jobs in Wisconsin. He felt it was 'government waste' in that case, only because the money would have been from the Obama administration...

      To add insult to injury, the Spanish train company Talgo had planned to build trainsets for the rail line at their plant in Milwaukee - further adding jobs. But since the rail deal never went through, they've since significantly downsized their operation in Wisconsin...

    2. Re:This deal was never going to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Madison and the whole high speed rail fiasco really pissed me off. I would love to ride the train in to Milwaukee for concerts, Brewers games, etc.. Scott "cabinet injury" Walker and his corrupt cronies need to go, they've been screwing over the citizens of the state for far too long.

    3. Re:This deal was never going to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what really pisses me off about this whole thing is Walker turned down government money to build a high-speed rail between Chicago/Milwaukee/Madison/Minneapolis, which would have provided many tourism and rail jobs in Wisconsin. He felt it was 'government waste' in that case, only because the money would have been from the Obama administration...

      To add insult to injury, the Spanish train company Talgo had planned to build trainsets for the rail line at their plant in Milwaukee - further adding jobs. But since the rail deal never went through, they've since significantly downsized their operation in Wisconsin...

      This is the same Scott Walker that as County Executive cut the bus lines from the predominantly minority neighborhoods to the industrial parks, his replacement, Chris Abley, who is a Democrat. has done even more damage to public transport and works in Milwaukee county. Both parties are worthless.

  28. one or two things to consider: by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1
    (forgoing mod points to make this post)

    I seem to recall this sort of deal making news many times over the last ten years or so. Not all are at the national level importance that a $10 Billion dollar plant would be. Some, perhaps even most are along the lines of call centre chooses to establish in %Smalltown because that municipality offered a better tax break or subsidy than %otherSmallTown.

    What's always bothered me about these deals is that the numbers always seem to be bigger than the actual taxes would have been. Clearly the regions making these deals expect to a) make it up on the taxes they collect from the residents and b) be able to get re-elected based on the "X brought %Num jobs to our area" campaign platform. It goes well beyond "we'll charge you no taxes for the next 10 years because you're bringing jobs to the region". And in most cases, the expected tax revenue from employed residents also seems to be lower than the total of the subsidy. Meanwhile, the municipality still has to provide all the usual municipal services for the company out of its own pocket. (fire, sewer, water, street cleaning, schools, police services, garbage collection etc)

    Since the expected revenue is usually still less than the subsidies or tax breaks being given, it is effectively a case of the government paying to help the incumbents get re-elected.

    The other problem is, as I said, businesses choosing where to go by effectively an auction of tax breaks. Which ever region offers the most, gets the nod. The government ends up committed to these contracts, but quite often the business is not. The company can, and often does, pack up and move as soon as they find another deal that is better by enough margin to cover the relocation costs. The bigger the company, the more likely they have a whole team devoted to finding the most pliable governments to bargain with and then doing their best to play one off the other. And they often do this re-iteratively. So first they look at the states with the lowest operating costs, then do the bargaining where states are effectively competing with each other until they have a clear winner. Then the company approaches a short list of municipal governments and tries the same game, hoping for even more breaks and incentives.

    Governments, whether municipal, county or state level, tend not to do this. At the state level, instead of the governor or state legislatures doing the negotiations,(as in the article) they should have teams (departments, committees what-have-you). These teams should be working with a more cooperative attitude towards other teams in other towns/counties/states. If an elected official chooses to bargain directly, he or she should be able to convince the populace that they would get a better deal than the team of specialists they already employ. (hopefully then in addition to getting votes because they brought jobs in, they could also *lose* votes if the deal went sour for any reason)

    The situation is analogous to companies moving in the chase for lower minimum wages and then unions cooperating so that the business ends up paying the same regardless of which region they are on. As far as I know, however, in most areas municipal governments are not allowed to engage in collective bargaining because that is what the state is supposed to be doing for them. And of course, local governments don't want the state bargaining on their collective behalf for a lot of reasons.

    I think the biggest reason they don't do this though is that jobs are somewhat portable, as is the labour to fill those jobs, but political regions and the elected positions associated with them are not. If a big company chooses to build a big plant on the other side of your state, people will start migrating there. That's how little towns become big towns, and how towns become ghost towns after all.

    --
    I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
  29. There's one point you're missing here by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the GP's argument is that the money wasn't owed since taxes aren't really "owed" in the sense that you paid for something. Taxes are, to a lot of people, the gov't saying "mine!" to your money.

    This is of course bullshit. Foxconn wants roads, and educated workforce, hospitals to treat injuries so that workforce can work, police and fire, water, even food is basically managed by our gov't (folks have no idea how deeply embedded in our food supply the gov't is, we don't leave that up to the markets and haven't since the 30s).

    Better to say it this way: Foxconn wants to belong to the nicest and most exclusive club in the world: Civilization. And they don't want to pay their dues. They want you and me to pay them. Fuck Foxconn. I pay, so can they.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:There's one point you're missing here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, per the article, the local utility is spending $140 million of ratepayer's money to build a transmission line that primarily benefits Foxconn. You can't even pin that one on "oh our employees will pay taxes that pay for services".

    2. Re:There's one point you're missing here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $140 million for a transmission line is chicken feed considering how much power they will be consuming (and paying for) and they won't be the only beneficiary of it.

    3. Re:There's one point you're missing here by houghi · · Score: 1

      I am sure that if I asked for 10 million (Hey, I am not greedy) and somebody just gave it to me (DM me for my details), should you not blame the person who gave it?

      Same here, I think. Blame the politician (and the people who voted for him) who gave the money.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:There's one point you're missing here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to argue with the intent of your point, but Foxconn probabbly doesn't care about either education or hospitals for its workers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides. They might be interested in running water to hose away the remains of those who jump off their buildings tho.

  30. I'd rather we take half that by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and just give it away. The rest could just go into the general fund. I mean, if we're gonna waste money let's do it the most efficient way. Of course if we did that then 10% of that $3 billion wouldn't have made it into Scott Walker's reelection fund.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I'd rather we take half that by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Give what away? These are tax credit subsidies. Money the state never had and won't have because it won't be collected from Foxconn.

    2. Re:I'd rather we take half that by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      Did you RTFA? It claims that much of the subsidy is in CASH. Other sources seem to support that assertion as well:

      Wisconsin taxpayers will end up sending some $3 billion to the company. While state-level support is touted as tax relief, in fact Wisconsin has already waived almost all of the pertinent taxes for businesses. The taxpayer-funded $3 billion in incentives (the largest ever to a foreign company) will be paid largely in cash.

      On top of that, the state will waive $150 million in sales taxes for Foxconn and pay the company up to $2.85 billion in tax credits — likely in cash

      When looking a little further into it there are also bunch of projects that the state is doing to accommodate the factory. For example:

      -State and local governments will also spend $400 million on road improvements, including adding two lanes to the nearby Interstate 94. And the federal government has committed to spend $160 million more in federal money to help pay for the interstate expansion.
      -The local electric utility is upgrading its lines and adding substations to provide the necessary power that will be used by the plant, at a cost of $140 million. The cost of those projects will be paid by 5 million customers in the area.

      Even if they provide the jobs they originally committed to, it'll cost around $400,000 per job. How long does someone making $50k a year need to pay taxes in Wisconsin to recoup that outlay?

      It's a blatant corporate handout. Politicians can afford to be so brazen these days because they have so polarized the political environment that their "team" will vote for them, no matter what. We're watching the downfall of democracy in America and a large number of people are applauding.

      --

      Enigma

    3. Re:I'd rather we take half that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://wisconnvalley.wi.gov/Documents/factfig-statecontract.pdf

      You want to correct anything if your post??

  31. Why Am I Not Surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that typical /. readers, let alone posters, don't know the difference between a tax-break, and a subsidy?

    1. Re:Why Am I Not Surprised... by shilly · · Score: 1

      You're not surprised because you're incapable of basic reading comprehension. If you were capable of basic reading comprehension, you'd realise that this deal involves both tax breaks and cash subsidies. You'd also know that tax subsidy is not a hyphenated word, but let's not get ahead of ourselves, eh?

  32. Modest Proposal by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Pass a federal law that taxes all corporate subsidies at 150% of the subsidy, to account for Hollywood Accounting. With the important exception being: companies can avoid the tax if the state or local entity giving the subsidy gets an ownership stake equivalent to the value of the subsidy.

    Example: the Dallas Cowboys are valued at about $4 billion dollars. If Jerry Jones wants a billion-dollar stadium constructed for his team and doesn't want to pay for himself, he can choose between paying half that again in taxes, or giving 25% ownership of the team to the city of Dallas. This would allow state and local governments to work to encourage industry - but give them an ownership stake in return for asking taxpayers to engage in corporate welfare.

    1. Re:Modest Proposal by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Separation of powers here. If federal governments could regulate this type of intrastate commerce then it would end this shopping around, but it would erode some fundamental aspects of our government.

    2. Re:Modest Proposal by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Outright banning it would be a hard sell. Taxing corporate welfare might get some grudging support from libertarians, a la the Stop BEZOS Act. Sure, they don't like regulation much, but do they really want to be paying more in taxes to go straight into quarterly profits?

  33. Re:Um... that's not what makde American a powerhou by currently_awake · · Score: 1, Funny

    The unions targeted the rich, not the middle class (you rob banks because that's where the money is). The second war caused the worlds rich people to move their money to the USA (for safety) and they promptly took over. That is why the offshoring happened, because "Foreign" rich don't care about America. Corporate Wealfare is Socialism, but most Americans have no idea what socialism means. The Republican party has been moving steadily Left since Ronald Reagan, leaving the Democrats as America's only major right wing political party.

  34. They their own replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the company used the subsidy to radically retool with no need for people. Enjoy your taxes WI

  35. Re: No doubt by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    The politicians actually cutting budgets and slashing regulation are the ones crippling the opportunities for graft...

    Ahh, the Librettarian shows up. You really need to name thes great politicians who have created honest via elimination of laws.

    And that isn't too far off either. A true libertarian should take his views that business will be alway honest if only they didn't have to adhere to anything but making money, and translate that to humanity will all be law abiding and peaceful if we only eliminate all laws.

    It is the exact same thing

    And you will deny it - probably get pissed and start swearing at me like most libertarians do , but here's the proof.

    Businesses are composed of people. So is the populous. If a business will always act ethically if only it has no constraints, the people will also always act ethically if they have no retraints on their activities.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  36. Huh? by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Funny

    Seriously, what are you on about? The Unions "targeted" the factory owners demanding higher wages for the workers.

    The rich didn't move money anywhere. There was no money, we blew it the fuck up. It took the world decades to recover. In the meantime if anything was getting built it was getting built in America. By American workers.

    And that last comment? Now you're just trolling. I mean, couldn't you just end your post with "Freedom is Slavery" or something?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Huh? by capedgirardeau · · Score: 3

      I think you have a mistyped statement in your OP and this other commentor was discussing it without realizing it was probably just a mistyped statement.

      You wrote unions take money from the middle class, but they clearly do not, they build the middle class.

      I assumed you meant, unions take money from the capitalist class or factory owners, etc.

      --
      Wax on, wax off baby!
  37. It's not a "subsidy". It's a promise not to steal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When a thief takes your wallet, but hands you back $10, that's not a "subsidy".

  38. Re:No doubt by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Picking a side is divisive. Stepping back and saying that the whole thing is broken is a start.

  39. Re: No doubt by makerfixer · · Score: 1

    Who wants no constraints on business? Government graft is dependent on the ability to have pull or some other control over others. Less pull means less control means less graft opportunity. You have a small, open government with a $75 million and you can't steal a billion dollars from it. You create a dozen agencies, cloak them in secrecy, and give it a $12 billion dollar budget and watch a billion disappear from that budget and/or extra intake from the regulated siphoned off. Communism has the same issue, the powerful become rich. In capitalism the rich can become powerful which is why the country is a republic instead of a direct democracy.

  40. Morons by brickhouse98 · · Score: 1

    The "deal" was dumb from the start even with all of its dubious promises. Now it promises to be much worse than even that. Wisconsin itself is pretty stupid compared to its neighbor Minnesota. Similar stories save for their political leadership. Just look at the differences that has made.

    1. Re:Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Walker ponies up $4.1 billion for Foxconn and Dayton ponies up $1 billion for the Vikings stadium. Also, Minnesota routinely underfunds the U of MN system much more than Wisconsin underfunds the UW system. They're both stupid.

      The big difference between Minnesota and Wisconsin has nothing to do with a particular party or ideology. Minnesota ended up with 3M and significant healthcare industry, due to the Iron Range and probably due to Mayo Clinic being located in Rochester, MN - which was founded in *1889*. Wisconsin ended up with a strange mix of manufacturing (mostly of the beer variety) and some technology around UW-Madison.

      I think the reason technology hasn't taken off around UW-Madison like it has around UMN-Twin Cities is actually because the idiots around Madison keep electing the Greens. If they would elect D or R then that would signal to all those young entrepreneurs that Madison was open for business. Electing the greens is a surefire way to cause small businesses to move out of state.

  41. Re: No doubt by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

    A true libertarian should take his views that business will be alway honest if only they didn't have to adhere to anything but making money, and translate that to humanity will all be law abiding and peaceful if we only eliminate all laws

    That is as extremist as pushing liberals or conservatives to their extremes.

    A true conservative should take his views that society must bow to God, our way is the only way, military service should be mandatory, and guns should be given to every citizen.

    A true liberal should take his views that people can own nothing, businesses are evil, everyone should work for an all-seeing, all-powerful government that IS God, and we need to grind people into un-individual paste unless they are special snowflakes.

    A true libertarian believes that all people have the right to life, liberty and happiness, freedom of choice, and voluntary association. That means state rights, not federal rights. Constitutionalism. Returning power to local communities. The way our founding fathers intended. Both sides of America believe in one thing: Government overreach to pursue their own agendas.

  42. Re:No doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's picking the side that presents false equivalencies. Those still pretending to represent a middle ground are just too cowardly to put on a MAGA hat like the rest of the fascists, and are buying them more time.

  43. Cryptofeces Lepidoptera Creimerus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cryptofeces Lepidoptera Creimerus infestation is a serious problem. Not only are they capable of reproducing asexually like amoebas, they can also lay eggs hermaphroditically in unexpected places. They can disguise eggs as something useful to fool the unaware, sometimes pretending to be a haiku author, blogger, vlogger, or IT closet cleaner.

    Very dangerous. They can seemingly reproduce out of the cosmic background radiation, even if you step on twelve of them, there's always one you miss.

    Don't be fooled by the C. Lepidoptera Creimerus's innocuous, rolly-polly, and almost friendly appearance; despite its great size, stupid demeanor, and bedraggled toothless appearance, they have the hardiness of a tardigrade.

    Only a concerted, targeted downmodding campaign has been shown effective in controlling this dangerous pest.

    Experience shows that stopping such a campaign leads to C. Lepidoptera Creimerus returning within days.

    Don't let it happen again!

    MOD THIS MOTHERFUCKING SHITMOTH NUISANCE DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWNN!!!!!!

  44. The idea was to build an industry in the area by Karmashock · · Score: 0

    ... we'll see what happens. The hope is that you get industry built around the industry that feeds on that and so on. Look at any manufacturing hub or a finance center or any other mecca of whatever. If you can get a seed going then you can get a feedback loop running if it is profitable to do that.

    If the initial investment starts that process... "IF" then this will be a great investment.

    "IF" it doesn't, then it may well be a boondoggle. But it is too early to tell.

    As to robots... get over that. That's happening everywhere. If you insist on Brave New World type employment then it is going to be a shit show.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  45. Re:Um... that's not what makde American a powerhou by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
    That narrative is incorrect. Our elites deliberately harmed our working class in order to make other countries rich. NAFTA was the nail in the coffin of our little people. Zeihan explains why America does what it does. A great watch. Answers so many questions. A short quote:

    They only beat us on trade the past few decades because we let them. We're not letting them any more. Globalization is over. Free trade is over. The rest of the world riding on America's back is over. Atlas is shrugging. And to any Europeans here, I'm not trying to be mean, I don't have anything against you. But you can't expect a free ride to last forever. And you guys really, really shouldn't have stopped having kids. Once your boomer equivalents retire and you don't have the tax base to pay for their benefits or the young consumers to drive the economy, you're looking at decades of stagnation, spending cuts, and tax increases. Incidentally, this is why the EU is importing migrants as fast as they possibly can. Gotta have someone to put on the bottom to keep the pyramid scheme going just a little while longer.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  46. Re:No doubt by shilly · · Score: 1

    Spot on

  47. Re: No doubt by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    A true libertarian believes that all people have the right to life, liberty and happiness, freedom of choice, and voluntary association.

    Ah the old "no true libertarian" fallacy. It's also bullshit because you're tying up the notion of "libertarian" to the imagined political system of one particular country.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  48. Re: No doubt by gtall · · Score: 1

    Libertarian ideology is a malign influence that promises people get to do what they want to others without blowback. It was made-for-hire by the Evangelicals who figure they can take their wealth with them when they go to the Great Litter Box in the Sky.

  49. AI 8k 5G by rfengr · · Score: 1

    Ah, so they’ll be building 8k LCD panels with built in artificial intelligence and 5G wireless connections. What a load of shit.

  50. Timed perfectly for midterms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No surprise, the Demon rats want political scoring points, and don't give a crap about Americans. Nothing new.

  51. Re:No doubt by riverat1 · · Score: 0

    Congratulations for drinking the Republican Kool-aid on the Clintons. Hillary is far from my favorite politician and I don't like how corporate she is but any corruption she's involved with is minor compared to Trump. The Republicans have spent 25+ years and well over $100 million in taxpayer money investigating the Clintons and what do they have to show for it. A perjury charge for lying about a blow job and that's it. You'd think for that kind of money they would have come up with something else they could pin on them. Well they did get one other thing. They got fools like you to believe their spiel. But they shouldn't be using taxpayer money for that.

  52. Whew! by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    The details of the deal were famously written on the back of a napkin when [Foxconn chairman Terry Gou] and the Republican governor first met

    Whew! Thank goodness no Democrat governor has ever been involved in state spending boondoggles.

    We can prevent this from ever happening again just by voting!

    1. Re:Whew! by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      I'm going to do my part by voting for Tony Evers next week.

    2. Re: Whew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whataboutism.

      It's all the repubtards have left.

    3. Re:Whew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrat Cory Mason voted for this mess, then bailed out of the state assembly to become mayor of Racine, WI, but to pull that off he had to go out of state to raise $30k in New York alone, over $100K spent on a partial term special election in a city of only 78k. He's moved multiple times just to stay in safe areas to stay elected, this special election is the only time in his political career he's actually faced opposition as following his predecessor, Mayor Dickert hand selected him to take his place after his own tenure as mayor had scandal after scandal and he bailed out before shit hit the fan.

  53. Re: No doubt by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    That's a pretty absolutist view and almost nobody fits fully into your definitions of what they should be. Philosophically I fit fairly well within the libertarian viewpoint but my pragmatism realizes that it can never work in the real world because too many people would be unable to make it work for them and would be left behind by such a system. I guess you can be callous enough to say tough beans and let the chips fall where they may but I'm not willing to see a society where people die because they can't afford the necessary medical treatment they need or the elderly wander the streets because they're too poor to afford a roof over their heads. No "ism" in its pure form will ever work because they all have inherent contradictions. Best to take the good parts from each to form a hybrid system that works somewhat for everybody.

  54. Re: No doubt by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Who wants no constraints on business?

    A lot of people. A lot of people in here. I have some books by Libertarians who not only believe that there should be no regulations, but that businesses be exempt from any and all taxation

    Government graft is dependent on the ability to have pull or some other control over others.

    Siddown and listen. Remember this word. People

    Government is not inherently corrupt. Business is not inherently corrupt. But a lot of people sure are.

    There will be a ruling entity. Not possible to get away from that unless you maybe move to Alaska and live in the woods there.

    At present, the ruling class in America is corporations. The government is corporatism. And the corporations provide the baksheesh, and their puppeticians do their bidding.

    So considering that we are halfway to your ideal society we should see s large drop in corruption. But we don't. And since the puppeticians can now take dark money from out of the country, and since corporations are considered people, I find it difficult to give a lot of credence to your idea that regulations have created the corruption.

    No, it isn't regulations and laws that create graft and corruption. It is the sociopathic and criminal tendencies of many humans. And they can work in wither guvmint or corporations.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  55. Labor costs and manufacturing by sjbe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You need manufacturing to have a strong economy because you need lots of workers all working together in the same place with the same interests. In other words, Unions. What made the US middle class grow was Unions fought (and died) to pry money out of the hands of the working class. You can't do that at a WalMart, there's just not enough of a concentration. Also, the ruling class got this Union busting down pat.

    You have the story wrong. The US HAS manufacturing. It never left despite what you might hear from the uninformed. The US manufacturing sector is over $3 TRILLION annually which puts us neck and neck with China for the largest manufacturing sector in the world. By itself the US manufacturing sector would be one the fifth largest economy in the world - larger than the UK and just behind Germany.

    What has changed since WWII is our cost of labor and the rest of the world rebuilt. US labor today is among the most expensive in the world. As a result US manufacturing HAS to focus on capital intensive products instead of labor intensive ones. It is literally impossible for US companies to compete on labor prices. 70 years ago US labor costs were a lot closer to the global mean AND the rest of the world was recovering from WWII. Now China has a LOT of labor and simple supply and demand means that having a lot of something means it will cost less and so their labor costs less than ours because they have an abundance of it. QED products that are sensitive to manufacturing cost of labor will inevitably migrate to locations with lower labor costs. Products not so sensitive to labor costs will go to places with low capital costs. The US has the lowest cost of capital in the world currently so we get the capital intensive products instead of the labor intensive ones. In plain english we make cars and airplanes and don't make Happy Meal toys and the cheap crap you buy in Walmart.

    As for unions, basically unions were TOO successful. They priced themselves out of the market for labor intensive manufacturing in a global market. And for capital intensive manufacturing there isn't as much need for unions because the pay rates are much higher and there is a lot of automation. As a result when politicians promise to bring back manufacturing jobs they are literally promising the impossible. The only way the US will get back labor intensive manufacturing on a large scale is for the cost of US labor to fall back towards the global mean. This means paying US workers MUCH less then they currently demand. Otherwise the only alternative is to automate the work which is what capital intensive manufacturing does. So pick your poison - much lower paying jobs OR automation.

    Ironically when people argue against immigration in our country, they are arguing against the only thing that will allow our demographics to compete with China and India. China has 4 people for every 1 in the US and a lot of those people are very smart and hard working. Without immigrants (both skilled and unskilled), the US will eventually lose that fight just from sheer numbers. China has more labor that costs less AND a lot of very smart high end labor too. Doesn't mean the US will become some backwater but without welcoming the best and brightest into our country with open arms we don't have a prayer of keeping up in the long run.

    1. Re:Labor costs and manufacturing by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The only way the US will get back labor intensive manufacturing on a large scale is for the cost of US labor to fall back towards the global mean.

      At this point, it's probably too late anyway. Automation is destroying those jobs. Manufacturing still happens in the US, but we'll lose most of the last manufacturing jobs anyway since automation is currently improving rapidly. It's already taken most of the manufacturing jobs, it will take most of the rest in short order.

      without welcoming the best and brightest into our country with open arms we don't have a prayer of keeping up in the long run.

      Sure, but we only need the best and the brightest. We don't need the masses of asses. We have enough asses here already. Consequently, these immigration policies won't much affect America's performance.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Labor costs and manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there's a largely uncommented on additional factor.

      Can you imagine the worldwide trading system we have without containerized shipping? Shipping back in the old days was expensive and there was tons of loss and damage to goods. There was extensive corruption at the ports and cargos often got looted. The entire enterprise of international manufacturing, lowest cost of production, labour arbitrage, none of it would mean anything if we still had the old system of loose cargo, loading/unloading with nets, stevedores, and all that.

      Entire ports have been rebuilt around the needs and concepts built into container traffic.

      Containerized shipping was a revolution and it happened with some comment, but few make the connection to large scale trade agreements, modernization of LDCs, international capital flows, and all the rest.

    3. Re:Labor costs and manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we have in fact outsourced far too much of our manufacturing. I was a cross country expedited shipper, I'd see industrial parks where there where a dozen factories but only 1-3 of them where actually occupied, I'd talk to the dock workers and they'd tell all about what places used to e there and how wages fell through the floor because the employers that where left took full advantage of the situation, firing anyone for any reason and hiring someone else to fill the position at a considerably lower pay because the people that used to work in the other factories where essentially trapped in the area without the means to move elsewhere to follow the jobs.

  56. Re: No doubt by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    A true libertarian believes that all people have the right to life, liberty and happiness, freedom of choice, and voluntary association

    No, that's not quite it, it's more:

    A true libertarian believes that all rich people have the right to life, liberty and happiness, freedom of choice, and voluntary association. People who aren't rich should try to find a way to be rich, which will be hard because of the lack of those rights, or else suck it up and do whatever the rich people tell them to.

    The problem is that that pesky government is necessary if you really want people to have freedom of choice and voluntary association (not to mention liberty and life) for everyone, no matter how poor. And libertarians generally find it very, very, hard to wrap their minds around that. If libertarians generally supported state supported healthcare (right to life), employee rights (choice, association), etc, then I'd agree with you, but they tend not to.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  57. Re: No doubt by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    A true libertarian believes that all people have the right to life, liberty and happiness, freedom of choice, and voluntary association.

    Ah the old "no true libertarian" fallacy. It's also bullshit because you're tying up the notion of "libertarian" to the imagined political system of one particular country.

    Well to be precise, in the discussion, the part that I wrote was was a reductio ad absurdum. His was the NTL response.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  58. Re: No doubt by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Libertarian ideology is a malign influence that promises people get to do what they want to others without blowback. It was made-for-hire by the Evangelicals who figure they can take their wealth with them when they go to the Great Litter Box in the Sky.

    The problem with libertarian ideology is like all 'ologys, it has a fatal flaw. In the case of Libertarians, the flaw is that all people are inherently honest, and will not take advantage of others.

    We'll ignore for a moment the unholy cognitive dissonance in how they manage to take greed and try to marry it to libertarianism.

    But that greed underpinning of capitalism is a good example of Libertarianism's fatal flaw.

    It is undeniable that greed exists, we all have some. But there are some who are endowed with greed to a pathological level. People have killed for greed. and as a driver for capitalism, unfettered extreme greed plus drive plus little to no constraints makes for hellava mess.

    We are already in a corporatism run country. The same people who run the country already tell us that they cannot run the country with the regulations w have now.

    Any 'ism needs some brakes to keep it from destroying itself. Capitalism can work pretty well if it has enough constraints to keep it from turning into fascism. Once that happens, its popcorn time, as the self destruct sequence starts.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  59. Re: No doubt by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    A true libertarian should take his views that business will be alway honest if only they didn't have to adhere to anything but making money, and translate that to humanity will all be law abiding and peaceful if we only eliminate all laws

    That is as extremist as pushing liberals or conservatives to their extremes.

    Now, you have to play correctly and invoke No True Scotsman. Just kidding.

    The point wasn't to be extreme, but perform a reductio ad absurdum. It should be obvious that a complete lack of regulations would approximate a complete lack of laws, and both result in chaos.

    But don't for a minute think that there are not people who will take advantage of people who do believe that regulations are bad for their own and possibly corrupt goals.

    But name me a regulation, and I can find a lot of people that think it is bad.

    Therein lies the rub. Because at some point, the lack of regulation becomes a regulation.

    Let's take one you likely hate. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on things like race, creed, sexual preference and some other stuff. That is a regulation. You can't refuse to rent an apartment because someone is a Southern Baptist, and you don't like Southern baptists.

    Now let's take something like firearms. You are not allowed to prevent someone showing up at a gun show and selling AR-15's out of he trunk of his car. or not sell a person a weapon because of mental status (this isn't pro or con, merely showing how lack of regulation can be regulation)

    Confusing? Oh hell yeah. This is the shit that humans do.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  60. Re: No doubtb by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    That's a pretty absolutist view and almost nobody fits fully into your definitions of what they should be.

    Not certain who you were responding to, but my definition of a libertarian was a reductio ad absurdum. The exposure of an ideology and it's fatal flaws.

    Philosophically I fit fairly well within the libertarian viewpoint but my pragmatism realizes that it can never work in the real world because too many people would be unable to make it work for them and would be left behind by such a system.

    Exactly. And others will profit off those people being left behind.

    I guess you can be callous enough to say tough beans and let the chips fall where they may but I'm not willing to see a society where people die because they can't afford the necessary medical treatment they need or the elderly wander the streets because they're too poor to afford a roof over their heads.

    The big problem when people adopt that "tough shit cupcake" approach is that when there is a increasingly extreme imbalance of resources as has been happening, eventually those who are left out will revolt. That is a self limiting aspect.

    No "ism" in its pure form will ever work because they all have inherent contradictions. Best to take the good parts from each to form a hybrid system that works somewhat for everybody.

    Exactly. I'm a pragmatic. I like to take things that work. Trickle down theory will not work. Gender as a social construct will not work. Capitalism works with some brakes. Social programs work with some brakes and incentives. But there are too few of us these days.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  61. Joke - Death by Boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An old bad joke...

  62. Re: No doubtb by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    I thought I was responding to Notabadguy up above but I may have messed up and posted under you. If so, sorry.

  63. Same state whose governor renegged on Talgo trains by kriston · · Score: 1

    This is the same state whose refused to pay for the Talgo trains they agreed to have built for Amtrak lines in their state. Depending on whom you ask it was either for purely political reasons, financial reasons, both, or neither.

    The completed trains were never paid for per prior agreement with the State of Wisconsin. They have been sitting, ready-to-use, waiting for a buyer for years now.

    Wisconsin thinks they can reneg without negative consequences to them because Talgo is not an American company.

    --

    Kriston

  64. Re:Um... that's not what makde American a powerhou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporate welfare in all of its forms, from direct government payments to tax cuts to shady government contracts for everything from cruise missiles to unnecessary highways, is just a way for the rich to steal money from legitimate taxpayers and funnel it to their own accounts. Using a government as a way to pick the pockets of the masses is a time-honored tradition stretching back to the Sumerians and has never produced a single benefit to anyone.

    What made the US a powerhouse after WWII was that their economy was already tooled up to take advantage of their huge natural and industrial resources and was simply switched over to so-called peace-time efforts (as well as continuing to make guns and planes and bombs).

    At its foundations the US has always been an agrarian economy. As the rest of the world takes back the manufacturing capabilities of the US, that giant economy is settling once again to its roots. It will shrink from 14 trillion back to around 9 or 10 trillion, but it will never become a second-rate power.

    The Foxconn deal simply underlines the world's dependence on the US economy. The US has the capitol and the tax base to shake off $10 billion and just keep going. In other nations heads would roll. Uncle Same simply shrugs, smiles, and sells another $10 billion dollars of corn.
     

  65. Re: No doubtb by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    I thought I was responding to Notabadguy up above but I may have messed up and posted under you. If so, sorry.

    No problem, I'm enjoying this whole discussion.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  66. Immigration policy is hugely important by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Automation is destroying those jobs. Manufacturing still happens in the US, but we'll lose most of the last manufacturing jobs anyway since automation is currently improving rapidly. It's already taken most of the manufacturing jobs, it will take most of the rest in short order.

    In some cases that it true. In some cases it is not. People here tend to hugely misunderstand what automation can and cannot do and the costs involved. Manufacturing in the US is going to be a lot like farming in the sense that productivity is going to continue to increase but head counts will be an increasingly smaller percentage of the total workforce. This is NOT a bad thing. It just means that economic value will come from other sectors of the economy. A lot of manufacturing jobs are boring assembly jobs that are a huge waste of human capital. China will be doing these low skill jobs longer than the US because their labor costs less but eventually they will have the same problem if they want to increase their per-capita standard of living.

    Sure, but we only need the best and the brightest. We don't need the masses of asses.

    You don't get to pick and choose if you actually want the best and brightest. There is no way to know in advance who the best and brightest immigrants are. Not with any reliability. Good luck picking the next Elon Musk or Steve Jobs (immigrant and child of immigrant) out of a crowd. You are playing a numbers game. You bring in a lot of immigrants in the (reasonable) hope that some of them will be above average performers. Children of poor and uneducated immigrants often do very well. Immigrants often are among our best performing entrepreneurs but you'll have no way to reliably know which ones they are in advance. Furthermore we still need LOTS of low skilled people to do important but low paying jobs. Our agriculture industry is a world leader but a critical factor in that is having access to abundant low skilled labor. Putting up fences (literal or figurative) to immigrants will just make it that much harder to compete with China in the long run. We're 5% of the global population but something around 15-20% of global GDP. China has 20% of the global population and is catching up fast on GDP. If we don't bring in as much talent as we can get our hands on (no matter where it was born) the results of that competition are a predictable as a sunrise tomorrow. (spoilers: we lose without those "masses of asses")

    Consequently, these immigration policies won't much affect America's performance.

    You could not be more wrong. Our immigration policies will have a HUGE impact on America's performance in the future.

    1. Re:Immigration policy is hugely important by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

      I may not have any mod points, but damn sir, you're making some very good points. I was never in favor of closing immigration, but you've certainly given me a new perspective on this issue regardless. Thank you very much.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    2. Re:Immigration policy is hugely important by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      (spoilers: we lose without those "masses of asses")

      You could not be more wrong. We don't need more mediocre people. We have more than enough of them already due to the failings of our education system. What we need is more highly educated people. We could make more of those without any immigration. In fact, without immigration, we would have to.

      You could not be more wrong. Our immigration policies will have a HUGE impact on America's performance in the future.

      They won't, because we have always created exceptions when necessary. Like, say, for German war criminals who we felt were most useful developing space vehicles.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  67. I live 2 miles from the Foxconn factory site. by mark_reh · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's all sorts of prep work going on. They're condemning people's homes and land. They're tearing up all the roads and traffic is hell. Oh yeah, my property tax bill jumped up this year.

    At about the same time Walker was making his deal, Foxconn was laying off workers in Taiwan at an LCD plant because they were being replaced by robots. Taiwanese people earn far less than US people. Why would they hire expensive US workers when they're replacing cheaper Taiwanese workers with robots?

    Walker is running for reelection but doesn't talk about Foxconn. Hmmmm.

    1. Re:I live 2 miles from the Foxconn factory site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foxconn already has facilities in the US, the pay is crap, source: https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Foxconn/salaries I live in the city of Racine, corruption is the name of the game around here, there are only a few out there now that are starting to show up to fight back because they are sick and tired of being screwed over by both parties.

  68. Re: No doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A conservative strawman liberal should take his views that people can own nothing, businesses are evil, everyone should work for an all-seeing, all-powerful government that IS God, and we need to grind people into un-individual paste unless they are special snowflakes.

    A true libertarian believes that all people have the right to child slaves, serving your master and an unliveable environment, freedom of buying your children back from sex slavers at a fair market rate, and a criminal justice system that exclusively serves those who pay for it. That means property owner's rights, not rights for literally anyone else. Constitutionalism. Returning power to local warlords. The way our founding fathers intended...

    Fixed that for you, it is now much more accurate. You're welcome!

  69. Re: No doubtb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you think multiple reproduced science does not work?

  70. Re: Wisconsin's population is about 5.7 million... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citation needed. Because you are dead wrong.

  71. Re: No doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The analogy I like to use for this comparison is that people (the electoral college anyway) voted the Joker in as President because Batman is a criminal and they didn't want to vote or a criminal, therefore Joker must be better. Because Batman is a criminal.

    Whenever Joker is asked about criminal history he just talked about making Gotham great again, that we can't have a vigilante enforcing the law, that he supports coos, blah blah blah, whataboutism, but his illegally parked batmobile, thinks he is better than you, Batmobile should be towed, blah, blah ah, ha ha ha haaaa.

  72. Re: No doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is because Libertarianism is a Koch family construction in case the Republican party didn't play ball. It is why all of it's tenants only work iof you are very rich, for everyone else society would devolve to Somalia.

  73. This. So much this. by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Multiple Republicans were caught on film saying they would obstruct everything Obama did just to hurt him, even if it hurt the economy. A few got caught saying they would intentionally hurt America because it would hurt Obama and the Dems more. That's literally terrorism (causing fear and suffering for political gain). But nobody outside of the extreme left press ever called them out on it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/