Wisconsin’s $4.1B Foxconn factory boondoggle(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Wisconsin’s $4.1B Foxconn factory boondoggle
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/29/18027032/foxconn-wisconsin-plant-jobs-deal-subsidy-governor-scott-walker
24 comments
Agreed; Milwaukee has many good schools. No top-tier research universities but MSOE, Marquette, and UW-Milwaukee all have strong STEM departments. Plus, Foxconn isn't hiring a bunch of PhDs, they're hiring engineers (and not nearly as many engineers as people seem to think), so it's unclear why access to a research university would matter. Other than some of the more asinine claims Foxconn/Walker have made (e.g., self-driving trucks... does Foxconn even have a self-driving research group let alone a real self-driving project?)
Also, Racine really is driving distance from Milwaukee. The southern suburbs literally border Racine.
The factory is a dumb idea, but this is not the reason why.
Also, Racine really is driving distance from Milwaukee. The southern suburbs literally border Racine.
The factory is a dumb idea, but this is not the reason why.
There is a confluence of political and economic factors at play, I suspect. Yes there are siting logistics, water supply, electric, labor pool, etc. But also: You don't go to Madison or to downtown Milwaukee to find potential Republican voters.
The vast majority of Republican voters in WI live in a ring of suburban counties surrounding Milwaukee. Yes, some rural counties are also red, but the absolute numbers of voters there is tiny. Go to suburban MKE, you hit a sweet spot of attractive economics for FC and possible political impact for state Repubs.
The vast majority of Republican voters in WI live in a ring of suburban counties surrounding Milwaukee. Yes, some rural counties are also red, but the absolute numbers of voters there is tiny. Go to suburban MKE, you hit a sweet spot of attractive economics for FC and possible political impact for state Repubs.
Southeastern Wisconsin as a whole only has 2.1 million [0] of the state's 5.7 million residents as of 2014. 600k of that is Milwaukee itself.
[0] https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/population/southeastern.htm
[0] https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/population/southeastern.htm
It's not like everything outside of Madison/Milwaukee is deep red. The only deep red counties in Wisconsin are extremely sparse. Kenosha County, for example, is mostly rural but was split almost exactly down the middle on Clinton/Trump (fewer than 300 votes between the two), and that was a rather extraordinary swing to the right for that county
Parent's observation that the WOW counties determine the statewide offices and electoral college vote allocation is absolutely accurate.
Parent's observation that the WOW counties determine the statewide offices and electoral college vote allocation is absolutely accurate.
WOW meaning Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington? Those counties make up a little over 10% of the state's population. I agree that they're important, and I agree that it makes sense to campaign there because they have higher population densities, higher voter turnouts, and more swing voters than the deep red exurban counties. But it's misleading to claim that they include the vast majority of Wisconsin's Republicans, as the GP comment did, or that they're the main factor in election outcomes. In 2016, for example, the 8 percentage point decrease in Milwaukee's turnout rate compared to 2012 was probably a bigger factor.
> But it's misleading to claim that they include the vast majority of Wisconsin's Republicans, as the GP comment did
Oh, I misinterpreted the parent post's comment. Yeah, that's not true.
2016 was strange across the ballot in Wisconsin. Clinton was not a Wisconsin-friendly Democrat. The 2018 and 2020 elections will be interesting to watch. In general, it's a good rule of of thumb that getting things just right in WOW is one path to victory. There are other paths, of course, depressed turnouts being one of them.
Oh, I misinterpreted the parent post's comment. Yeah, that's not true.
2016 was strange across the ballot in Wisconsin. Clinton was not a Wisconsin-friendly Democrat. The 2018 and 2020 elections will be interesting to watch. In general, it's a good rule of of thumb that getting things just right in WOW is one path to victory. There are other paths, of course, depressed turnouts being one of them.
I'm kinda confused. The author was wondering why they were having satellite engineering offices at all, when people could just drive to Racine (Driving from Eau Claire to Racine and back is 500 miles, I think the author didn't look up where these places are.)
You seem to be suggesting these locations are a political favor. But one is downtown (not suburban) Milwaukee, and the others are 150+ miles from Milwaukee. Not in that Charlie Sykes listening suburban ring of Milwaukee.
And anyway, the factory itself is near suburban Milwaukee so why would a downtown engineering (sales/business?) be a favor? And I'm not sure, but Racine is probably the least conservative county that touches Milwaukee.
You seem to be suggesting these locations are a political favor. But one is downtown (not suburban) Milwaukee, and the others are 150+ miles from Milwaukee. Not in that Charlie Sykes listening suburban ring of Milwaukee.
And anyway, the factory itself is near suburban Milwaukee so why would a downtown engineering (sales/business?) be a favor? And I'm not sure, but Racine is probably the least conservative county that touches Milwaukee.
Madison to Racine would have been a tolerable commute had Walker not killed the high speed rail.
Eau Claire is a nice place to raise a family, but that's not a selling point to recent college grads. Engineers in Wisconsin live in the Chippewa Valley, the Fox River Valley, Milwaukee, and Madison. That's about it.
Sorry, I think I'm missing something. Eau Claire is in the Chippewa Valley?
Yes, sorry. Eau Claire/Chippewa Falls/Menomonie are communities in that area.
Right, I know. You are saying Eau Claire is a nice place to raise a family, but that's not important to NCGs. Then you're saying most engineers are there (in addition to Fox River valley and the cities). Mostly a little older folks then I guess?
As a sidenote, what kind of firms are up there? I'm familiar with madison and milwaukee, and know some companies in the Fox River Valley, but am not real familiar with Eau Claire and the surrounding area.
As a sidenote, what kind of firms are up there? I'm familiar with madison and milwaukee, and know some companies in the Fox River Valley, but am not real familiar with Eau Claire and the surrounding area.
Eau Claire area has Cray Inc, Intel, Jamf, and others.
It was also billed as assembly line workers.
>“If, six months ago, you asked me, what would be the mix of labor? I would pull out the experience that we have in China and say, ‘Well, 75 percent assembly line workers, 25 percent engineers and managers,’” Woo said. But “now it looks like about 10 percent assembly line workers, 90 percent knowledge workers.”
Notes:
1. the percentages changed because the total numbers dropped. I.e., it's not like there's going to be a ton of white collar jobs. It's more like there aren't going to be a ton of jobs, period.
2. And even then, this is a Foxconn representative who has every incentive to mis-characterize. They're basically just saying whatever they think is best to say at the moment. Not even 3 months ago they were pushing hard on an ad campaign about manufacturing jobs. Then the projected manu salaries dropped and now they're saying that the avg salary will be higher because we'll hire so many tech people. All while hoping (1) gets lost in the exchange.
1. the percentages changed because the total numbers dropped. I.e., it's not like there's going to be a ton of white collar jobs. It's more like there aren't going to be a ton of jobs, period.
2. And even then, this is a Foxconn representative who has every incentive to mis-characterize. They're basically just saying whatever they think is best to say at the moment. Not even 3 months ago they were pushing hard on an ad campaign about manufacturing jobs. Then the projected manu salaries dropped and now they're saying that the avg salary will be higher because we'll hire so many tech people. All while hoping (1) gets lost in the exchange.
OTOH, wouldn't FoxConn just hire any qualified person who applied from anywhere? they're not limited to UW grads or even Wisconsin residents.
Any qualified person who's willing to move to the Milwaukee area. If you're not from Wisconsin and you're willing to move out of state after graduating, of all the places you could move to, why on earth would you choose Milwaukee? I like Milwaukee, I went to UWM for undergrad, and I might have stuck around after graduating if the job market were better. But if I weren't from Wisconsin (and especially if I were from somewhere with a warmer climate), I don't think I'd even consider it.
1. That would destroy the whole point of the plant, which was to create jobs for down-on-their-luck Wisconsites.
2. If you're not from Wisconsin, why would you move to Wisconsin? There's nothing wrong with Milwaukee, BTW. Nice city. But there are dozens of other nice low-CoL cities in the USA, many with nicer weather and many still in the Midwest.
2. If you're not from Wisconsin, why would you move to Wisconsin? There's nothing wrong with Milwaukee, BTW. Nice city. But there are dozens of other nice low-CoL cities in the USA, many with nicer weather and many still in the Midwest.
You can pay people less if they already live in Wisconsin, very few people want to relocate to rural Wisconsin.
Tax breaks perhaps?
The “AI 8K+5G” buzzword bonanza is marvelous. I'm surprised they haven't thrown cryptocurrencies and IoT in there for good measure. I'm also surprised to read that:
>The Walker administration had also exempted Foxconn from the state’s usual environmental rules, allowing it to discharge materials into wetlands and reroute streams during construction and operation. The state also exempted the company from doing an Environmental Impact Statement.
How is that even a legal possibility? The state's administration can just decide to suspend these rules on a case-by-case basis without any kind of supervision or accountability?
>The Walker administration had also exempted Foxconn from the state’s usual environmental rules, allowing it to discharge materials into wetlands and reroute streams during construction and operation. The state also exempted the company from doing an Environmental Impact Statement.
How is that even a legal possibility? The state's administration can just decide to suspend these rules on a case-by-case basis without any kind of supervision or accountability?
>How is that even a legal possibility?
Walker didn't do it unilaterally; the legislature passed a law to exempt Foxconn specifically. They are considering giving Kimberly-Clark a similar deal:
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/gop-law...
Wisconsin is under one-party control, which makes many things legally possible.
Walker didn't do it unilaterally; the legislature passed a law to exempt Foxconn specifically. They are considering giving Kimberly-Clark a similar deal:
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/gop-law...
Wisconsin is under one-party control, which makes many things legally possible.
[deleted]
What I find funny is that Wisconsin already makes a large number of the components needed for LCD monitors, TVs etc.
3M in Menomene makes the difusers that spred the light in back of the screen. There is TTM in Chippewa Falls that makes pcb boards that are needed for the electronics. There are IC design houses and computer makers (Cray Computer and HP) that can design the electronics. Foxconn buys the equipment to make the LCDs from the Japanese (Nikon) and they hire the workers to run them. Why not just eliminate the middle man (Foxconn) and make our own? I'm not sure the cost would have been much more.
Newer LCD displays will forgo the diffuser for mini-LED FALD backlights.
What a sucker of a governor. "But all the other subsidies, worth more than $1 billion, will be paid regardless of money invested or jobs created."
(See also: most stadium deals.)
(See also: most stadium deals.)
Guess which city just got a new stadium (on a lot of the communities dollar). Milwaukee.
I'll just say that while I realize that Wisconsin is extremely corrupt, in looking around the nation I've started to get the feeling that most of the other states are likely as corrupt as ourselves. The difference is that in Wisconsin we, at least, still have people that get mad about it, and occasionally we even have mass protests.
The main problem here, (and it's frustrating), but the main problem is that due to the way the system is structured, we can do nothing about all the corruption. I don't like always being on the national news because of the latest governmental thuggery, neither does anyone among my family and friends. (And I was born and raised in small town Wisconsin.) There's just so little the average person can do, so you just sit in Markesan, or Racine, or Independence, or LaCrosse or wherever and you just stew in your anger.
Then it even gets thrown in your face on Hacker News.
The main problem here, (and it's frustrating), but the main problem is that due to the way the system is structured, we can do nothing about all the corruption. I don't like always being on the national news because of the latest governmental thuggery, neither does anyone among my family and friends. (And I was born and raised in small town Wisconsin.) There's just so little the average person can do, so you just sit in Markesan, or Racine, or Independence, or LaCrosse or wherever and you just stew in your anger.
Then it even gets thrown in your face on Hacker News.
> I'll just say that while I realize that Wisconsin is extremely corrupt
Can you be more specific about what you mean by "corruption" in this instance? Repeatedly pointing to a faceless "corruption" de-focuses the conversation from the specific issues with this deal, including the magnitude of the subsidy, and what might be the lack of recourse for WI residents against Foxconn.
Is it to suggest that Gov. Walker had expected, or at least decided it was acceptable if Foxconn significantly altered their plan in a way that undermined the deal, in return for a short term political "win".
If not, then what is the "corruption" you are referring to in this situation? Weren't the terms of the deal, including the latitude it offered the parties, fully public?
> The difference is that in Wisconsin we ... have mass protests.
Wisconsin is not the only place that has protests over corruption and mismanagement. It's a common occurrence, especially at the local level, in many places.
Can you be more specific about what you mean by "corruption" in this instance? Repeatedly pointing to a faceless "corruption" de-focuses the conversation from the specific issues with this deal, including the magnitude of the subsidy, and what might be the lack of recourse for WI residents against Foxconn.
Is it to suggest that Gov. Walker had expected, or at least decided it was acceptable if Foxconn significantly altered their plan in a way that undermined the deal, in return for a short term political "win".
If not, then what is the "corruption" you are referring to in this situation? Weren't the terms of the deal, including the latitude it offered the parties, fully public?
> The difference is that in Wisconsin we ... have mass protests.
Wisconsin is not the only place that has protests over corruption and mismanagement. It's a common occurrence, especially at the local level, in many places.
Fight back by calling the governor a sucker as frequently as possible. Republicans are supposed to be good at business. When a governor gets taken to the cleaners like that, it means they're too gullible for the job.
If he was a sucker in this deal, then can he have been corrupt?
Or if he is corrupt (as in he knew that it was a raw deal for WI but carries forward for personal benefit), can he be a sucker?
In this instance, is it possible he was both corrupt and a sucker? Maybe so if he was playing WI residents while getting played by Foxconn? Not drawing conclusions here but trying to play out the implications of what others have stated here.
Or if he is corrupt (as in he knew that it was a raw deal for WI but carries forward for personal benefit), can he be a sucker?
In this instance, is it possible he was both corrupt and a sucker? Maybe so if he was playing WI residents while getting played by Foxconn? Not drawing conclusions here but trying to play out the implications of what others have stated here.
Fellow Wisconsinite here, what do you see as examples of corruption? All I see is Republican's dug in and using tactics such as voter suppression and corporate handouts. Is that what you mean?
>All I see is Republican's dug in and using tactics such as voter suppression and corporate handouts. Is that what you mean?...
Well, yeah, there's that.
I guess I didn't even go into that stuff in my post on Wisconsin's corruption. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18329653)
But really there's so much out and out criminal behavior that goes on here that I really don't think something like a really bad Foxconn deal should be entirely unexpected.
If there's an opportunity to spend, 1 billion, 2 billion, 4 billion whatever in state tax dollars...
I mean, yeah, in a place like Wisconsin, you have to pretty much expect that there are going to be some irregularities. It's just how things are done here.
Well, yeah, there's that.
I guess I didn't even go into that stuff in my post on Wisconsin's corruption. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18329653)
But really there's so much out and out criminal behavior that goes on here that I really don't think something like a really bad Foxconn deal should be entirely unexpected.
If there's an opportunity to spend, 1 billion, 2 billion, 4 billion whatever in state tax dollars...
I mean, yeah, in a place like Wisconsin, you have to pretty much expect that there are going to be some irregularities. It's just how things are done here.
Could you expound on this structural corruption? I'm totally unaware of it. As an outsider but near neighbor, (MN/IL-based), I have to say the narrative I've heard about WI in recent years is not that of a corrupt government, but of a state that had the poor sense to start voting for Republicans.
There people might as well be in an economic cult.
Money to corporations for lies about the jobs in order to win an election. I've seen this template too many times, this just might be the biggest one ever, however.
This approach is fundamentally one of doctrine and ignoring what actually attracts companies and it isn't even what companies say it is - those are usually bonuses they want on top of what they actually need. It isn't taxes but resources that can be used successfully which itself varies by businesses. If low tax environments were really what they lusted for above all else they would start buying up vast swathes of unincorporated land. Basically nobody except maybe corporate farmers and real estate developers are doing that.
The good news is that desired resources vary. It could be mineral resources. It could be location. It could be the labor pool. Infrastructure is a large part of it along with the local labor pool or ability to host one satisfactorily.
The good news is that desired resources vary. It could be mineral resources. It could be location. It could be the labor pool. Infrastructure is a large part of it along with the local labor pool or ability to host one satisfactorily.
It totally makes sense to provide more direct incentives to the other end of the spectrum. What if Wisconsin could tell Foxconn that it's offering to forgive a portion of all student debt for engineering degrees in the colleges around the area? Or that it would reimburse citizens for technical learning courses or training programs for likely positions in the area? Or if Wisconsin was willing to forgive state income tax for Foxconn employees for a certain number of years (which seems to amount to between 5-6% of income)?
All strategies that increase the attractiveness of the area by actually making the area a better resource pool over time, and in a way that helps citizens.
All strategies that increase the attractiveness of the area by actually making the area a better resource pool over time, and in a way that helps citizens.
I'm guessing the Amazon 2nd HQ deal will make Foxconn look like small potatoes.
You're guessing it will involve much more than $315k/job?
There's something to be said for absolute quantity/amount all on its own.
The amount/job may be lower, but it might also be a higher percentage of overall state budget...
The amount/job may be lower, but it might also be a higher percentage of overall state budget...
I don't know, but you should see the future tax revenue Chicago was willing to give up, and they're out of the running.
Why not? It's not like voters hold politicians accountable, nor do they even remember these incidents in the long term. We blindly vote along party lines regardless of performance.
We get the politicians we deserve.
We get the politicians we deserve.
It seems like the state could have expected a much higher ROI by just picking 12,000 random Wisconsinites and writing each of them a check for $230,000.
The subsidy ratio here is incredible. Alabama has used subsidies to lure automakers and other factories, but our incentives are peanuts compared to this.
For example, we are getting a $1.7 billion Toyota-Mazda plant for $350 million in incentives, creating about 4k jobs. The state has a 4-5% income tax and 9-10% sales taxes, so I'd bet that, even if the 4k number is exaggerated, then the state and local govts will earn much of that money back within a few years (provided it doesn't create some pollution disaster).
For example, we are getting a $1.7 billion Toyota-Mazda plant for $350 million in incentives, creating about 4k jobs. The state has a 4-5% income tax and 9-10% sales taxes, so I'd bet that, even if the 4k number is exaggerated, then the state and local govts will earn much of that money back within a few years (provided it doesn't create some pollution disaster).
So frustrating to see politicians on the "conservative" side of things in the US who should be opposed to this on a fundamental level, jump into handing over taxpayer money, the environment, and such for what appears to be less and less.
Also what is with Foxcon's constantly changing plans with all this? It doesn't seem like they have a coherent plan on what they wanted to do / want other than gather up taxpayer dollars...
If Foxcon has no coherent plan, the deal should be off.
Also what is with Foxcon's constantly changing plans with all this? It doesn't seem like they have a coherent plan on what they wanted to do / want other than gather up taxpayer dollars...
If Foxcon has no coherent plan, the deal should be off.
When you see "conservative" you're making the mistake of looking at what they say, not what they do. In the US at least, "conservative" and "business" got lumped together (or merged) while "progressive/liberal" and "labor" got lumped together as the other end.
There's also the question of corruption in both areas, where on the business end you get people perfectly willing to have the government spend billions of dollars of other people's money as long as it's possible to skim a few million of profits off it. On the labor side you (used to?) end up with the historical corruption of union politics (e.g. Jimmy Hoffa and organized crime), though I'm pretty sure the backlash against that has resulted in things being a lot cleaner. The corresponding backlash against the business side's issues (e.g. Dodd-Frank after the financial crisis) has been less successful and many measures have been rolled back.
Social Security privatization has kind of been a holy grail for the business side, with the concept of all.that.money being invested in stocks (and the fees! think of all the fees! skimmed right off the top!) rather than remaining as US Government bonds.
Edit: I'm not sure how a different lumping would work out - there's obviously huge ground for combining of "conservative" and "labor", but I'm not as sure about "progressive/liberal" combined with "business."
There's also the question of corruption in both areas, where on the business end you get people perfectly willing to have the government spend billions of dollars of other people's money as long as it's possible to skim a few million of profits off it. On the labor side you (used to?) end up with the historical corruption of union politics (e.g. Jimmy Hoffa and organized crime), though I'm pretty sure the backlash against that has resulted in things being a lot cleaner. The corresponding backlash against the business side's issues (e.g. Dodd-Frank after the financial crisis) has been less successful and many measures have been rolled back.
Social Security privatization has kind of been a holy grail for the business side, with the concept of all.that.money being invested in stocks (and the fees! think of all the fees! skimmed right off the top!) rather than remaining as US Government bonds.
Edit: I'm not sure how a different lumping would work out - there's obviously huge ground for combining of "conservative" and "labor", but I'm not as sure about "progressive/liberal" combined with "business."
> So frustrating to see politicians on the "conservative" side of things in the US who should be opposed to this on a fundamental level, jump into handing over taxpayer money, the environment, and such for what appears to be less and less.
I'd imagine Walker and his colleagues would want to get rid of state taxes and environmental reviews for all corporations, not just Foxconn, if they could get that past the Democrats. I fail to see what isn't "conservative" about that.
I'd imagine Walker and his colleagues would want to get rid of state taxes and environmental reviews for all corporations, not just Foxconn, if they could get that past the Democrats. I fail to see what isn't "conservative" about that.
>I fail to see what isn't "conservative" about that.
I believe the "not conservative" part is that they're giving massive amounts of public money, both directly and via free infrastructure, to a private business. That's basically the opposite of any sort of free-market capitalism. According to standard conservative thought & rhetoric that should've been applied to gov't debt paydown, legitimate gov't functions (roads, schools) or rebated to taxpayers.
I believe the "not conservative" part is that they're giving massive amounts of public money, both directly and via free infrastructure, to a private business. That's basically the opposite of any sort of free-market capitalism. According to standard conservative thought & rhetoric that should've been applied to gov't debt paydown, legitimate gov't functions (roads, schools) or rebated to taxpayers.
Why would you be surprised or expect them to be opposed?
I'll be honest, I think you misread what "conservatism" is really about... and I say this as someone that thought he knew it and considered himself to be a "conservative" for a long time.
Their pitch is smaller government, but you shouldn't construe that to mean a non-interventionist government. They see a very active role for government in 1) foreign affairs; 2) economic activity; 3) social policy... in other words, quite a lot of intervention. The only real difference between the conservatives and the progressives are the goals of those interventions (somewhat) and the how up-front they are about their positions.
Once realized that the pitch and the actual goals were saying contradictory things... I can tell you that I'm no conservative.
I'll be honest, I think you misread what "conservatism" is really about... and I say this as someone that thought he knew it and considered himself to be a "conservative" for a long time.
Their pitch is smaller government, but you shouldn't construe that to mean a non-interventionist government. They see a very active role for government in 1) foreign affairs; 2) economic activity; 3) social policy... in other words, quite a lot of intervention. The only real difference between the conservatives and the progressives are the goals of those interventions (somewhat) and the how up-front they are about their positions.
Once realized that the pitch and the actual goals were saying contradictory things... I can tell you that I'm no conservative.
It's really hard to have legitimate political debate when you can't even find out what people's real political positions are. My gut feeling is that the blue team is more honest about telling you what they actually believe and want, but I might just be naive.
[edited: I didn't like pretty much my entire text; updated to be more clear about the same ideas]
Team Red lies about what principles they hold; there are exceptions, like abortion, but on the whole they say they're for one thing when in fact they are largely about another.
Team Blue is pretty up-front about their principles. For Team Blue rules much more by the ends justifying means. So they'll tell you what they're after generally, but will lie about/hide the details of what it takes to achieve the ends or the broader consequences of their goals that might not be readily apparent.
Both of them want you to have an emotional response to their proposals or opposition than to try to have you respond rationally to facts. Lying or not, an emotional response is stronger, harder to dislodge, and avoids pesky details that complicate an otherwise perfectly painted, if not fully real, picture.
Team Red lies about what principles they hold; there are exceptions, like abortion, but on the whole they say they're for one thing when in fact they are largely about another.
Team Blue is pretty up-front about their principles. For Team Blue rules much more by the ends justifying means. So they'll tell you what they're after generally, but will lie about/hide the details of what it takes to achieve the ends or the broader consequences of their goals that might not be readily apparent.
Both of them want you to have an emotional response to their proposals or opposition than to try to have you respond rationally to facts. Lying or not, an emotional response is stronger, harder to dislodge, and avoids pesky details that complicate an otherwise perfectly painted, if not fully real, picture.
I'm not surprised.
"Conservatives" should reject such deals on principle. Or at minimum they should have strict preconditions. This is exactly the same stupidity as buying sports stadiums for billionaire owners.
The exception being you can bet that a stadium for a billionaire will get built. If the stadium is not built, the deal is usually off / no incentives.
Who the hell knows what Foxconn is actually going to end up doing. Somehow that seems worse.
I'm not saying either are good deals, but the contrast is surprising too.
Who the hell knows what Foxconn is actually going to end up doing. Somehow that seems worse.
I'm not saying either are good deals, but the contrast is surprising too.
Weren't there stories about stadiums being built and the team moving away?
No matter what the content, I now find it hard to read articles where it feels like the author has a personal point to make. This is somewhere between news and opinion. Perhaps the author's explanation of the facts is correct-- or perhaps he is interpreting facts for his own personal views. It's hard to tell so I just end up not really putting much weight into the article.
That seems ill-advised to me. Yeah, he has a bias. So does literally everyone else. The notion of unbiased news is 1) fiction, and 2) fiction that exists to support a status quo that may or may not be to the readers' liking or their best interests.
An honest accounting of where one stands allows you to calibrate for it. Dishonest impartiality--and, for reals, it's all dishonest--robs you of that ability.
An honest accounting of where one stands allows you to calibrate for it. Dishonest impartiality--and, for reals, it's all dishonest--robs you of that ability.
Vox (which owns The Verge) was explicitly created as a left/progressive news organization. The founders come from The Howard Dean campaign, Daily Kos, The American Prospect, etc.
I'm not saying this disparingley, just to point out that they've always had an explicitly left point of view.
I'm not exactly shocked that they dislike Scott Walker.
I'm not saying this disparingley, just to point out that they've always had an explicitly left point of view.
I'm not exactly shocked that they dislike Scott Walker.
The article is fairly well-sourced. I am not saying this makes it unbiased; but if you are not-satisfied with the conclusion, you can verify the quotes and make up your own.
In an article this long and $4.1 Billion in the title, it would be nice to see a simple listing of the subsidies. It is hard to know what is really being given to Foxconn. Seems like a combination of tax breaks and public infrastructure projects. Spending $300 million to expand an interstate near the factory a bit quicker that was slated for expansion anyway, should maybe not really be considered a public subsidy to Foxconn.
My recollection from earlier stories covering this deal is that "subsidy" actually means "tax break". If that's correct, then the tone of this story is very misleading.
How so?
The term "subsidy" implies that the state is actively paying out cash to Foxconn. If I'm correct that these are actually tax breaks, then the state is merely claiming less tax revenue from Foxconn than state law would otherwise dictate. That's tax revenue that the state wouldn't see at all in the absence of Foxconn. And if Foxconn's locally-generated revenue ends up being smaller than originally anticipated, then it would stand to reason that the effective reduction in tax revenue is reduced as well.
The article goes on and on about wasted subsidy funds (there are other valid criticisms of the deal, but this is the big one). The Foxconn deal may not be working out, but if everything is structured in terms of tax then the state finances are not really getting impacted.
The article goes on and on about wasted subsidy funds (there are other valid criticisms of the deal, but this is the big one). The Foxconn deal may not be working out, but if everything is structured in terms of tax then the state finances are not really getting impacted.
It's also pretty evident, by this article's caption picture, that none of these men had ever used a shovel before in their lives.
Not to mention the shovels are golden and they are all wearing suits. It could just as well be a political cartoon about a new Gilded Age if it wasn't real life.
Looks like they're too dainty to walk on bare dirt either. They have a specially paved strip of asphalt to stand on.
Is there any way for Wisconsin to walk back the deal? If Foxconn isn't building the plant they said they would, and aren't creating as many jobs as they said they would, surely there's some way to prevent the disbursement of the subsidy?
On another note, I wonder what it will take for middle America to let go of the dream of well-paid manufacturing jobs. I understand the hope and allure, but it's plain that this ship has sailed long ago. Watching these snakeoil salesmen literally and financially strip-mine the country is just sad. I don't know that there is a good solution to the problem, as these states aren't really set up to sustain knowledge-based industries. How will they pivot into the 21st century? I can't help but think that 20 years from now, we will still just see more of the same.
On another note, I wonder what it will take for middle America to let go of the dream of well-paid manufacturing jobs. I understand the hope and allure, but it's plain that this ship has sailed long ago. Watching these snakeoil salesmen literally and financially strip-mine the country is just sad. I don't know that there is a good solution to the problem, as these states aren't really set up to sustain knowledge-based industries. How will they pivot into the 21st century? I can't help but think that 20 years from now, we will still just see more of the same.
>On another note, I wonder what it will take for middle America to let go of the dream of well-paid manufacturing jobs. I understand the hope and allure, but it's plain that this ship has sailed long ago.
Liberalization of global markets has not had that long of a time to run its course. You speak so confidently that the status quo will run eternal. What is happening in middle America should be seen as pragmatism, the people of Wisconsin are beginning to accept their current predicament. They are accepting a leveling of environmental standards to foster competition with East Asia rather than choosing to go the way of the Dodo. Is this not what classical liberals dream of, a leveling of competition across boarders? So quickly the west is ready to externalize the cost of environmental pollution in the name of liberalization of markets but hypocritically don't appreciate the same leveling of standards domestically out of necessity. Perhaps the coasts should subsidize the cost of living in the mid-west to maintain the cost of keeping environmental standards well above those in developing countries.
Please don't turn your nose up at people that are desperate to make a living and are willing to sacrifice a lot in order to do so.
Liberalization of global markets has not had that long of a time to run its course. You speak so confidently that the status quo will run eternal. What is happening in middle America should be seen as pragmatism, the people of Wisconsin are beginning to accept their current predicament. They are accepting a leveling of environmental standards to foster competition with East Asia rather than choosing to go the way of the Dodo. Is this not what classical liberals dream of, a leveling of competition across boarders? So quickly the west is ready to externalize the cost of environmental pollution in the name of liberalization of markets but hypocritically don't appreciate the same leveling of standards domestically out of necessity. Perhaps the coasts should subsidize the cost of living in the mid-west to maintain the cost of keeping environmental standards well above those in developing countries.
Please don't turn your nose up at people that are desperate to make a living and are willing to sacrifice a lot in order to do so.
Except by now, even Foxconn has openly admitted that there aren't going to be tens of thousands of $60k+ manufacturing jobs. WI spent 4B+ on the "deregulated manufacturing hub" idea and it's still going to fail to materialize well-paying jobs for non-college-educated folks. This by Foxconn's own public admission.
Furthermore, the attitude that "either you're a coastal elite or you believe in the future of well-paid manufacturing jobs" is extraordinarily presumptive.
Has it occurred to you that some of us want "middle America to let go of the dream of well-paid manufacturing jobs" precisely because we are from/currently live in middle America, desperately want what's best for it, and believe manufacturing isn't going to provide that?
By the way, why on earth do you believe the Midwest needs manufacturing for a robust economy? That assertion -- that the Midwest can't build a thriving information/services-based economy -- seems far more like "turning your nose up" at the Midwest than your parent's post!
Frankly, whenever I encounter this mentality, I read it as: "oh yes, those [small-town] midwesterners, what could they ever do for society if they don't have assembly lines to work on."
Furthermore, the attitude that "either you're a coastal elite or you believe in the future of well-paid manufacturing jobs" is extraordinarily presumptive.
Has it occurred to you that some of us want "middle America to let go of the dream of well-paid manufacturing jobs" precisely because we are from/currently live in middle America, desperately want what's best for it, and believe manufacturing isn't going to provide that?
By the way, why on earth do you believe the Midwest needs manufacturing for a robust economy? That assertion -- that the Midwest can't build a thriving information/services-based economy -- seems far more like "turning your nose up" at the Midwest than your parent's post!
Frankly, whenever I encounter this mentality, I read it as: "oh yes, those [small-town] midwesterners, what could they ever do for society if they don't have assembly lines to work on."
I don't think you understand what the environmental concessions actually were. The article tries to make it sound like they were related to the dumping of heavy metals, but in reality they are just for the construction of the site and water usage, (e.g. For every of acre they fill to build, they have to create 1.2 acres of new wetlands). The company will still be held to the same pollution standards as every other company in the state.
>The Walker administration had also exempted Foxconn from the state’s usual environmental rules, allowing it to discharge materials into wetlands and reroute streams during construction and operation. The state also exempted the company from doing an Environmental Impact Statement. At stake was a huge swath of land: the plan calls for Foxconn to eventually own 4.5 square miles of what had been mostly farmland. Adriaens says these exemptions and the fact that Wisconsin is allowing Foxconn to operate unusually close to Lake Michigan are “red flags.”
I am only going off what the article purports as truth.
I am only going off what the article purports as truth.
Do huge taxpayer giveaways to attract business ever actually work out? It seems like we see these kinds of stories over and over again.
No. Extremely consistently no.
But all the studies finding that they're a stupid idea never make it onto the evening news, and sound bites from politicians do.
But all the studies finding that they're a stupid idea never make it onto the evening news, and sound bites from politicians do.
They usually work out for the company owners. Same for sports stadiums .
With comments like ”There’s a whole lot of people out there scrambling to try and come up with a reason not to like this, They can go suck lemons. The rest of us are going to cheer and figure out how we are going to get this thing going forward.” It's pretty clear what happened. Walker isn't a fan of thing like 'reason' and 'numbers' and 'facts' and instead likes to commit billions of others peoples money based on his faith that things will work out if he just wants it enough.
But what confuses me is Foxconn changing what they said they would do. When they announced that instead of building the 10.5 plant they had committed to building, they were going to build a Gen 6 plant, why didn't the state of Wisconsin say "OK, that's great, give back every last penny of money you have ever received from us immediately, and then we will begin discussions on a different deal since you have broken the contract on the first one?" Instead they just keep giving money to Foxconn no matter what they do? Just how many shares of Foxconn did Walker and his family and friends get for this?
But what confuses me is Foxconn changing what they said they would do. When they announced that instead of building the 10.5 plant they had committed to building, they were going to build a Gen 6 plant, why didn't the state of Wisconsin say "OK, that's great, give back every last penny of money you have ever received from us immediately, and then we will begin discussions on a different deal since you have broken the contract on the first one?" Instead they just keep giving money to Foxconn no matter what they do? Just how many shares of Foxconn did Walker and his family and friends get for this?
If you read the article it explains that Foxconn changed their plans after Wisconsin refused to subsidize a necessary Corning factory.
I think that people are forgetting that this a subsidy to build. The state is not "giving" Foxconn money, it's just choosing not to collect taxes/permit fees/construction costs, for them to put in the factory. Once the factory is built, there is nothing stopping the state from modifying their corporate tax laws to recoup this investment much faster.
Also your last statement is just preposterous notion. Governor Walker is not personally gaining anything financial from this deal. It was a desperate bid to push his re-election campaign. Personally I think that the deal has soured so much that it should be cancelled, but the original $3 billion for jobs sounded very sound. Especially for a very economically repressed location like Racine.
I think that people are forgetting that this a subsidy to build. The state is not "giving" Foxconn money, it's just choosing not to collect taxes/permit fees/construction costs, for them to put in the factory. Once the factory is built, there is nothing stopping the state from modifying their corporate tax laws to recoup this investment much faster.
Also your last statement is just preposterous notion. Governor Walker is not personally gaining anything financial from this deal. It was a desperate bid to push his re-election campaign. Personally I think that the deal has soured so much that it should be cancelled, but the original $3 billion for jobs sounded very sound. Especially for a very economically repressed location like Racine.
At ~200k/job, why not just have the state give universal basic income to everybody in Racine? Don't like handouts? Have them dig a giant hole and fill it in afterwards.
At this rate of return, they could make college free, and still get a faster return of investment.
Wow. I wish there were some type of criminal negligence law that can be applied to something like this.
I really wish the Rust belt would give up their dream of recapturing a large manufacturing base and focus on educating their populace for the 21st century. Imagine if that subsidy money was used in education. It's pretty clear that mass manufacturing is a race to the bottom (China is now facing competition from Vietnam), and high tech manufacturing (Germany) will not provide the amount of jobs needed to offset the ones lost over the past 40 years. While manufacturing should always be a component of any mixed economy, many of those jobs are not coming back and we need to retool our workforce.
A highly educated workforce is the best way out.
A highly educated workforce is the best way out.
For that matter most of the rust belt states have very fertile soils and plenty of fresh water and historically were great temperate agriculture power houses before much of that agriculture moved to the year-round-climate cheap-labor zone of California.
Now picture the world 20 years from now when drought and depleted aquifers make California not as viable for intense food production as it is now.
Suddenly the east/northeast/midwest around the great lakes look pretty damn attractive.
Now picture the world 20 years from now when drought and depleted aquifers make California not as viable for intense food production as it is now.
Suddenly the east/northeast/midwest around the great lakes look pretty damn attractive.
> Imagine if that subsidy money was used in education
It is not the money that is lying around with government, ready to be spent. It is something that government could have collected if factories were built and they paid all the taxes. And I am not sure, they are getting built without squeezing governments on taxes.
It is not the money that is lying around with government, ready to be spent. It is something that government could have collected if factories were built and they paid all the taxes. And I am not sure, they are getting built without squeezing governments on taxes.
Reminds me of GreenTech Automotive which used a similarly subsidized factory in Mississippi to build street legal electric golf carts nobody would ever buy.
Serious WTF. Is this okay with people in Wisconsin?
OK, what is it that you suggest we do?
Wisconsin is corrupt. Very corrupt. What might work for you in squeaky clean Vermont, or wherever, is not going to work here in Wisconsin.
It's just not.
Wisconsin is corrupt. Very corrupt. What might work for you in squeaky clean Vermont, or wherever, is not going to work here in Wisconsin.
It's just not.
Wisconsin had an extraordinarily well-functioning state government in the very recent past.
(sigh)
I've tried to explain this to people from outside Wisconsin before. Why don't I just repost a sort of run down of just a few of the kinds of things you can expect to see from our "extraordinarily well run" government here in Wisconsin:
>"We've had our share of bent DA's here in Wisconsin. Probably the best story I can tell you about is a DA that would allow drug dealers and other criminals to "contribute to charity" in lieu of going to jail for their crimes. Of course, all of the "charities" they could contribute to were controlled by he and his buddies. (This way they could make sure all the "contributions" went for the benefit of the local community you see.) It got so bad that drug dealers were routing their shipments through that municipality because if you get caught, you just paid the bribe. I mean, "charity". You didn't have to go to jail.
I won't go into too much detail on this one, because it's disgusting. That said, we have a juvenile detention facility where the guards were discovered to have using the boys for... Well, I think you can figure it out. If not just Google "Lincoln Hills". (but I'd recommend just ... yeah... just not googling it.)
Moving on, we have something called the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. Basically everyone chips in to a fund, via taxes, and that fund gives money to entrepreneurs and businesses to stimulate economic growth. That's the idea. In practice, whatever politician is in power funnels the money to his/her cronies. They're pretty open about it too. So small businesses in the state end up having to make do with whatever they get out of the federal SBA. Because the big political guys take all the money from WEDC.
And that's just scratching the surface with the criminal related stuff. There's all kinds of political and public spending related stuff that happens here all the time. There's the typical police corruption that you need to look out for. Man don't even get me started on Wisconsin's part in the VA nursing home scandal. Wisconsin is so bad that at one point there were 100's of thousands of protesters outside our Capitol building in Madison. We're just a really bent state, and there's not much that can be done about it because of how we're set up. There's a lot going on up here. Despite what you may have heard on Netflix, the corruption up here is not ALL about Steven Avery.
Illustrative factoid, there is a restaurant in Madison right on the Capitol Square. It's pretty conveniently located for the state senators and assemblypeople. Kind of a nice place too.
What's it's name?
"Graft", I kid you not.
Located on the ground floor of a building full of lobbyists. I mean, "lawyers". Right across from the Capitol.
I know that sounds just WAY too brazen, but it's a true story..."
PS - People generally REALLY find the part about the Graft restaurant difficult to believe. I understand. So I encourage you, don't take my word for it. Go ahead, Google it.
I've tried to explain this to people from outside Wisconsin before. Why don't I just repost a sort of run down of just a few of the kinds of things you can expect to see from our "extraordinarily well run" government here in Wisconsin:
>"We've had our share of bent DA's here in Wisconsin. Probably the best story I can tell you about is a DA that would allow drug dealers and other criminals to "contribute to charity" in lieu of going to jail for their crimes. Of course, all of the "charities" they could contribute to were controlled by he and his buddies. (This way they could make sure all the "contributions" went for the benefit of the local community you see.) It got so bad that drug dealers were routing their shipments through that municipality because if you get caught, you just paid the bribe. I mean, "charity". You didn't have to go to jail.
I won't go into too much detail on this one, because it's disgusting. That said, we have a juvenile detention facility where the guards were discovered to have using the boys for... Well, I think you can figure it out. If not just Google "Lincoln Hills". (but I'd recommend just ... yeah... just not googling it.)
Moving on, we have something called the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. Basically everyone chips in to a fund, via taxes, and that fund gives money to entrepreneurs and businesses to stimulate economic growth. That's the idea. In practice, whatever politician is in power funnels the money to his/her cronies. They're pretty open about it too. So small businesses in the state end up having to make do with whatever they get out of the federal SBA. Because the big political guys take all the money from WEDC.
And that's just scratching the surface with the criminal related stuff. There's all kinds of political and public spending related stuff that happens here all the time. There's the typical police corruption that you need to look out for. Man don't even get me started on Wisconsin's part in the VA nursing home scandal. Wisconsin is so bad that at one point there were 100's of thousands of protesters outside our Capitol building in Madison. We're just a really bent state, and there's not much that can be done about it because of how we're set up. There's a lot going on up here. Despite what you may have heard on Netflix, the corruption up here is not ALL about Steven Avery.
Illustrative factoid, there is a restaurant in Madison right on the Capitol Square. It's pretty conveniently located for the state senators and assemblypeople. Kind of a nice place too.
What's it's name?
"Graft", I kid you not.
Located on the ground floor of a building full of lobbyists. I mean, "lawyers". Right across from the Capitol.
I know that sounds just WAY too brazen, but it's a true story..."
PS - People generally REALLY find the part about the Graft restaurant difficult to believe. I understand. So I encourage you, don't take my word for it. Go ahead, Google it.
Fellow Wisconsinite here. I went to UW Madison when the protests you mentioned were happening. The 100's of thousands of protestors you mentioned were bussed in from all over the country. Many of which were bought and paid for by all sorts of Political motivators. I literally would ask people why they were here and they would say "because I'm getting paid $10/hr to hold this sign".
If you are going to site examples of a states corruption, at least use concrete evidence rather than vague allusions. The only real corruption you listed was an on individual/(small group) basis. This is not an indicator of a corrupt system, but rather anecdotal evidence of a the most noteworthy bad apples.
Overall in my very humble opinion I have found that the Wisconsin government is fairly well run.
Finally I don't see how the name of a restaurant has anything to do with government corruption. The name is purely based on its location, (within 400 ft from the capitol), and has nothing to do with politics. Also they have great food, I would highly recommend trying it out!
If you are going to site examples of a states corruption, at least use concrete evidence rather than vague allusions. The only real corruption you listed was an on individual/(small group) basis. This is not an indicator of a corrupt system, but rather anecdotal evidence of a the most noteworthy bad apples.
Overall in my very humble opinion I have found that the Wisconsin government is fairly well run.
Finally I don't see how the name of a restaurant has anything to do with government corruption. The name is purely based on its location, (within 400 ft from the capitol), and has nothing to do with politics. Also they have great food, I would highly recommend trying it out!
Also, those protests weren't about corruption. They were mostly about labor policy.
I lived in WI for years and have family there.
Everything mentioned in your post is relatively recent. If you go back even a decade or two, a lot in WI government was working well.
Everything mentioned in your post is relatively recent. If you go back even a decade or two, a lot in WI government was working well.
I guess it just depends on what you mean by "very recent," to me that would mean at most 5 years ago (and really I'd think more recently than that because all I can think about when I hear Wisconsin is the 'Making a Murderer' clusterfuck).
I see. Yeah, I meant more like 10-30 years.
I measure governments in terms of "politician generations", so 5-10 years is still "the present" in the sense that anything less than 10 years can very easily encapsulate just a single set of people in leadership.
I measure governments in terms of "politician generations", so 5-10 years is still "the present" in the sense that anything less than 10 years can very easily encapsulate just a single set of people in leadership.
Keep in mind that 'Making a Murderer' is heavily dramatized for television purposes. Also the show purposefully leaves out information,
https://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery...
https://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery...
They bring up a lot of the missing evidence in the second season. You're allowed to draw your own conclusion from the case, but it's obvious to me the whole thing wasn't just bullshit but that the police department coordinated a coverup for a murder. Even if that wasn't the case, they violated so many laws by illegally ignoring proper procedure that the sheriff, district attorney, and interrogating officers should all lose their jobs and potentially face criminal charges.
"Graft" just sounds like a restaurant with a possibly-punny or possibly-coincidental name, given its location; what's sinister about that?
You still haven't addressed the most troubling part of your claims here, that "there's not much that can be done about it because of how we're set up.". What does that mean?
I agree it will take some drastic measures. The article states that the plant needed to be located in the great lakes region since it requires so much water to clean the glass used in the plant, and if they're being allowed to dump toxic chemicals into that water that likely violates international water treaties that exist with Canada, not to mention the other states that depend on the great lakes and the waterways that they feed, for tourism, drinking water, etc. Any, and maybe all, of these parties should sue Wisconsin to stop this deal, or at least stop the environmental impact that is being allowed to go unchecked.
Article states other states are suing.
At the risk of sounding pedantic, it says they "filed legal action". They may have just filed for an injunction.
> At the risk of sounding pedantic, it says they "filed legal action". They may have just filed for an injunction.
Which is a suit for equitable relief (now, your pedantry might be accurate if excessively pedantic if the claim was that they had filed a lawsuit, since a suit in equity is not a suit at law, but since it was just “suing”, which applies equally to a suit in equity, the pedantry is misplaced even with the possibility you point to.)
Which is a suit for equitable relief (now, your pedantry might be accurate if excessively pedantic if the claim was that they had filed a lawsuit, since a suit in equity is not a suit at law, but since it was just “suing”, which applies equally to a suit in equity, the pedantry is misplaced even with the possibility you point to.)
> With other small costs added, the total Foxconn subsidy hit $4.1 billion — a stunning $1,774 per household in Wisconsin.
Wow. You sometimes hear of things like roadworks project taxes costing a household $100 per year. But this kind of sum to create a handful of new jobs and a pittance of additional tax revenue?
Wow. You sometimes hear of things like roadworks project taxes costing a household $100 per year. But this kind of sum to create a handful of new jobs and a pittance of additional tax revenue?
Why not just hand every single on of them $315k, let the market work it out.
This is such a blatantly bad deal that I don't know if this says more about the governor or the rest of the state.
This is such a blatantly bad deal that I don't know if this says more about the governor or the rest of the state.
I feel bad for Democrats sometimes. It seems they always inherit the worst mess.
garbled(1)
Too long to read is there actual breakdown of tax incentives vs actual $ state has to spend?
What? Eau Claire is 260 miles away from Racine. Green Bay is 150 miles. An Eau Clare location can attract people who want to stay near Minneapolis. And the Downtown Milwaukee location is a more desirable place to work to Milwaukee metro residents than out in Sturtevant, home of that one Amtrak stop.
You can't put a 4 square mile factory downtown, but I'm not sure why all your engineers have to work at the factory.
Also, lesser universities? They mean not Madison. But if you're ruling out Madison (maybe they figure a Madison to Milwaukee commute is reasonable), they seem like good choices. Maybe La Crosse lost out to Eau Claire because of proximity to Minneapolis?