FoxConn to Move to Wisconsin

[IronWing]

So what did they trash for the photo op? Good farm land?

 

[Linux23]

stupid mother fucking repubs.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/bu...uild-10b-wisconsin-plant-trump-touted-n964411

 

[UberNeuman]

Well they sure did stick it to the libs, didn’t they?

/s

 

[Sonikku]

Fuck you Scott Walker. Fuck you to hell.
What a fucking travesty for my state.

To think he only lost by a razor's edge amidst all of the bullshit. Republican voters are so fucking stupid.

 

[Bitek]

Well they sure did stick it to the libs, didn’t they?

/s

By proving them right once again

 

[Thump553]

I sure hope Wisconsin drafted those incentives properly so they can recoup them if FoxCon (spelling intentional) doesn't fulfill it's hiring targets. That's an elementary requirement for this sort of giveaway, but from the boldness of the FoxCon rep's statements I'm having my doubts. Like they just discovered it is more expensive to manufacture in WI than China-who would have thought that?

 

[Texashiker]

Recent news shows the need for more tariffs. Make it expensive to offshore so companies will build here in the states.

One article said Foxcon can not compete with its labor in China.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Trying to compete with foreign labor markets is a race to the bottom. I don’t agree with the idea of tariffs either though. Economics isn’t a zero sum game, but when the only jobs left are burger flippers what then.

 

[cytg111]

Recent news shows the need for more tariffs. Make it expensive to offshore so companies will build here in the states.

One article said Foxcon can not compete with its labor in China.

That is a one-way ticket going the wrong way. Enjoy.

 

[Bitek]

Recent news shows the need for more tariffs. Make it expensive to offshore so companies will build here in the states.

One article said Foxcon can not compete with its labor in China.

Yeah, let's make everything expensive as shit here, get shut out of foreign markets, and fuck up all the supply chains.

Sounds like a real ticket to poverty

 

[Texashiker]

Yeah, let's make everything expensive as shit here, get shut out of foreign markets, and fuck up all the supply chains.

Sounds like a real ticket to poverty

You have two choices:

Protect our jobs - which it seems you do not want to do.

Pay higher taxes to take care of people on welfare.

How do you think apple is one of the richest companies in the world? Not by paying a livable wage.

 

[Thump553]

TH: One of the factors you are ignoring is that lowering or eliminating tariffs has the effect of increasing consumption by a multiplicative factor, thus growing the economy as a whole and thus increasing employment both in the consuming nations and the exporting nations. Most nations had tariffs, frequently pretty high "to protect home industries" until basically the start of the twentieth century which started 100+ years of tremendous economic growth throughout the world-at least until the Trump era. Now it seems we are destined to relearn lessons our great-grandparents knew.

Pull out any basic economics textbook and you will find economists are nearly universally opposed to tariffs generally. This opposition to tariffs (aka free trade) was one of the two or three central core principles of the GOP before Trump, along with at least an allegiance to fiscal conservatism. Both of these have been thrown under the bus in the era of the cult of personality rule of The Donald.

 

[zinfamous]

Recent news shows the need for more tariffs. Make it expensive to offshore so companies will build here in the states.

One article said Foxcon can not compete with its labor in China.

No they don't. Not a single fucking one.

"some stuff I saw said a thing that I interpreted to mean thus! And no! I ain't gonna be bothered to do what I demand everyone else do and link it, highlight the comments, and cite each reference by page, date of airing, and further sourcing their reporting."

Typical TexasTugger empty shitposting.

 

[zinfamous]

TH: One of the factors you are ignoring is that lowering or eliminating tariffs has the effect of increasing consumption by a multiplicative factor, thus growing the economy as a whole and thus increasing employment both in the consuming nations and the exporting nations. Most nations had tariffs, frequently pretty high "to protect home industries" until basically the start of the twentieth century which started 100+ years of tremendous economic growth throughout the world-at least until the Trump era. Now it seems we are destined to relearn lessons our great-grandparents knew.

Pull out any basic economics textbook and you will find economists are nearly universally opposed to tariffs generally. This opposition to tariffs (aka free trade) was one of the two or three central core principles of the GOP before Trump, along with at least an allegiance to fiscal conservatism. Both of these have been thrown under the bus in the era of the cult of personality rule of The Donald.

TexasTugger first heard the word "tariff" back in 2016 when it plopped out of the crusty face hole of the Orange One. But of course now he's an expert. Guess who is his only source on how tariffs work?

 

[Fenixgoon]

You have two choices:

Protect our jobs - which it seems you do not want to do.

Pay higher taxes to take care of people on welfare.

How do you think apple is one of the richest companies in the world? Not by paying a livable wage.

It couldn't possibly be that protectionist policies are actually a negative in the long run? After all, if you grow the economy, you should (in theory) be able to pay for those unemployed people. But if tariffs shrink your economy, you're pretty boned.

 

[Jhhnn]

Can you say... Pump fake?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/business/foxconn-factory-wisconsin.html

Walker & friends still found a way to get paid, I'm sure.

 

[dawp]

these type of deals never fulfill their promises. always costing the gulible (th) and don't deliver on jobs or tax revenue promised, and yet here we are again.

Kenosha is my hometown. it was hard hit after amc was bought by chrysler for the jeep name.

 

[IronWing]

these type of deals never fulfill their promises. always costing the gulible (th) and don't deliver on jobs or tax revenue promised, and yet here we are again.

Kenosha is my hometown. it was hard hit after amc was bought by chrysler for the jeep name.

A friend of mine still drives the Gremlin he bought new.

 

[sdifox]

A friend of mine still drives the Gremlin he bought new.

Wayne, is that you?

 

[Bitek]

You have two choices:

Protect our jobs - which it seems you do not want to do.

Pay higher taxes to take care of people on welfare.

How do you think apple is one of the richest companies in the world? Not by paying a livable wage.

That's not protecting jobs, that's destroying far more jobs than it would create.

Clothes manufacturing is not coming back, but we do lots of high tech and medical

TH: One of the factors you are ignoring is that lowering or eliminating tariffs has the effect of increasing consumption by a multiplicative factor, thus growing the economy as a whole and thus increasing employment both in the consuming nations and the exporting nations. Most nations had tariffs, frequently pretty high "to protect home industries" until basically the start of the twentieth century which started 100+ years of tremendous economic growth throughout the world-at least until the Trump era. Now it seems we are destined to relearn lessons our great-grandparents knew.

Pull out any basic economics textbook and you will find economists are nearly universally opposed to tariffs generally. This opposition to tariffs (aka free trade) was one of the two or three central core principles of the GOP before Trump, along with at least an allegiance to fiscal conservatism. Both of these have been thrown under the bus in the era of the cult of personality rule of The Donald.

Additionally we go a lot of high tech manufacturing that relies on raw materials coming from overseas. We will drive up costs of high value add products, and potentially

TH: One of the factors you are ignoring is that lowering or eliminating tariffs has the effect of increasing consumption by a multiplicative factor, thus growing the economy as a whole and thus increasing employment both in the consuming nations and the exporting nations. Most nations had tariffs, frequently pretty high "to protect home industries" until basically the start of the twentieth century which started 100+ years of tremendous economic growth throughout the world-at least until the Trump era. Now it seems we are destined to relearn lessons our great-grandparents knew.

Pull out any basic economics textbook and you will find economists are nearly universally opposed to tariffs generally. This opposition to tariffs (aka free trade) was one of the two or three central core principles of the GOP before Trump, along with at least an allegiance to fiscal conservatism. Both of these have been thrown under the bus in the era of the cult of personality rule of The Donald.

In effect, tariffs are forced economic inefficiencies that a capitalistic system would work to eliminate.

While tariffs can protect a few pockets of the economy, the net effect is to make the populace poorer, less competitive and less innovative.

Where the system has failed has been on the social safety net effectively cushioning the negative impacts to the inefficient sectors of economy (and it's workers/communities) as well as making sure no corrupted interests are having the system.

It's a legitimate complaint, but the solution is not tariffs. Like communism, it will just leave everyone worse off and our country weak.

 

[Commodus]

You have two choices:

Protect our jobs - which it seems you do not want to do.

Pay higher taxes to take care of people on welfare.

How do you think apple is one of the richest companies in the world? Not by paying a livable wage.

You need some proper schooling on why this won't happen, and why you wouldn't be "protecting our jobs" even if you did get your way.

The issue for Apple and other companies isn't the pay rate at their contractors. It's their access to workers and the supply chain. If Apple needs to boost production for the latest iPhone, Foxconn can rally thousands of properly qualified workers in a couple of weeks. In the US, you'd be thankful if you could find that many qualified people in a year.

Moreover, while you might move manufacturing to the US, many of the supply chain partners and raw resource providers are still in China. Having to ship many of your components overseas to the US is inefficient and expensive, and many domestic partners can't keep up (Apple's Mac Pro faced problems because a screw supplier was struggling).

And more importantly, the notion that companies would bring existing jobs over is misguided. Foxconn is already in the midst of automating its factories; do you really think it's going to set up shop in the US without automation as a priority? When Apple opened its Mac Pro factory in the US, it did so because it could manufacture the system in a highly automated fashion.

If for some reason Apple did move iPhone production to the US, the number of new jobs wouldn't likely be high enough to move the needle on the economy. And many of these jobs would be modest positions without much of a career path. This isn't the mid-20th century, when you could work 30 years at a factory and expect to retire comfortably; if your job even lasts 30 years (it probably won't), you'll probably have a rough time when you retire.

So no, you're not going to "protect our jobs" by further increasing tariffs. You're just going to screw the American public by raising prices on the goods they'll need to import regardless, all in the hope that companies might bring over a fraction of the jobs they provide overseas.

 

[nakedfrog]

You have two choices:

Protect our jobs - which it seems you do not want to do.

Pay higher taxes to take care of people on welfare.

How do you think apple is one of the richest companies in the world? Not by paying a livable wage.

So I guess we pass laws to put a limit on automation then?

 

[Thump553]

A friend of mine still drives the Gremlin he bought new.

I calls shens on this. I lived near AMC plants in the 1970s and 80s and I never saw a Gremlin that was over five years old. For some reason road salt was especially destructive to Gremlins, you could almost see them rust out and fall apart in real time.

If true, my condolences to your friend-and he/she should get their head examined (spoken by a former Pacer owner).

 

[zinfamous]

I calls shens on this. I lived near AMC plants in the 1970s and 80s and I never saw a Gremlin that was over five years old. For some reason road salt was especially destructive to Gremlins, you could almost see them rust out and fall apart in real time.

If true, my condolences to your friend-and he/she should get their head examined (spoken by a former Pacer owner).

assuming IW and his so-called "friend" have lived in AZ all this time, I don't think salty roads would be a factor.

 

[IronWing]

assuming IW and his so-called "friend" have lived in AZ all this time, I don't think salty roads would be a factor.

He lives in Kentucky so no road salt.