Foxconn 'Remains Committed' to Wisconsin Plant and Promise of Eventually Employing 13,000 Workers

[jmgregory1]

This predates Scott Walker. It's been that way since at least the 1990s. His play to break the unions was just part of the problem.

Manufacturing has always been strong in Wisconsin and will continue to be for years. It's the basis for a great deal of the state's economy, much as recreation for the FIBs is. Wisconsin has had the infrastructure and the workforce that's geared towards manufacturing for over a century, which has provided the basis for much of the economy of southeast Wisconsin, in particular.

Walker merely tried to make the teachers and government workers the scapegoat, and in doing so alienated a great deal of voters, who in turn made sure he wasn't reelected. That's the way the system should work and it did. Hopefully the damage he did can be reversed in a short time, despite the efforts to perpetuate some of his policies as he exited the office.

Cross the state line coming north on I-43 and enjoy the cheese and porno. As it was once proposed for the slogan on the license plates, "Come Smell Our Dairy Air".

Having been born, raised and lived in Wisconsin for 30+ years of my life (now a 20+ year resident of Illinois), complaints from people of high taxes is really nothing more than a battle line that republicans promulgated as a way to get tax breaks for the rich (people and corporations).

Those not benefiting from these types of breaks, which is effectively the majority of people, either don’t realize or don’t care, that taxes pay for what used to be a great school / education system, well cared for roads, nature (the DNR has been decimated by Walker’s admin), and infrastructure in general. The big picture issue we face, as I see it, is this non-social attitude of “I’m not going to pay for someone else’s fill in the blank with some social or other need”.

Those that look back fondly to the 50’s and 60’s as a time when everyone was doing better, which was for a lot of people true, was only possible when taxes were even higher, especially corporate taxes. And back then, CEO’s weren’t earning tens of millions of dollars a year, even when their businesses were losing money and the gap between rich and poor was much less. But sure, let’s blame the high taxes for the mess we’re in now, because clearly the ultra wealthy and big corporations will do the right thing in using the tax savings to boost employee pay, hire more workers, add manufacturing plants, etc. What a fallacy - corporations in general have to legally do what’s right for their shareholders, not society.

What we’re headed for, if things continue down this path, is going to be a revolution of the poor, both republican and democrat, who will have no other choice but to fight for justice and equality.

 

[MacDann]

Having been born, raised and lived in Wisconsin for 30+ years of my life (now a 20+ year resident of Illinois), complaints from people of high taxes is really nothing more than a battle line that republicans promulgated as a way to get tax breaks for the rich (people and corporations).

Those not benefiting from these types of breaks, which is effectively the majority of people, either don’t realize or don’t care, that taxes pay for what used to be a great school / education system, well cared for roads, nature (the DNR has been decimated by Walker’s admin), and infrastructure in general. The big picture issue we face, as I see it, is this non-social attitude of “I’m not going to pay for someone else’s fill in the blank with some social or other need”.

I lived in Wisconsin for about 10 years, for the late 80s to the early 90s. I still have many friends and contacts there as a result, and keep close tabs on things in general in southeast Wisconsin.

I've lived in a number of places both in the US and outside of it, so I think I've got a pretty good point of reference as far as quality of life. I will say that looking back at all of the places I've lived, Wisconsin had and continues to have the best quality of life. I can't quantify that relative to a specific thing, but just overall things are better there than anyplace I've ever lived. The people, the many cultures, the history, the climate, it just all comes together in a way I can't explain that I personally find to be a very positive thing.

I never found the mentality of "Why should I pay taxes for schools when I'm retired? My kids are long gone from schools", for example, in any of the people I knew there. Most everyone accepted that our taxes were the price we paid for excellent schools, infrastructure, parks, services, etc. I didn't like the taxes I paid, but I saw them as my contribution to the cost of living in a great place.

I was in education for some years, and yes, teachers in Wisconsin were paid well and had a fantastic pension plan, as did state employees. If people viewed teachers as professionals, like doctors or lawyers, they were underpaid. I never had a problem with the level of compensation these people received. They earned every penny of it, and we benefitted from their efforts by our children receiving a high quality education. That's the way it should be.

I have fond memories of my time in Wisconsin and return as often as I can. While it's not a perfect place, as is the case with anywhere else, it's definitely (still) at the top of my list for best places to live. I may return permanently some day, I hope.

 

[BootsWalking]

A free market means you have no manufacturing. Besides free market is a myth. Do you think the Taiwanese are playing by those rules? Free market was spun as a line to allow American business to be shut down and jobs lost off shore to make higher profits for the few. Nothing more.

Why should a free market be limited to within a country's borders? If a good or service can be produced more efficiently in another country then free market principles mean production of that good or service will move to that country.

 

[russofris]

Really? You think Foxconn or any company for that matter can have a high tech factory built and up and running in a few months?

If "a few" = 24, then yes.

Why should a free market be limited to within a country's borders? If a good or service can be produced more efficiently in another country then free market principles mean production of that good or service will move to that country.

Efficiently != cheaper. Efficiently means less time to produce, fewer work hours, shorter transport of raw materials, less tooling, fewer defects, etc. It doesn't mean that the cost is cheaper because (pseudo)slave-labor was used.

 

[BootsWalking]

If "a few" = 24, then yes.

Efficiently != cheaper. Efficiently means less time to produce, fewer work hours, shorter transport of raw materials, less tooling, fewer defects, etc. It doesn't mean that the cost is cheaper because (pseudo)slave-labor was used.

That's exactly what efficiently means in terms of economic theory. And what you're labeling "slave labor" is only your misplaced value judgement. Wages are lower in many countries because those countries have lower cost structures. And wages in developing countries are always going to be lower because of that. Once the economies in those countries start developing then wages improve and a middle class develops. This is exactly what happened in China. A country can't emerge from third-world status overnight and suddenly demand first-world ages, the same as how a teenager working at his first job doesn't get the wages of a professional.

 

[russofris]

That's exactly what efficiently means in terms of economic theory. And what you're labeling "slave labor" is only your misplaced value judgement. Wages are lower in many countries because those countries have lower cost structures. And wages in developing countries are always going to be lower because of that. Once the economies in those countries start developing then wages improve and a middle class develops. This is exactly what happened in China. A country can't emerge from third-world status overnight and suddenly demand first-world ages, the same as how a teenager working at his first job doesn't get the wages of a professional.

I understand that that you're attempt to commandeer the engineering term "efficiency" by hiding the empirical metrics of time and resources behind an imaginary intermediary (money). That's not how efficiency works, nor does economic theory seek to reconcile how slavery works.

 

[BootsWalking]

I understand that that you're attempt to commandeer the engineering term "efficiency" by hiding the empirical metrics of time and resources behind an imaginary intermediary (money). That's not how efficiency works, nor does economic theory seek to reconcile how slavery works.

"Economic efficiency implies an economic state in which every resource is optimally allocated to serve each individual or entity in the best way while minimizing waste and inefficiency. When an economy is economically efficient, any changes made to assist one entity would harm another. In terms of production, goods are produced at their lowest possible cost, as are the variable inputs of production."

Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic_efficiency.asp

And how do you define slavery exactly in this context?