Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Wisconsin has negotiated a dramatically scaled-back deal with Foxconn
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/wisconsin-drastically-scales-back-politically-charged-deal-with-foxconn/
195 comments
I am always struck at the amount that states and municipalities are willing to write off in order to attract companies. On one hand, I understand that companies want to take the best deal, but on the other hand, at times local governments are willing to give up so much money in tax revenue. I remember reading about the competitions for Google Fiber and Amazon's second HQ - it felt absurd the amount cities and states were willing to drop, financially speaking.
I'm glad this one has been renegotiated (especially seeing that the proposed plant never happened), but I'd like to see these deals be more level-headed before they get to this point.
I'm glad this one has been renegotiated (especially seeing that the proposed plant never happened), but I'd like to see these deals be more level-headed before they get to this point.
> but I'd like to see these deals be more level-headed before they get to this point.
I don't think that's possible considering the incentives at play. Politicians always have the next election in mind, and what better way to try to win it then sign a deal that promises jobs? Doesn't matter if the numbers bandied about are too good to be true --- just get pen to paper and point the finger at your opponent and decry him as anti-business.
I don't think that's possible considering the incentives at play. Politicians always have the next election in mind, and what better way to try to win it then sign a deal that promises jobs? Doesn't matter if the numbers bandied about are too good to be true --- just get pen to paper and point the finger at your opponent and decry him as anti-business.
Let's just call it what is is: corruption. Corruption isn't just something that happens in 3rd world countries. Alive and well in the US of A.
It's corporate welfare.
In this case, it was actually a Governor who didn't know math more so than corruption. At least for the original terms in 2017.
Do you actually believe that? Gov. Walker was notorious for various other corrupt activities as well.
In other terms, grey's law applies here: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice
In other terms, grey's law applies here: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice
It would be corruption if he personally benefits from the project, e.g. by selling land to Foxconn. I don't know the specific details to know if it really was a case of corruption.
A load of bitcoin in a hidden wallet? Not that visible. Easy to disguise.
The payoff could be very hard to find, but the malfeasance in public office is clear as day.
The payoff could be very hard to find, but the malfeasance in public office is clear as day.
They’re not really “giving up” anything if they attract a business that otherwise wouldn’t be there at all.
It’s still a net gain to have a major employer in your locale, along with all the other economic benefits and tax revenue that entails.
It’s still a net gain to have a major employer in your locale, along with all the other economic benefits and tax revenue that entails.
There should be research to support this argument. Has anyone found evidence for or against? Otherwise the claim here seems aspirational rather than useful.
I know that the history of stadium deals, for example, this claim is nearly universally made to support incentivizing sports teams - and the evidence nearly universally shows it to be false.
"In every case, the conclusions are the same. A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus." [0]
[0] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new...
I know that the history of stadium deals, for example, this claim is nearly universally made to support incentivizing sports teams - and the evidence nearly universally shows it to be false.
"In every case, the conclusions are the same. A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus." [0]
[0] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new...
I don't think the comparison to sports stadiums fit here. Usually there is already a stadium for a large NFL team or whatever in the city and the economies in the cities that are large enough to even host these teams are WAY more dynamic than where many factories are being built in the south or midwest.
For example Walmart's HQ was built in a TINY SW Arkansas town. The billions that have been invested there by the company, not only in jobs, but amenities in the city have no comparison to any other option that was available to them. If the city and state wanted to hand Walmart a $100 million dollar check, then that investment would have paid off way more than 10x. (IDK what subsidies they were given, probably none just using this for sake of the argument)
I know WM is the evil empire and I'm not defending all they do, just saying that if the right business moves into your small community it can be worth tens, hundreds or even many billions of dollars to a community that has no other options.
Amazon moving into NYC, or Atlanta giving many millions in subsidies to the Braves for a new stadium? Not really comparable.
For example Walmart's HQ was built in a TINY SW Arkansas town. The billions that have been invested there by the company, not only in jobs, but amenities in the city have no comparison to any other option that was available to them. If the city and state wanted to hand Walmart a $100 million dollar check, then that investment would have paid off way more than 10x. (IDK what subsidies they were given, probably none just using this for sake of the argument)
I know WM is the evil empire and I'm not defending all they do, just saying that if the right business moves into your small community it can be worth tens, hundreds or even many billions of dollars to a community that has no other options.
Amazon moving into NYC, or Atlanta giving many millions in subsidies to the Braves for a new stadium? Not really comparable.
The "Tiny town" is 70,000 people who live in an multi-city metro area of around 600,000. That may not be like SF or NYC big, but it's also not just a random metro area. Having lived there for a few years, you're painting with a poetic brush a bit and I'd like to clarify how I see it.
Walmart owns Bentonville. The city council, mayor, and basically anyone there is almost completely subservient to their interests. Again - WM never moved in to the small community, the small community literally is Wal-mart.
For many years, people in the town worked in Wal-mart retail buildings & warehouses around Bentonville. Around 2013 the company started to struggle to compete and found that they needed to attract talent, so the Walton Family Foundation started spending somewhere around $300 million - $400 million a year in improvements and restoration projects. This included massive subsidies for companies that moved in to the area - WFF also paid partially or fully relocation money, but I have no idea how much they paid other than one restaurant owner I spoke to who was basically given moving costs, a building, and "free" rent for a year.
The whole "Wal-mart HQ" thing is just another in their line of tactics to attract new talent in to the area because they are struggling to build an ecosystem of talented developers and analysts. Which, again, there's nothing wrong with this tactic if that's what you're hunting for.
One thing I'll give WM for sure - they are 100% focused on building out a tech bubble for people who want a semi-urban lifestyle. There's a lot of TX & CA transplants and honestly it's working great for them.
All told, none of this is even kind of comparable to Amazon moving to NYC or Atlanta. Nor is it comparable to a company moving in to a small town brand-new.
[ed: oops missed an important sentence!]
Walmart owns Bentonville. The city council, mayor, and basically anyone there is almost completely subservient to their interests. Again - WM never moved in to the small community, the small community literally is Wal-mart.
For many years, people in the town worked in Wal-mart retail buildings & warehouses around Bentonville. Around 2013 the company started to struggle to compete and found that they needed to attract talent, so the Walton Family Foundation started spending somewhere around $300 million - $400 million a year in improvements and restoration projects. This included massive subsidies for companies that moved in to the area - WFF also paid partially or fully relocation money, but I have no idea how much they paid other than one restaurant owner I spoke to who was basically given moving costs, a building, and "free" rent for a year.
The whole "Wal-mart HQ" thing is just another in their line of tactics to attract new talent in to the area because they are struggling to build an ecosystem of talented developers and analysts. Which, again, there's nothing wrong with this tactic if that's what you're hunting for.
One thing I'll give WM for sure - they are 100% focused on building out a tech bubble for people who want a semi-urban lifestyle. There's a lot of TX & CA transplants and honestly it's working great for them.
All told, none of this is even kind of comparable to Amazon moving to NYC or Atlanta. Nor is it comparable to a company moving in to a small town brand-new.
[ed: oops missed an important sentence!]
According to wikipedia the population of Bentonville when the first WM store was built was 2,949.
It's now 54,909, but maybe it's 70k as you say.
Either way it sounds precisely like a situation where a giant corporation moved in to a small town. Or more accurately the tiny store grew into a giant corporation and so did the small town.
My point was merely that many small rural town mayors would love it if a giant corporation would move an HQ with tens of thousands of high paying jobs into their tiny communities! This is why the are willing to give giant incentives to them.
You make great points otherwise, thanks for sharing your perspective!
It's now 54,909, but maybe it's 70k as you say.
Either way it sounds precisely like a situation where a giant corporation moved in to a small town. Or more accurately the tiny store grew into a giant corporation and so did the small town.
My point was merely that many small rural town mayors would love it if a giant corporation would move an HQ with tens of thousands of high paying jobs into their tiny communities! This is why the are willing to give giant incentives to them.
You make great points otherwise, thanks for sharing your perspective!
> For example Walmart's HQ was built in a TINY SW Arkansas town.
I understand what you're saying here, but Walmart is a really bad example here. They started in Bentonville in the 50's as a tiny shop and the city grew with their growth - their decision to stay in "a little town in Arkansas" was organic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Walmart
I understand what you're saying here, but Walmart is a really bad example here. They started in Bentonville in the 50's as a tiny shop and the city grew with their growth - their decision to stay in "a little town in Arkansas" was organic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Walmart
I didn’t say the comparison was necessarily valid or invalid. I said that evidence for and against you things can exist and should be brought when claims are made.
The only comparison I am making is that virtually identical claims are made about stadium deals and the evidence suggest the opposite of those claims is true.
I would just like these claims to be evaluated and assessed using evidence not accept it is true because they fit within the narrative that is presented every single time a company wants a tax break
The only comparison I am making is that virtually identical claims are made about stadium deals and the evidence suggest the opposite of those claims is true.
I would just like these claims to be evaluated and assessed using evidence not accept it is true because they fit within the narrative that is presented every single time a company wants a tax break
> For example Walmart's HQ was built in a TINY SW Arkansas town.
Minor correction: Walmart's HQ is in NW Arkansas (Bentonville)
Minor correction: Walmart's HQ is in NW Arkansas (Bentonville)
I'd just like Wal-Mart to honor Walton's rule about no more than two customers waiting in line.
The New York Times investigated this notion and found most deals were so lopsided that the municipalities and states never came anywhere near recouping their investments. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-ba...
They're giving up fairness and equality- equal treatment under the law. If the entire state wasn't completely devoid of any entities looking to compete in that space, it probably is now. Anyone making LCD panels in Wisconsin suddenly has a $80,000,000 greater financial gap from their largest competitor. If the lower taxes are good for creating jobs at a net gain to the local economy, then the lower rate should be applied equally among all similarly taxed entities.
> If the lower taxes are good for creating jobs at net gain to the local economy, then the lower rate should be applied equally among all similarly taxed entities.
I agree with the premise here, but in reality, you can see that won't actually work.
You have existing businesses in an area paying a certain amount in taxes. You want to attract a new major business. If you lower your taxes for all the businesses in hopes of attracting the new business, you just lost a huge chunk of revenue for something that might not come to fruition. Whereas if you don't lower your taxes, that new business has no incentive to go with your locale, and will instead, settle somewhere there is an already established talent-base/infrastructure/etc. Furthering the economic inequality between the regions.
I am not a fan of these tax incentives, but I can't blame these places for using them.
I agree with the premise here, but in reality, you can see that won't actually work.
You have existing businesses in an area paying a certain amount in taxes. You want to attract a new major business. If you lower your taxes for all the businesses in hopes of attracting the new business, you just lost a huge chunk of revenue for something that might not come to fruition. Whereas if you don't lower your taxes, that new business has no incentive to go with your locale, and will instead, settle somewhere there is an already established talent-base/infrastructure/etc. Furthering the economic inequality between the regions.
I am not a fan of these tax incentives, but I can't blame these places for using them.
I believe luring in corporate giants with payouts collected from existing businesses is short-sighted and wrong both morally and economically. There are existing businesses in Wisconsin, and the way I see it, their current collective tax burden is excessive to the tune of at least $80,000,000.
The government is essentially running around to all of the Davids, collecting a few dollars from each to fund the construction of a tower that puts the Goliath beyond the reach of David's sling. I don't want a government that builds mountains for the largest companies while relegating small businesses to the trenches. I want a government that does everything possible to keep the battlefield level. Innovation rarely comes from the established giants.
The government is essentially running around to all of the Davids, collecting a few dollars from each to fund the construction of a tower that puts the Goliath beyond the reach of David's sling. I don't want a government that builds mountains for the largest companies while relegating small businesses to the trenches. I want a government that does everything possible to keep the battlefield level. Innovation rarely comes from the established giants.
There's an old phrase "burning down your house for the nails" - so yes, we can blame these places for using them.
It could be a net gain. Dropping a few thousand jobs and a factory into an area changes said area. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes not.
Most communities tend to prefer having lots of jobs available versus having too few jobs available.
Absolutely. But I don't know anyone who likes having the added traffic that thousands of jobs bring. And increased housing prices. And yada yada. More jobs isnt always positive and at the very least have some downsides.
I don't understand why people keep downvoting this sentiment. Cities have two options:
(1) Attract a business that wouldn't otherwise come, which when it exists will attract more people that pay state/local sales taxes and increase demand for property, which in turn increases property price, which increases property taxes.
(2) Don't attract the business. . . .. nothing comes after that.
(1) Attract a business that wouldn't otherwise come, which when it exists will attract more people that pay state/local sales taxes and increase demand for property, which in turn increases property price, which increases property taxes.
(2) Don't attract the business. . . .. nothing comes after that.
And once again the law of the excluded middle strikes. No, the only two options are not the ones you suggest. The other option, that you conveniently ignore, is that cities build a good infrastructure that attracts talent and the businesses come to either serve the talent or employ the talent -- no subsidy needed.
By now there must be entire libraries, or at least large warehouses, filled with case studies from HBS and similar schools that show state and municipal tax incentives are ALWAYS a bad deal for the city and state finances. The only purpose they serve is to make a politician appear effective and to enable that politician and his or her cronies to collect a bit of graft.
By now there must be entire libraries, or at least large warehouses, filled with case studies from HBS and similar schools that show state and municipal tax incentives are ALWAYS a bad deal for the city and state finances. The only purpose they serve is to make a politician appear effective and to enable that politician and his or her cronies to collect a bit of graft.
> The other option, that you conveniently ignore, is that cities build a good infrastructure that attracts talent and the businesses come to either serve the talent or employ the talent -- no subsidy needed.
How do cities pay for that good infrastructure? either with tax revenue or debt (bond). Very often cities want to attract businesses precisely because their commercial base is in decline, with very little room to hike tax. As for debt, such a city may have low credit score making it hard to get loans, or being saddled with high interest rate.
Giving incentive to businesses allows them to stabilize long term revenue, at the same time adding local jobs. That's the theory. The reality of course include both good and bad examples of such scheme. Foxconn is a bad example.
How do cities pay for that good infrastructure? either with tax revenue or debt (bond). Very often cities want to attract businesses precisely because their commercial base is in decline, with very little room to hike tax. As for debt, such a city may have low credit score making it hard to get loans, or being saddled with high interest rate.
Giving incentive to businesses allows them to stabilize long term revenue, at the same time adding local jobs. That's the theory. The reality of course include both good and bad examples of such scheme. Foxconn is a bad example.
Roads and infrastructure don't pay for themselves and considering the scale of some incentive packages offered and the paltry outcomes like the one we're discussing in Wisconsin and elsewhere the assertion that there's a "net gain" deserves serious scrutiny and supporting evidence.
They usually don't gain many jobs, and the tax benefits are usually given away as part of the package to attract the business.
Exactly.
People this it’s a choice between: A) company moves here pays $0 in tax or B) company moves here and pays $5M in tax.
When in reality it’s a choice between: A) company comes here and pays $0 in tax or B) company doesn’t come here and net taxes are still $0
People this it’s a choice between: A) company moves here pays $0 in tax or B) company moves here and pays $5M in tax.
When in reality it’s a choice between: A) company comes here and pays $0 in tax or B) company doesn’t come here and net taxes are still $0
According to [1], its:
A) company comes here and pays $0 in tax. and city "took on hundreds of millions in debt that was supposed to be repaid by property taxes".
B) company doesn’t come here and net taxes are still $0. city doesnt take on more debt.
B looks better.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/21507966/foxconn-empty-factories-wi...
A) company comes here and pays $0 in tax. and city "took on hundreds of millions in debt that was supposed to be repaid by property taxes".
B) company doesn’t come here and net taxes are still $0. city doesnt take on more debt.
B looks better.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/21507966/foxconn-empty-factories-wi...
No offense but if a city can’t negotiate a decent agreement they kind of deserve to get screwed on it.
Or, company comes here, pays their employees less than expected, and leaves sooner than expected with the local taxpayers on the hook paying for more infrastructure than they need - and maybe some bonus pollution to deal with for decades.
These deals are always more complicated than the initial marquee numbers and that usually seems to make them less favorable for the area than hoped because companies have greater experience and can play desperate municipalities off against each other with little consequence for not delivering.
These deals are always more complicated than the initial marquee numbers and that usually seems to make them less favorable for the area than hoped because companies have greater experience and can play desperate municipalities off against each other with little consequence for not delivering.
We have a coordinating union of states though, we don't need states to be pitted against each other to subsidize existing wealthy owners.
That seems like a ridiculous idea. The very purpose of the states is “50 different experiments”. I want states pitted against each other.
That's a later conception of Brandeis isn't it? Think of the early political cartoon of a snake cut into 13 pieces that needed to join to defeat the British, not experiment in competition against each other to win the war by subsidizing the largest existing concentrated owners to entice them to their state with corporate welfare.
They don't have a choice between Amazon HQ or 50 medium sized new businesses, they often have Amazon HQ or nothing new. In that case, whatever they get is more than they have now, isn't it? New jobs that will bring other new businesses and local taxes etc are a bonus.
Places that were serious contenders for Amazon HQ definitely have other employers and options. There is no way that Amazon HQ is ending up in Sioux Falls or Laramie or something.
It looks that way in the end, with no other alternative but to yield, but at some point there were many options, that is how the town, city, county or state came to be in the first place. The problem is that they gave so many concessions just to get a short term political advantage, that real productive and sustainable jobs couldn't compete with corruption.
Now because of the giant snowball made from all the little policy mistakes that sounded insignificant at first, or ever worse, sounded sound! I mean who wouldn't want high paying jobs that barely require any training? the only option in many places is to keep the charade, but at some point politics need to give way to real production, and that only means real competition.
Now because of the giant snowball made from all the little policy mistakes that sounded insignificant at first, or ever worse, sounded sound! I mean who wouldn't want high paying jobs that barely require any training? the only option in many places is to keep the charade, but at some point politics need to give way to real production, and that only means real competition.
Close the deal, claim credit, move on before the inevitable consequences.
Just like a sales driven tech company. Heroes for booking sales. Score fat commission. Loser developers and clients are left holding the bag.
Just like a sales driven tech company. Heroes for booking sales. Score fat commission. Loser developers and clients are left holding the bag.
I think it’s a zero-sum game. Only one of your competitors has to offer a concession to win the business so you have to compete.
you cant "give up" tax revenue you haven't collected
You're right, but you can contribute to a race-to-the-bottom where no one collects any tax.
You get taxes in other ways through new building permits, higher property taxes, local sales tax, etc...there is more going on than just collecting corporate taxes in a municipality. The more people you draw the better your overall tax revenue is...and the taxes you are willing to put off are limited in time and generally expire after 5-10 years.
This is all true but it just describes why jurisdictions are willing to join the race to the bottom.
But “the bottom” is not really a bottom then. It is like a joint private/public venture. What is wrong with that?
It's not really a problem for the partners in the joint private/public venture. It is a problem for the next jurisdiction that is now facing companies' expectations of massive incentives, for the existing residents and businesses that are paying normal taxes because they aren't new, for any but the largest businesses who don't have lobbyists on staff, etc.
There's also the general wisdom that life is better when you're competing to offer more value for more money, not just cutting costs as far as you can
There's also the general wisdom that life is better when you're competing to offer more value for more money, not just cutting costs as far as you can
I see your point and agree that from the fairness point of view this is not quite right. However, I do not see fairness as relevant in this context. Unless it is Walmart that is getting tax breaks for building a bunch of stores in NYC, local businesses do not oppose big companies getting incentives to move in.
Perhaps they don't but I'm not as focused on the relationship between the company and jurisdiction, I'm talking about the externalities.
Desperate places give away the store to get anything at all, and it depresses what companies are willing to offer the next place while also tilting the playing field toward big companies with the ability to negotiate these kind of deals.
Desperate places give away the store to get anything at all, and it depresses what companies are willing to offer the next place while also tilting the playing field toward big companies with the ability to negotiate these kind of deals.
You certainly can if it's property taxes. Someone's going to own the land either way, so offering property tax incentives is giving up tax revenue.
> local governments are willing to give up so much money in tax revenue
It's literally a race to the bottom, and for some reason people are eager to win!
It's literally a race to the bottom, and for some reason people are eager to win!
it's a pretty low risk gamble for the politicians and there's almost always a reward for them even if the deal falls through.
In this case because Scott Walker lost re-election.
> On July 16, 2019, President Trump announced his intent to appoint Walker to be a Member (Private Life) of the Board of Trustees of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in the Smithsonian Institution
he was rewarded with a sinecure.
he was rewarded with a sinecure.
There's a great Reply All podcast about local politics in the town where this plant is to be built. Beware, it's slightly infuriating.
https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/wbhjwd
https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/wbhjwd
I grew up in Racine County (which contains Mount Pleasant). Let me tell you, SE WI is a strange place. Caught between so many sensibilities and hit so, so hard by economic shifts of the last two decades. I think it suffers, like many places in the American Midwest, the phenomenon of an historically working-class population, who, a few decades ago, would have organized for labor and other rights very vocally and outwardly, but who now are radicalized to the right for no understandable reason.
I still like to believe that most of the people around there are good and mean well, but it gets harder and harder every day to believe the willful ignorance they possess of economic, societal, and cultural issues at hand, here and now, will fade. But there's hope. Younger leaders are working their way into local government (hi Greta!), especially over in the formal City of Racine. There's hope that Racine and Racine County might be a leader of progressive values in the area.
As an aside, I think there's oodles of opportunity in the SE WI area for younger folks. It really is a beautiful place, is near to Chicago and Milwaukee, and is inexpensive. You get all four seasons, for better or worse. I think it's better than SF's summer and grey-chillier-summer. Some joke that the four seasons are winter, construction, construction, and construction, but that's an exaggeration. Anyway, I think an influx of more diverse people in background and ideology could really stimulate an area like SE WI. Add to that making it worth young people staying around instead of fleeing to the coasts, and suddenly Racine can be a really cool place.
This whole Foxconn thing just makes me so sad, and angry.
I still like to believe that most of the people around there are good and mean well, but it gets harder and harder every day to believe the willful ignorance they possess of economic, societal, and cultural issues at hand, here and now, will fade. But there's hope. Younger leaders are working their way into local government (hi Greta!), especially over in the formal City of Racine. There's hope that Racine and Racine County might be a leader of progressive values in the area.
As an aside, I think there's oodles of opportunity in the SE WI area for younger folks. It really is a beautiful place, is near to Chicago and Milwaukee, and is inexpensive. You get all four seasons, for better or worse. I think it's better than SF's summer and grey-chillier-summer. Some joke that the four seasons are winter, construction, construction, and construction, but that's an exaggeration. Anyway, I think an influx of more diverse people in background and ideology could really stimulate an area like SE WI. Add to that making it worth young people staying around instead of fleeing to the coasts, and suddenly Racine can be a really cool place.
This whole Foxconn thing just makes me so sad, and angry.
> for no understandable reason.
Americans classically derive much of their sense of value from:
1. Work
2. Race (for many white people, especially historically)
...and that's about it. Unlike other cultures our "rugged individualism" means that we don't tend to derive as much sense of worth from family, traditions, organizations we belong to, etc. This is especially true for men who are raised to believe that who they are is what they do.
The economic shift to a service- and knowledge-based economy with many manufacturing and ag jobs being automated or outsourced away has devastated 1. in many communities. The march towards better civil rights and equality is chipping away at 2.
This has left a huge number of Americans feeling that they are worth less than they used to be. People like that are ripe for being exploited. People will buy anything if you tell them you're selling dignity. Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan was really "Make You Feel Like You're Great Again".
Americans classically derive much of their sense of value from:
1. Work
2. Race (for many white people, especially historically)
...and that's about it. Unlike other cultures our "rugged individualism" means that we don't tend to derive as much sense of worth from family, traditions, organizations we belong to, etc. This is especially true for men who are raised to believe that who they are is what they do.
The economic shift to a service- and knowledge-based economy with many manufacturing and ag jobs being automated or outsourced away has devastated 1. in many communities. The march towards better civil rights and equality is chipping away at 2.
This has left a huge number of Americans feeling that they are worth less than they used to be. People like that are ripe for being exploited. People will buy anything if you tell them you're selling dignity. Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan was really "Make You Feel Like You're Great Again".
> Unlike other cultures our "rugged individualism" means that we don't tend to derive as much sense of worth from family, traditions, organizations we belong to, etc
I agree with the overall premise, but there is a single notable exception to to this, which is the military, which is the intersection of family, traditions, and government organizations. But even there, as we have seen recently, there is a white nationalism problem afoot.
>Americans classically derive much of their sense of value from:
> 1. Work
> 2. Race (for many white people, especially historically)
> ...
> People will buy anything if you tell them you're selling dignity.
All true, and it's important that politicians who hope to actually heal these folks focus their efforts on restoring the dignity that comes from work and community, and dispel the dangerous sort of "dignity" peddled by ethnic/racial nationalists.
I agree with the overall premise, but there is a single notable exception to to this, which is the military, which is the intersection of family, traditions, and government organizations. But even there, as we have seen recently, there is a white nationalism problem afoot.
>Americans classically derive much of their sense of value from:
> 1. Work
> 2. Race (for many white people, especially historically)
> ...
> People will buy anything if you tell them you're selling dignity.
All true, and it's important that politicians who hope to actually heal these folks focus their efforts on restoring the dignity that comes from work and community, and dispel the dangerous sort of "dignity" peddled by ethnic/racial nationalists.
> a single notable exception to to this, which is the military
This is a bit of cognitive dissonance I find fascinating among the far right. I have had conversations with many people who clearly simultaneously believe:
1. The government can't do anything right.
2. We have the world's best military.
And yet for most it hasn't seemed to click that the military is a government program.
But, again, I think this gets to my larger point that because the military is such a source of prestige for many Americans (especially poorer ones with few other upward mobility options), they are able to maintain that bit of cognitive dissonance.
(And, to be clear, I absolutely do not think conservatives have a monopoly on cognitive dissonance. I see many different ones all along the political spectrum.)
This is a bit of cognitive dissonance I find fascinating among the far right. I have had conversations with many people who clearly simultaneously believe:
1. The government can't do anything right.
2. We have the world's best military.
And yet for most it hasn't seemed to click that the military is a government program.
But, again, I think this gets to my larger point that because the military is such a source of prestige for many Americans (especially poorer ones with few other upward mobility options), they are able to maintain that bit of cognitive dissonance.
(And, to be clear, I absolutely do not think conservatives have a monopoly on cognitive dissonance. I see many different ones all along the political spectrum.)
Hard to process this kind of cynicism, accurate though it is. Not your demeanor, by the way, friend, just the reality of it all. Ironic that I speak of willful ignorance and yet am happy to not think too hard about the very things you've called out here.
I really don't mean this to sound cynical, though I can see how it comes across. I think it's more about understanding human psychology and trying to use that understanding to empathize with and understand why people behave in seemingly irrational ways.
As a tribal primate species are absolutely hard-wired to seek ways to provide value to our tribe. Being worthless to the tribe means being left in the forest, which was a death sentence to our evolutionary ancestors. So our need for social prestige is as fundamental as food and shelter. Perhaps even more so since for most of our ancestors, food and shelter came from the tribe.
The ways we seek out that esteem are determined by our surrounding culture. If esteem is the game we're trying to win, culture determines the board and the moves we're allowed to make. We can push against culture somewhat and it evolves over time, but we're largely stuck with the one we're enmeshed in.
So you get a set of people who need to feel valued. You raise them in a culture that says the main way to do that is by having a well-paying job. Then you take away the jobs. This is a recipe for unrest and strife.
As a tribal primate species are absolutely hard-wired to seek ways to provide value to our tribe. Being worthless to the tribe means being left in the forest, which was a death sentence to our evolutionary ancestors. So our need for social prestige is as fundamental as food and shelter. Perhaps even more so since for most of our ancestors, food and shelter came from the tribe.
The ways we seek out that esteem are determined by our surrounding culture. If esteem is the game we're trying to win, culture determines the board and the moves we're allowed to make. We can push against culture somewhat and it evolves over time, but we're largely stuck with the one we're enmeshed in.
So you get a set of people who need to feel valued. You raise them in a culture that says the main way to do that is by having a well-paying job. Then you take away the jobs. This is a recipe for unrest and strife.
Oh definitely -- I'm not detecting cynicism in you and maybe it's the wrong choice of word. I'm more feeling a sense of disappointment in what you're saying being true. It's tragic, in truth.
I lived and worked in the area for four years, working in Pleasant Prairie, living in Kenosha and then Oak Creak. Parent is right, it's a strange place because of the mixture of so many influences: the proximity of Chicago and Milwaukee, a former industrial powerhouse region, access to great education but full of people who've never been to Chicago or Milwaukee (let alone further than them).
My sysadmin had a hobby of creating frankenstein cars. He put the powertrain of a Camaro into the body of Gremlin, for which he needed a second Gremlin to lengthen the chassis by a foot. It was so overpowered he needed a couple hundred pounds of sandbags in the back to give it any traction at all. This sort of thing wasn't that weird either.
My sysadmin had a hobby of creating frankenstein cars. He put the powertrain of a Camaro into the body of Gremlin, for which he needed a second Gremlin to lengthen the chassis by a foot. It was so overpowered he needed a couple hundred pounds of sandbags in the back to give it any traction at all. This sort of thing wasn't that weird either.
You claim to not understand how that group of people can swing right and then proceed to attribute ignorance to that group of people. This doesn't compute. Very partisan and ignorant of you.
Hi friend, thanks for your response. I appreciate the criticism and the opportunity to re-evaluate my point. That said, after thinking about it, I don't believe there's a contradiction in what I've written. Point in fact is that I do not understand--in a personal sense of it "computing" (as you put it) to me--the forces at work that push people to be, as I said, wilfully ignorant of real issues facing the area and planet at large. It's not that I don't understand the people at all and simultaneously attribute ignorance to them, it's that how the ignorance comes to be is a mystery to me. An observer can see an effect without knowing the cause. That's usually how we begin to learn anything. There's a comment adjacent to yours that puts words to a gut feeling about it that takes a big step toward understanding, I think. Discourse is great!
Why is it partisan? Let’s pretend OP said “swing left”. Being against the left isn’t how partisan is normally defined. It’s usually the bias of being for a specific cause/political party. What would be the cause here? Not being pro American politics left? That does not give much info about what causes the person is biased for.
More than slightly!
A great episode!
(RIP Reply All, you'll be missed)
(RIP Reply All, you'll be missed)
For comparison:
- The deal negotiated by former governor Scott Walker was expected to cost taxpayers between $172k and $290k in government funding per job created. [0]
- $80 million for 1,454 employees, the provisions of the updated deal per TFA, is $55k each.
- The US average cost of similar programs is $24k. [0]
It's not obvious whether this is a good deal, but unlike the original it's not obviously a bad deal.
[0] https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244...
- The deal negotiated by former governor Scott Walker was expected to cost taxpayers between $172k and $290k in government funding per job created. [0]
- $80 million for 1,454 employees, the provisions of the updated deal per TFA, is $55k each.
- The US average cost of similar programs is $24k. [0]
It's not obvious whether this is a good deal, but unlike the original it's not obviously a bad deal.
[0] https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244...
Hopefully those jobs pay more than 55k to the employed, and the government is doing better than just paying people to set up their own factory
Can someone explain to me why Foxconn didn't build the plant? Why would they go through the trouble of negotiating this deal, which ended up phenomenally in their favor, just to throw their hands in the air and walk away?
From what I can tell, Foxconn never actually intended to build the plant. (I'm getting a lot of this from an interesting long-form article on the history of this deal; unfortunately, I don't remember where I found this article, sorry).
Essentially, Foxconn thought that the Wisconsin deal would work more typically as its deals in China went. Glad-hand the government officials, get sweetheart deals on land and investment, and as long as you're not totally incompetent in making use of it, they won't care what you do with it, even if you fail to live up to the original promises. It's not clear to me that Foxconn actually seriously considered producing LCD screens here given this light; the announcement would have been more to make Walker and other government officials ecstatic about the deal than an actual commitment to follow through. The fact that outrage towards the deal would lead to Walker losing reelection and his successor keeping a much closer eye on performance (or lack thereof) seems to me to have caught Foxconn completely off-guard.
I think there's another level going here in relation to internal Foxconn politics, but my recollection is too hazy to make a coherent explanation, and I don't want to make any false accusations here, so I won't go into any more detail.
Essentially, Foxconn thought that the Wisconsin deal would work more typically as its deals in China went. Glad-hand the government officials, get sweetheart deals on land and investment, and as long as you're not totally incompetent in making use of it, they won't care what you do with it, even if you fail to live up to the original promises. It's not clear to me that Foxconn actually seriously considered producing LCD screens here given this light; the announcement would have been more to make Walker and other government officials ecstatic about the deal than an actual commitment to follow through. The fact that outrage towards the deal would lead to Walker losing reelection and his successor keeping a much closer eye on performance (or lack thereof) seems to me to have caught Foxconn completely off-guard.
I think there's another level going here in relation to internal Foxconn politics, but my recollection is too hazy to make a coherent explanation, and I don't want to make any false accusations here, so I won't go into any more detail.
I believe you're remembering this story:
https://www.theverge.com/21507966/foxconn-empty-factories-wi...
https://www.theverge.com/21507966/foxconn-empty-factories-wi...
Yes, that does look like the one I was remembering.
For information, the plant has been built. The building is there, just empty.
Nope. The plant that was promised was never built. They did build some storage warehouses and started a propaganda program where they hired dozens to hundreds of locals to come in to the warehouses, sit around, and do nothing to appear like they were doing something.
The machines inside a LCD factory are dramatically more expensive than the building itself. The "plant" has not been built in any meaningful way.
Politics. Political capital. There are international advantages to having the US president endorse you, your project and your company. Those photos were probably worth the hassle.
Not just the photos but the initial publicity. People remember the beginnings of things if they're broadcasted through mass media. I recall many people claiming this a 'big win' at the time and attributing to the sitting president. I recall also being highly skeptical and suspecting a political stunt but completely forgot about the status until reading this.
Meanwhile, people at large don't follow progress of these endeavors. Some journalists may but there's selection bias from the journalist and the news consumer as to what they ultimately see and stay informed of. These stunts are forgotten by most (myself included) in the daily scramble of things we have to keep track of and manage. Did it fail? Did it succeed? Do I even remember it or just the emotion it attributed to something else I actually do remember?
Ambiguity hiding in complexity of daily life lets people say and do a lot of things and get away with it. It's often far too difficult and time consuming to unravel the ambiguity and complexity to show if something succeded, failed, or to even have cognitive capacity to keep track of. The end result, as you point out, is political capital people walk away with. The emotional impression at the time is what was sold and stuck to most people. "MAGA", "bringing back manufacturering", links to nostalgic economic golden eras for many workers.
Meanwhile, people at large don't follow progress of these endeavors. Some journalists may but there's selection bias from the journalist and the news consumer as to what they ultimately see and stay informed of. These stunts are forgotten by most (myself included) in the daily scramble of things we have to keep track of and manage. Did it fail? Did it succeed? Do I even remember it or just the emotion it attributed to something else I actually do remember?
Ambiguity hiding in complexity of daily life lets people say and do a lot of things and get away with it. It's often far too difficult and time consuming to unravel the ambiguity and complexity to show if something succeded, failed, or to even have cognitive capacity to keep track of. The end result, as you point out, is political capital people walk away with. The emotional impression at the time is what was sold and stuck to most people. "MAGA", "bringing back manufacturering", links to nostalgic economic golden eras for many workers.
[deleted]
Scott Walker, the governor, who signed the deal lost his office a year after it was signed in part due to backlash over the deal.
Think about it from Foxconn's perspective, if you got a sweetheart deal and the person who gave it to you got canned for it, are you going to follow thru and put in billions of your dollars on the assumption that you'll still get billions of government subsidies in return?
Think about it from Foxconn's perspective, if you got a sweetheart deal and the person who gave it to you got canned for it, are you going to follow thru and put in billions of your dollars on the assumption that you'll still get billions of government subsidies in return?
I wonder if it might have been water. They may have needed more than a sweetheart deal with the state. I think a big reason for the location was the water supply via Lake Michigan. They got a waiver of state environmental laws as part of the deal, but they still had to contend with federal laws, and a treaty with Canada that governs water use in the Great Lakes watershed.
There was quite a controversy over the environmental impact of this plant. The "word on the street" is that LCD manufacturing is a dirty industry requiring a lot of water.
There was quite a controversy over the environmental impact of this plant. The "word on the street" is that LCD manufacturing is a dirty industry requiring a lot of water.
Short story shorter: Terry Gou is a serial bullshitter
https://www.theverge.com/21507966/foxconn-empty-factories-wi...
https://www.theverge.com/21507966/foxconn-empty-factories-wi...
Good article on the subject: https://www.theverge.com/21507966/foxconn-empty-factories-wi...
My take it was probably mainly a political stunt, lcd was never really possible (slump + wages + supply issues) and then they didn't know what to do.
My take it was probably mainly a political stunt, lcd was never really possible (slump + wages + supply issues) and then they didn't know what to do.
Realized Americans don't want to live in factory compounds for 10 months doing repetitive labour.
In a nutshell, it mistook the nature of labor folks are used to here and its costs. Indeed wildly different from China and elsewhere.
This is a take that's wildly generous to FoxConn, painting them as the "aww schucks" kinda honest guys that just didn't know about the challenges of the US labor market.
The alternate take is that the whole deal was made in bad faith and FoxConn was hoping to collect subsidies and line its pockets. This version of events has some precedent[1]. It's especially hard to believe that FoxConn didn't know about US labor when this same situation played out in Pennsylvania in 2013[2].
[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/foxconns-history-of-broken...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-foxconns...
The alternate take is that the whole deal was made in bad faith and FoxConn was hoping to collect subsidies and line its pockets. This version of events has some precedent[1]. It's especially hard to believe that FoxConn didn't know about US labor when this same situation played out in Pennsylvania in 2013[2].
[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/foxconns-history-of-broken...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-foxconns...
You're 100% spot on. I cannot be convinced a multi-national mega-corp is ignorant of US labor and the challenges in the US labor market. There just is no way that's possible for a company this size, or am I wrong?
So that leaves either bad faith, or they are just abjectly incompetent. I can't really see any other options. Or, again, am I way off base?
So that leaves either bad faith, or they are just abjectly incompetent. I can't really see any other options. Or, again, am I way off base?
> I cannot be convinced a multi-national mega-corp is ignorant of US labor and the challenges in the US labor market.
Especially one that is a specialist in harvesting laborers from all corners of the world. I can only imagine selecting the right labor force has to be their main competences.
Especially one that is a specialist in harvesting laborers from all corners of the world. I can only imagine selecting the right labor force has to be their main competences.
I mean, it was bullshit from jump street, but if Wisconsin had poured (more) money into Foxconn's pockets, I'm sure they'd have been happy to put something up.
For the record, they have put something up. Currently 1 large empty buildings and 2 medium sized, filled buildings. Also one perplexing glass globe.
You know what's bad faith? Politicians bullshitting that these kind of factory jobs are ever going to come back.
My smartphone will never be assembled in the US or Germany.
My smartphone will never be assembled in the US or Germany.
I'm not saying it's economical, but anyone willing to pay 2.5x the cost of a Made-in-China phone could have their phone assembled in the United States: https://puri.sm/posts/librem-5-usa/
(No relation to the company, though I did once have a very nice chat with Todd Weaver).
And to the larger point: I agree completely that politicians opening their mouths about jobs (and also about anything else, IMO) is bad faith bullshit.
(No relation to the company, though I did once have a very nice chat with Todd Weaver).
And to the larger point: I agree completely that politicians opening their mouths about jobs (and also about anything else, IMO) is bad faith bullshit.
It will never be assembled by humans in the US, but we should strive for US based robotic manufacturing.
This is the key people often overlook. If we stop using our AI geniuses to develop tracking algorithms and start building automation, we can have nextgen factories in the West.
The environmental factor is yet to be solved though.
For the most part, developing countries are trading environmental damage for money. Not much different from harvesting oil or other resources to an economist.
Well let’s see, work in adtech and make $1M TC and get treated with kid gloves by the company or work in industrial engineering and make $100K and be a cost center.
How do we change the incentives? Ban advertising and tracking? But making the alternative more attractive is out of the cards...
I know and I agree. It's hard. But don't tempt me on banning ads! :P
If you look from the outside, as a society we are using a lot of our best brains for very frivolous things. I wish for a more efficient way of using our minds!
If you look from the outside, as a society we are using a lot of our best brains for very frivolous things. I wish for a more efficient way of using our minds!
Physical manufacturing doesn't have the sort of profit margins that software provides. You can't give devs the kind of pay many expect when there are 10x more people in the production chain. Investors aren't going to flock to such businesses.
Inverstors are very short sighted. I am advocating for a 100 years plan. You can't expect a bunch of greedy boys to plan for returns after they are dead....
It's not unprecedented that someone who should know better, and has the best advisors in town, is blinded by their preconceptions about a country and its people. It's lost us a few wars.
1cvmask(6)
I think it shows the idea that "Americans can't do business well", and historically, doing business well has been one thing that Americans pride themselves on.
edit I should add that I believe that spreading that kind of message has geopolitical implications, and that groups might want to create that image for strategic reasons.
edit I should add that I believe that spreading that kind of message has geopolitical implications, and that groups might want to create that image for strategic reasons.
Do not trust Foxconn. I strongly believe they're playing a long-term game here.
For example, the Foxconn plant is on a particular tract of land only partially within the Lake Michigan watershed. Anyone living within the watershed must return their water, and it must be cleaned up first. My understanding of the Great Lakes Compact is that Foxconn's land is one of legal ambiguity, that they may draw from Lake Michigan but not return it. I sure hope it doesn't mean they can bottle up Lake Michigan water and ship it elsewhere, but water is set to be more valuable than oil, so I bet they're playing it strategically.
For example, the Foxconn plant is on a particular tract of land only partially within the Lake Michigan watershed. Anyone living within the watershed must return their water, and it must be cleaned up first. My understanding of the Great Lakes Compact is that Foxconn's land is one of legal ambiguity, that they may draw from Lake Michigan but not return it. I sure hope it doesn't mean they can bottle up Lake Michigan water and ship it elsewhere, but water is set to be more valuable than oil, so I bet they're playing it strategically.
Not to be a naysayer, but do you have any sort of evidence to substantiate this claim? Any evidence of exceptions to laws regarding the usage of the watershed and lake with specific regards to Foxconn? Or any kind of indication that a bottling facility will be built up?
Not the parent, but there does seem to be a fair amount of legal shenanigans related to the Foxconn and the Great Lakes Compact.
https://www.wiscontext.org/what-foxconn-means-great-lakes-co...
https://www.wiscontext.org/what-foxconn-means-great-lakes-co...
Hard evidence? No. The exact plot of land they chose is not particularly remarkable, so I must wonder why they chose a piece of land straddling the watershed, given that the Compact [1] indirectly applies to corporations.
There's a deeper political aspect to Foxconn's presence that I can't trust. I'm from Wisconsin, and the whole Foxconn deal leaves me feeling extremely uneasy. Leaving aside the Wisconsin and USA politicians associated with the deal, Terry Guo briefly ran for president of the Republic of China. Guo and Foxconn made significant donations to UW-Madison. It smells wrong, and all the Wisconsinites I've talked to agree.
I'm glad their subsidies were slashed.
[1] https://www.gsgp.org/media/1330/great_lakes-st_lawrence_rive...
There's a deeper political aspect to Foxconn's presence that I can't trust. I'm from Wisconsin, and the whole Foxconn deal leaves me feeling extremely uneasy. Leaving aside the Wisconsin and USA politicians associated with the deal, Terry Guo briefly ran for president of the Republic of China. Guo and Foxconn made significant donations to UW-Madison. It smells wrong, and all the Wisconsinites I've talked to agree.
I'm glad their subsidies were slashed.
[1] https://www.gsgp.org/media/1330/great_lakes-st_lawrence_rive...
Also a Wisconsinite here. I've been involved with the deal and haven't noticed any care about any watershed related things. Most of the business they've attracted so far are companies who want contract manufacturing outside of mainland China. The large "screen factory" is still largely empty, and they have no concrete plans for it, but the side projects which piggybacked on to that plan have seen some success.
What projects might those be? Genuinely curious, as I haven't heard any news about them.
> Terry Guo briefly ran for president of the Republic of China.
I have reservations about Foxconn too, but I’m not sure I understand why this bit is relevant. The Republic of China = Taiwan, a US ally. (Mainland China is the People’s Republic of China). This is akin to Bloomberg running for president.
Also it’s Terry Gou and not Guo.
I have reservations about Foxconn too, but I’m not sure I understand why this bit is relevant. The Republic of China = Taiwan, a US ally. (Mainland China is the People’s Republic of China). This is akin to Bloomberg running for president.
Also it’s Terry Gou and not Guo.
My understanding is that he ran under KMT, which is the much more China friendly party.
I wouldn't fault a Canadian prime Minister for running with a US friendly platform.
Why? Is geography or military danger the key element, economic deals, or easy borders?
Taiwan is a vibrant liberal democracy that feels very western. China is a fascist ethnostate.
China is threatening Taiwan's ability to self determine with military force, economic sanctions, and any other means of coercion at their disposal. China has demonstrated it's bad faith via denial of 1 country 2 systems, as well as a pineapple (miliworms) and pineapple cake (ractopamine) ban done clearly in bad faith (not for the reason stated).
The equivalence you have made is absolutely false. The relationship between Taiwan and China, the relationship between foxconn and china, and the releationship between Terry, the KMT, China, and the US, are all quite complicated.
Above it was claimed that Foxconn/Terry are Taiwanese and therefore American Allies, but Foxconn's business is primarily conducted in China and the KMT are definitely the party that China is aiming to corrupt Taiwan's leadership through. It's complicated.
Taiwan is a vibrant liberal democracy that feels very western. China is a fascist ethnostate.
China is threatening Taiwan's ability to self determine with military force, economic sanctions, and any other means of coercion at their disposal. China has demonstrated it's bad faith via denial of 1 country 2 systems, as well as a pineapple (miliworms) and pineapple cake (ractopamine) ban done clearly in bad faith (not for the reason stated).
The equivalence you have made is absolutely false. The relationship between Taiwan and China, the relationship between foxconn and china, and the releationship between Terry, the KMT, China, and the US, are all quite complicated.
Above it was claimed that Foxconn/Terry are Taiwanese and therefore American Allies, but Foxconn's business is primarily conducted in China and the KMT are definitely the party that China is aiming to corrupt Taiwan's leadership through. It's complicated.
Foxconn is Taiwanese. Wouldn’t Foxconn affiliated people naturally have involvement with Taiwan? Taiwan is our ally. Forget the Middle East for a second. If China was to take TSMC’s factories over. It would be world war 3 most likely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Mainland_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gou#Political_career
To say Foxconn is complicated would be an understatement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gou#Political_career
To say Foxconn is complicated would be an understatement.
> but water is set to be more valuable than oil
Desalination costs less than 0.1 cents per liter, so that sets a pretty firm price cap on the cost of water.
Desalination costs less than 0.1 cents per liter, so that sets a pretty firm price cap on the cost of water.
Not arguing at all--- you got a link for those costs? I always thought desalination was cost prohibitive. I'd be thrilled to know it was 0.1 cents per liter (seriously)!
A web search for 'desalination cost' will easily confirm this for you.
e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00119...
"current [published in 2008] large-scale desalination plants are capable of producing water in the range of $0.50–$2.00/m3"
e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00119...
"current [published in 2008] large-scale desalination plants are capable of producing water in the range of $0.50–$2.00/m3"
I got the numbers from Wikipedia.
0.1 cents per liter is cost prohibitive for use cases where water is typically measured by the acre-foot.
0.1 cents per liter is cost prohibitive for use cases where water is typically measured by the acre-foot.
[deleted]
Is it just me or has it become more common for journalists to write about decreases by saying "X-fold" or "x times"?
I always get confused, I find it much easier to say "by 97%".
I always get confused, I find it much easier to say "by 97%".
It's because percentages are more misleading for humans than "x-times". 95% and 97% sound very close, right? They're not. 95% is a 20x reduction, while 97% is a 30x reduction. Percentages create a singularity at 100, which is why the effect is more pronounced the closer you get to 100.
It's just like how saying something is "95% effective" sounds very convincing until you realize that's a 1-in-20 failure rate.
It's just like how saying something is "95% effective" sounds very convincing until you realize that's a 1-in-20 failure rate.
My favorite example of this were the labels on lunch meats back in the day. They'd say things like, "97% Fat Free!", or "98% Fat Free!".
So one of them had 50% more fat than the other, but they both look pretty close to "Fat Free"
So one of them had 50% more fat than the other, but they both look pretty close to "Fat Free"
I believe everyone (with a basic education) should be able to understand both, but I think the X-fold representation is much clearer-- just compare how similar decreases by 80%, 90%, 95% appear at first glance-- but there is a full order of magnitude between EACH of those (while 50% and 55% is basically the same thing)!
Calling it a 5-fold, 10-fold or 20-fold decrease makes the difference between them much more immediately obvious, IMO.
Its similar with the miles/gallon vs. liters/100km metrics for fuel consumption, where one of them just seems immediately more intuitive to grasp and use (to me).
Calling it a 5-fold, 10-fold or 20-fold decrease makes the difference between them much more immediately obvious, IMO.
Its similar with the miles/gallon vs. liters/100km metrics for fuel consumption, where one of them just seems immediately more intuitive to grasp and use (to me).
I find x-fold to be totally clear and intuitive for increases, but I find it weird for decreases. "We've decreased it by 5 times" sounds to me like "We've decreased it by 500%", which it obviously doesn't mean. "We've decreased it to 1/5th", "we've decreased it by 80%" makes more intuitive sense to me.
Maybe it is similar to miles/gallon vs liters/100km and depends on where you grew up. I feel like the usage frequency changed, but it could just be that I'm noticing it more.
Maybe it is similar to miles/gallon vs liters/100km and depends on where you grew up. I feel like the usage frequency changed, but it could just be that I'm noticing it more.
It's terribly confusing. I made this graph to show why: https://i.imgur.com/7wYWWfs.png
Fold decreases are parabolic, fold increases are linear.
Fold decreases are parabolic, fold increases are linear.
so confusing, I always assumed 30 fold was the same as 30x, meaning 30 times smaller.
I think for x > 1 "x-fold" is clearer. "Ten times bigger" sounds simpler to me than "1000% growth".
Yes, for growth. But in this case they are using x > 1 or shrinkage.
This phrasing always confuses me, slashes 30 fold means that it is now 1/30th the original?
This phrasing always confuses me, slashes 30 fold means that it is now 1/30th the ordinal?
Percentages can be just as bad.
Increase by 100% is 2x
Increase by 100% is 2x
Many people don't have a clue what "30-fold" even means, and therefore it sounds big and scary. Basically, it's just one of the tools in the sensationalist headlines toolbox.
…is that true? I understand “30-fold” to mean “30x” and I’m pretty sure I have from a very young age. I haven’t checked but I’d be surprised if my peers weren’t the same.
I think people understand 30-fold to mean 30x, but don't always intuit that "slashed by 30-fold" is equivalent to a reduction by 97% of the original deal. They especially don't understand that the difference between a 20-fold, 30-fold, and 50-fold reduction is the same as a 95%, 97%, and 98% discount.
This is especially evident in the mental gymnastics required to understand retail sales pricing. How good is a "Buy two, get one 50% off!!" deal? Brains easily give up on the hard questions and substitute easy answers. "What's it actually worth? Bought one at another store last month, do difficult pricing history memory, or easy answer, the original price is listed right there. How good is the deal? Complicated math, or easy answer, it's at least a good enough deal to merit a big sign, bright colors, and two exclamation points. And it's good for a limited time only? Better not miss out, buy now!"
Here, the scope of the reduction is kind of irrelevant. They basically scrapped the old deal and tried to write a new, smaller one. Had they scrapped the megafactory plans and decided to open a fast food franchise it could have been reduced a million fold!
The new agreement offers $80M and asks Foxconn to spend only $672M on a factory that will employ only 1,454 people by 2025. The original deal offered Foxconn $2.85B (or $2850M) to spend $10B ($10000M) and hire 13,000 by 2032. Big numbers are hard, but running the math it's now $55k/job and $0.13/dollar of capital investment, it was $220k/job and $0.285/dollar. $80M is 2.8% or a 30-fold reduction from $2.85B, but the full story is they've simultaneously reduced the ratios of the incentives and the scope of the required investment.
A complete understanding of what those numbers mean is really hard to develop, and isn't really distilled by a substitution in the headline of 30-fold to 30x. Human brains in general are busy and don't like to work too hard, and whether we use "30 fold" like "four score" in our daily vernacular or they say 97% and 80, the headline's effect is the same. It conveys to readers who don't want to run all the numbers about average salaries and payroll taxes and capital depreciation and so on that the previous administration tried to offer an excessively generous deal but the current government has rolled that back to something a lot smaller, don't worry about exactly how much but just trust that it's a lot.
This is especially evident in the mental gymnastics required to understand retail sales pricing. How good is a "Buy two, get one 50% off!!" deal? Brains easily give up on the hard questions and substitute easy answers. "What's it actually worth? Bought one at another store last month, do difficult pricing history memory, or easy answer, the original price is listed right there. How good is the deal? Complicated math, or easy answer, it's at least a good enough deal to merit a big sign, bright colors, and two exclamation points. And it's good for a limited time only? Better not miss out, buy now!"
Here, the scope of the reduction is kind of irrelevant. They basically scrapped the old deal and tried to write a new, smaller one. Had they scrapped the megafactory plans and decided to open a fast food franchise it could have been reduced a million fold!
The new agreement offers $80M and asks Foxconn to spend only $672M on a factory that will employ only 1,454 people by 2025. The original deal offered Foxconn $2.85B (or $2850M) to spend $10B ($10000M) and hire 13,000 by 2032. Big numbers are hard, but running the math it's now $55k/job and $0.13/dollar of capital investment, it was $220k/job and $0.285/dollar. $80M is 2.8% or a 30-fold reduction from $2.85B, but the full story is they've simultaneously reduced the ratios of the incentives and the scope of the required investment.
A complete understanding of what those numbers mean is really hard to develop, and isn't really distilled by a substitution in the headline of 30-fold to 30x. Human brains in general are busy and don't like to work too hard, and whether we use "30 fold" like "four score" in our daily vernacular or they say 97% and 80, the headline's effect is the same. It conveys to readers who don't want to run all the numbers about average salaries and payroll taxes and capital depreciation and so on that the previous administration tried to offer an excessively generous deal but the current government has rolled that back to something a lot smaller, don't worry about exactly how much but just trust that it's a lot.
They should make a law that if a deal is offered to one company, it should be offered to all. That keep the playing field fair and level.
No one saw this coming.
GOod. kick em out. WI doesnt want foxconn anyways
The absolute hilarity of HN obsession with 'both siding' every story and going back to see how it unraveled over the years.
on Jan 22, 2017 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13457176
on Jan 16, 2018 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16163558
on April 14, 2018 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16839542
on Oct 29, 2018 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18328772
on April 12, 2020 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22850723
on Jan 22, 2017 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13457176
on Jan 16, 2018 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16163558
on April 14, 2018 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16839542
on Oct 29, 2018 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18328772
on April 12, 2020 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22850723
HN is a large collection of people with diverse opinions, not just one person who decides to swing their opinion one way or the other on a given day.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/foxconns-history-of-broken...
https://boingboing.net/2017/08/09/potemkin-factories.html
https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/08/20/op-ed-the-many-broken-...