min 25 years to break even for WI taxpayer subsidy to Foxconn

>"I think it's important that we invest in long-term economic solutions for our state, instead of gambling away our future that we've seen isn't even going to give us a return for many, many years to come and that's just to break even," Brostoff said.

>His meeting came just hours after the new numbers were released by the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Analysts said it'll be decades before Wisconsin breaks even from this proposed Foxconn deal.

>At the Wisconsin State Fair Tuesday night, Gov. Walker defended the proposal.

>"Really the payoff is from income taxes for the 13,000 people that will get on average $53,000/a year plus benefits," Walker said.

>Analysts said even with new taxes from 13,000 workers, the state won't make its money back until 2043, at the earliest.

>Walker said it's an investment that will change the state.

>"So it will take some time, but think it is well worth it. Those 13,000 jobs will provide a $10-and-a-half billion payroll we wouldn't otherwise have," Walker said.

>"We shouldn't let out state get taken advantage of by some huge foreign company that wants to suck up our resources and leave for a quick payoff," Brostoff said.

>The legislature will ultimately decide whether to give Foxconn the incentives package. The first vote could come as early as Thursday.

>fox6now.com

>>167789
>a 1st world country with a high cost of living cannot be a manufacturing center for the rest of the world
>The goods it makes will cost more or provide less jobs than in poorer countries
>It is outproduced by cheaper countries as they sell to the rich 1st world countries and pay less to their workers as cost of living there is very low
>turns out paying more for a product and turning around to sell it to poor people (like most of the world is) is actually a shitty way to do business
>It actually makes a lot more sense to pay very little for production and sell to rich people with a high mark up

gee, what a fucking surprise

>>167789
Sconnie here. This article doesn't even point out that they're gutting water regulations to cater to this shitty company.

>>167789
> Wisconsin taxpayers won't break even on the proposed Foxconn deal for at least 25 years.

They’ll be lucky if the company is still there 10 years from now.

> Walker said the deal is about more than the effect on tax revenue.

That’s valid, but with no details on how much the employees will be getting paid, it don’t mean much.

>>167790
> ”Really the payoff is from income taxes for the 13,000 people that will get on average $53,000/a year plus benefits," Walker said.

But a handful of top-level executives in the company skews that number and the vast majority of the employees will be making $15.00 per hour at best and the income taxes from them, in no way makes up what the state is giving the company.

>>167802
> It actually makes a lot more sense to pay very little for production and sell to rich people with a high mark up

So where are those rich 1st worlders working, that they can afford the expensive products?

Nowhere in the above article is it mentioned how much _profit_ the company (i.e. Wall Street) will make and of course it’s never ever suggested in any article, that maybe the do-nothing parasitical investor class should lower their expectations?…

Free Trade © is all about cutting wages and pocketing the difference in profits, its never been about providing a quality product at a cheeper price for the consumers.

>>167849
>do nothing parasitic investor class
>parasitic

Finally someone else gets it.

Ownership =/= work

>>167849
>So where are those rich 1st worlders working, that they can afford the expensive products?
That is the question now isn't it? Wherever it is it will not be manufacturing unless you want a thoroughly destroyed US economy in 10-20 years time.

It's very simple logic anon. Do you build a cellphone in Cambodia and sell it in the US or build it in the US and sell it in Cambodia? The 1st one right? You're more likely to come to market with a competetive product and if you sell one you make back several times your investment.

Alternatively you could say you build in America and sell to Americans but you still compete with the Cambodian cell phone...not a good situation.

>>167849
>Free Trade © is all about cutting wages and pocketing the difference in profits, its never been about providing a quality product at a cheeper price for the consumers.
Quite the contrary. The quality of goods enjoyed by consumers now is greater than at any other time in human history. While that might not be what it's "about" it's certainly how things developed.

>>167911
Hell you can even say you build in America and outlaw the Cambodian cell phone or put tariffs in place on it. Get a protectionist economy going.

Well that's fine but the Cambodian cell phones have the entire world to be competetive in. Their company will grow exponentially while the American one will plateau and stagnate only to crumble and restructure to the Cambodian model once the tariffs and protectionist policies come down, and they will.

>>167911
> > So where are those rich 1st worlders working, that they can afford the expensive products?
> That is the question now isn't it?

It’s rapidly become NOT the U.S. / Western world, as labor is outsourced to whichever country can undermine it’s own working class to increase Wall Street’s profit margin.

> Do you build a cellphone in Cambodia and sell it in the US or build it in the US and sell it in Cambodia?

The U.S. is a much larger market and has a much greater turnover in cellphones, so it makes sense to build the cellphones here and create a well off working class, which turns around and buys more cellphones.

You don’t really think dirt-poor Cambodian peasants are buying a new iPhone for $300 every couple of years?

Poor people don’t buy any products beyond what they need to survive.

> The quality of goods enjoyed by consumers now is greater than at any other time in human history.

Not because of Free Trade © but because of improved technology and quality control.

>>167912
> Well that's fine but the Cambodian cell phones have the entire world to be competetive in.

And they’re free to compete for the pennies they’ll make from 3rd world consumers.

The market requires consumers who can afford the products.

>>167894
>Ownership =/= work

Indeed, I believe that any business beyond a “family business” should automatically become a worker owned co-operative and shares/stocks should simply be a financial instrument, granting no control over the company.

>>167972


I got on my computer just so I could thoroughly explain to you why you're a retard. I said what made sense was to build in Cambodia and sell to the United States and here you are asking if I think selling to "Cambodian peasants" makes a lick of sense, well no no I don't which is why I said that wasn't the best idea in the world, your reading comprehension is retarded anon.

Regarding your argument about greater turnover, well you got that part right (which is why I suggested it first) your logic based on that fact doesn't follow though. It only makes sense to sell the cellphones here not make them because that well off working class won't buy the cellphones they make, they'll buy the cellphones Cambodia makes as they won't cost $300 they'll cost $100 and even if you get the 13,000 people working in the factory to buy those cellphones the rest of the country wont. That said those same cellphones won't be competitive anywhere outside of the US and so won't sell anywhere outside the US which will inevitably mean the company manufacturing those cellphones won't see a healthy profit.

>And they’re free to compete for the pennies they’ll make from 3rd world consumers.
The US is not the only country with wealth anon. Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Israel, South Korea, Taiwan and increasingly China and India all have plenty of money to throw at goods. You are essentially asking companies to ignore these markets by reestablishing manufacturing operations within the US and counting on US protectionist policies to increase their profits.

It's a retarded idea bound to backfire.

>Not because of Free Trade © but because of improved technology and quality control.
If you can't connect the dots I can't help you anon.

>>167989

Free Trade © is nothing but a race to the bottom to generate increased profits for Wall Street parasites at the expense of the very consumers Wall Street is trying to sell stuff to.

The products are not cheeper and are not better made, at best the quality is the same and cost is actually higher, as the corporations pocket the difference in wages and _still_ mark up the price. Meanwhile, the consumer base is further eroded by the loss of jobs, (which overseas markets will not compensate for; China and India will NEVER buy 10+ million cars per year) making it less likely they’ll buy the shit your shilling.

It’s short term thinking at it’s worst.

>>167997
Free trade is just an expansion of the economic market practiced within any given single nation, nothing more. This though ties into quality control and use of technology.

You're wrong, and I want to make this clear because too often ideologues like you hear the phrase "you're right" and saunter off with that, newly self assured of your political intellect. You're half right. The products are sold at a high mark up, from razor blades made in Sri Lanka to Pakistani USB drives they all cost several hundred or thousand percent less to make than they are sold for in the US marketplace. A similar product could in fact be made in the USA and sold for a similar or maybe even lesser price and this in fact happens regularly.

However.

That decreases the profit margin and nets the company a smaller return on investment. This is important because the company that is forced to make in the US what it sells in the US will grow less and make less money than a company that sells in the US but makes its products in Cambodia. This all means that if the two companies are forced to compete the company that manufactures in Cambodia will be able to lower the price of its goods below that which the company that manufactures in the US would be able to. Maybe for a time the two companies engage in collusion to set the prices in the market however later on the company that manufactures abroad might see an opportunity to buy out a floundering or stagnating competitor.

Either way the company that manufactures in the US loses out in the end. They either stagnate, are driven out of business or they are bought out. No amount of flag waving will undo the economic truths that made outsourcing lucrative to begin with.

>>168018
>or they are bought out
That actually reminded me of something:
https://www.cnet.com/news/segway-bought-by-chinese-rival-ninebot/

Not comparable 1:1 but something to think about I guess.

>>167847
Another sconnie here and not quite, they are still held to the DNR on most regulations. The exemption is water usage and regulations to construction filling in land to build. They were denied further exemptions as far as pollution the greedy chink wanted.
>>167789
Can't really claim that "Wisconsin won't be made whole" on exemptions on taxes that wouldn't be collected if they built somewhere else to begin with.

>tax money away from tax payers
>give the money to wealthy foreign investors
>make tax payer work in a garbage factory for slightly above minimum wage for several years if they want their money back

"Conservative" economics everyone. Remember that taxation is only theft when you're taxing your wealthy campaign donors.

>>167977
Try Venezuela and let me know how communism works out ya stupid duck

>>168018
> That decreases the profit margin and nets the company a smaller return on investment.

Yup, and so what? The security and stability of the American People is more important then Wall Street profits.

You've bought into the myth that the fundamental goal of an economy is maximizing profits for the investor class, when it should be creating a sustainable economy.

>>168263
>Try Venezuela and let me know how communism works out ya stupid duck

Worker owned co-operatives are not communism, which is no different than capitalism in that with both, a tiny parasitic minority calls all the shots and take the lions share of the wealth.

>>168360
>>167977
And you believe we can achieve utopia in which every worker is equally responsible for and contributing to a companies well being? I just imagine a situation as you described going down like this:

>Workers take control of the corporation and its future
>Designate a group of Representatives from each labor division within the company to meet and provide their expertise and fight for their group
>Let's call this group of Representatives the board of directors
>For a time things go well, but eventually the board starts slowly consolidating power from the other workers
>Eventually this culminates into the board taking the lions share of the profits
>Oh shit, we just recreated our current system

This plays out time and time again. People naturally designate leaders based on their expertise or seniority and eventually those leaders rob the individuals of all they have. It may be fast or slow, but it always happens.