3 ms·
The title is misleading; Foxconn's plant is not costing Wisconsin anywhere near $4.5 billion, according to the article itself. In reality, the state is outlayi
by blisterpeanuts 9y ago
The title is misleading; Foxconn's plant is not costing Wisconsin anywhere near $4.5 billion, according to the article itself. In reality, the state is outlaying very little money to bring in this company, probably about $20 million total. Even the interstate improvements are cited as previously planned and not a special accommodation to Foxconn, except that it was moved up in priority.
Tax exemptions and credits are a common method of enticing businesses to set up shop. The notion that this somehow "costs" the state is mere rhetoric with no factual basis. The money the state is supposedly losing by not taxing the plant never existed. If Foxconn never moved there, there's zero potential of tax revenue. The fact that Foxconn made a deal with the state for a package of tax incentives merely means the state won't collect theoretical corporate and property taxes from this entity. The state is not paying money out of the treasury to Foxconn.
What the state does get from Foxconn is jobs. Three thousand jobs is significant, even in a moderately populous state that's already doing well. The employees pay state income tax (ranging from roughly 4% to 7%), they'll spend their paychecks on food, cars, homes, and consumer goods, and the ripple effects will be quite beneficial. The initial construction will employ lots of people as well--builders, inspectors, security, suppliers, utilities, etc.
It's interesting that the Asian countries have long recognized the benefits of plants and factories, whereas in the U.S. people have come to regard these efforts as a bad thing, polluting and greedy and tax evaders. Singapore one time offered HP ten years tax free in return for setting up a laptop factory there; they understood implicitly that technology employment is beneficial to the local economy.
I frankly can't understand why people (aside from NIMBY neighbors who don't want the increased traffic and activity) would characterize this excellent development as a net negative.
- kenoshathrow 9y ago> aside from NIMBY neighbors who don't want the increased traffic and activity This made me laugh. Let me try to explain why. Kenosha/Racine are about as far from SF Bay / crowded metropolis as you can get. They're bedroom communities of Chicago and Milwaukee with one or two major local employers. So, trust me, none of the locals care about the traffic/activity. If anything, they welcome it. However, locals do care about the environmental impacts. Tourism, growth of bedroom communities, and other economic activity related to the location's environmental appeal helped the local economy sustain the hit from auto factory closures. A dirty, polluted lake would rob this region of a somewhat unique/defining natural resource. And the locals know all too well that factories come and go. So, far from NIMBYism, there's a very intelligent and hyper-rational, purely economic concern about the economic impact of degrading the local ecosystem.
- blisterpeanuts 9y agoThe assumption is that a Foxconn plant will destroy the local ecosystem. Any evidence, or just plain anti-business nimby-ism at work here?