6 ms·

They got their $4billion handout from Scott Walker and are predictably walking back on it. Corruption from the so-called party of "fiscal responsibility"

by nimish 8y ago

bilbo0s 8y ago
Actually, they didn't get it yet. That said, yes, there are already millions in "sunk costs" that have already been borne by the people of Wisconsin. But at a time like this, it's probably best not to let the "Sunk Cost Fallacy" get the better of you.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Cool. Let Wisconsin recoup those costs with tariffs (through the Federal gov) on Foxconn products crossing the US border.
  - trhway 8y ago
    >Let Wisconsin recoup those costs with tariffs (through the Federal gov) on Foxconn products crossing the US border. i.e. from US iPhone users. I'd prefer that Wisconsin bear the costs on their own - they would think better next time when electing people like Walker as the right to elect your representatives is free like speech not like beer. There is a reason California for example doesn't elect those "pro-business low taxes" self-styled magicians.
    - analog31 8y ago
      Electing a governor is one thing, and notably, we just elected a new one. But representatives are protected by gerrymandering and are thus not "elected" in a completely straightforward sense. At the very least, overturning the composition of the legislature could be a more complicated matter.
      - magduf 8y ago
        Gerrymandering doesn't affect votes, it just affects how they're counted. The people of the state are still electing those representatives, the gerrymandering is just a mechanism whatever party is currently in power uses to give themselves an edge in staying in power a little longer. It's still up to the people to provide the votes for that party, and they do. Voting districts still have to be roughly equal in population (which is why they're redrawn periodically), so if that party stays in power, it's because a majority of the people in that state have voted for that party. As always, the people are getting the government they elected and that they deserve.
        vkou 8y ago
        > so if that party stays in power, it's because a majority of the people in that state have voted for that party. False. Depending on how well you can gerry-mander, you can easily get a situation where in a two-party system, the party that gets the minority of the vote gets the majority of the seats, and a super-majority of the power.
        bluGill 8y ago
        That can only happen when the minority of votes is small though. A large majority of votes eventually cannot be contained.
        phaedrus 8y ago
        What do you consider a large majority? Consider a three mathematically ideal gerrymandered districts. Two are engineered to have 50% + epsilon supporting party voters. "Burn" the third by stocking it with 100% dissenting party voters. 1/2+1/2=1. 1/2+1/2+2/2=2. A 2:1 majority of voters receives a 1:2 ratio of representation.
        bluGill 8y ago
        That is a complex question. Your simple math doesn't work out in the real world. There is no way to know for sure that someone who you think supports you actually does and will vote. Voters (and courts) look down on districts that are too irregular and a few will change based on that (including not vote for someone they otherwise like). The party out of power can run someone moderate and thus flip a few voters. When your party is in power you are more likely to stay home and not vote. All of these mean that practically your epsilon needs to be fairly large. Note, the above is for a large set of districts. Gerrymandering does work well to keep one politicians in power.
    - sremani 8y ago
      What is wrong with Pro-Business representatives? Things are not super hunky dory with CALIPERS, the budget gymnastics of California are world renowned. California is a such a top heavy reliant state, one brutal year in the stock market and returns of ultra rich, California will have a really bad time. CA is not a model governance state, not even close.
- moate 8y ago
  IDK that it's an option. Is the current administration in Wisconsin able to walk away from the deal they made with Foxconn? If so, then great, they can ignore the sunk cost fallacy and walk away only slightly injured. But, and I'm not an expert here, I assumed that deals like these have some kind of protections in place to limit exactly that sort of course reversal from happening. From an outsider, this appears to be a situation where they may not be getting handed the full 4 Billion Dollars that everyone mentions, but they still used deceptive tactics in order to receive a sweetheart deal from the Wisconsin government. My current understanding is that this isn't as good as some people are trying to make it seem (Net positive for the state! Much Gains!) but also not as bad as others seem to assume (we paid 4 billion dollars and get 0 return on that during the lifetime of the deal) and instead seems to be somewhere in the middle (we are paying more money than this deal is actually worth)
  - shagie 8y ago
    That's a rather interesting question... maybe. https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2018/11/27/murphys-law-is-foxconn-contract-illegal/ https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2018/11/27/murphys-law-is-foxconn... > First, the fact that state passed a law with special benefits for only one party. “It’s a principle of law that you can’t pass a law for the benefit of only one business or person,” Flynn says. > Specifically, the Wisconsin Constitution has a provision prohibiting special laws to benefit a particular party that are not general in scope. And the law providing a subsidy for Foxconn gives the company different legal treatment than any business in Wisconsin: > -Foxconn is exempt from state law requiring an Environmental Impact Statement to be filed by any new company building a plant; > -And Foxconn has been awarded special legal treatment under the courts, whereby any legal claims made against it can bypass the state court of appeals and go straight from circuit court to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In fact, any decision by a circuit court is automatically “stayed” or delayed, until the Republican-leaning Wisconsin Supreme Court takes up the case. > No other business in Wisconsin has been accorded these benefits. The Republican-dominated legislature sought to disguise this, Flynn notes, by targeting the benefits to any company in a designed investment area, “but then they said there can be only one company allowed in this area. That’s tantamount to saying only Foxconn can benefit from this, which is unconstitutional.” > ... > A second challenge to the legality of the Foxconn deal, Flynn notes, is for breach of contract. The company promised to build a Generation 10.5 plant, with a factory of workers building panels for 75-inch TVs, but it now says it will build a much smaller Gen 6 plant, with most of the manufacturing done by robots. > The deal, moreover, was supposed to provide a state subsidy in return for 13,000 jobs going to Wisconsin workers, but Foxconn is now considering bringing workers from China, as the Wall Street Journal has reported. The company denies this, but had earlier denied the change away from 75-inch TVs, only to later concede these news reports were correct. > Moreover the company said that while Wisconsin workers will be the first priority, “We will supplement that recruitment from other US locations as required.”
- vanadium 8y ago
  They _finally_ finished construction on the I-94/I-41 upgrade (also accommodating a new Amazon warehouse near Kenosha) a couple of years back, and this Foxconn agreement meant having to tear it all up again and redo it even wider than before. It's (IMO) unsafe to drive through in the Winter time. It's a perpetual mess in Southeast Wisconsin. The problems extend far further than just the economics of the deal, into perpetual construction, shady eminent domain and reclassification of generational farms as "blighted", etc. It's criminal how much this one "deal" cost the area.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    Don't misunderstand me, I'm a Wisconsinite as well. So I'm incensed by this whole cluster-F. I was just pointing out that while we have spent millions on construction and royally screwed over a lot of farmers and people in southeastern WI, we haven't actually handed over any money to Foxconn yet. So we may be best advised to take our losses, which I concede are considerable, and leave the table so to speak. I'm just trying to be rational.
    - vanadium 8y ago
      It's definitely not a knock on you or your position; it's more a knock on these sorts of politically-motivated, but empty, sweetheart deals. Walker's a particularly efficient trigger when the subject comes up. Also, I'm just a bit bitter as someone who travels back to my hometown area (the Fox Valley) often from Chicago and it's never the same thing twice. ;)
      - logfromblammo 8y ago
        I'm not so much bitter as filled with pity, to see all the effort Kenosha went to to try to recover from the loss of AMC, and then the remaining Chrysler factory jobs. But the downtown streetcar from nowhere to nowhere takes the prize for worst idea. The only way for it to be sadder is if it were an elevated monorail. The reason people stay is that nowhere better wants them to come. And they can at least scrape some value out of the traffic between Chicago and Milwaukee, and from the far-flung commuters, and Chicagoans looking for a cheaper place to tie up their weekender sailboats during the summer. 13000 jobs would have been a real boon for the area, if they were ever real. But the Rust Belt is rusting, and states and communities are competing against one another to be the last spots of steel left, when everything else around is grimy red holes. Kenoshans will vote for anyone that promises more jobs or better jobs, no matter how transparently false the story may be. Their dads built cars, and now they're stuck cleaning the go-karts at Action Territory, or waiting tables, or commuting for an hour or more each way. So the one who tells them the most comforting lie wins. I think it's probably the exact same story in Janesville, after the GM plant is finally closed for good, with no backsies. In another 10 years, someone will promise them a big manufacturing plant there, and the voters will fall for the exact same trick, all over again.
moate 8y ago
I think "fiscal responsibility" isn't the term Republicans really operate under anymore. They seem to be more "anti-tax" and "anti-entitlement" at this point.
- bluGill 8y ago
  fiscal responsibility is something the Republicans have only operated on when not in power. The democrats were making fiscal responsibility noises while out of power [on a national level], if it continues at all it is only because there is a division of power.
  - moate 8y ago
    I think "fiscal responsibility" is absolutely a code-word for "minority party obstructionism".
    - bluGill 8y ago
      That is one of the code words. All parties have code words that will fire up the base, but they don't really believe in.
75dvtwin 8y ago
could that be that newly elected governor from the Bribes-R-US party, is sabotaging this to stick it to conservatives?
- sj3k 8y ago
  wöwwwww just wow
rgrieselhuber 8y ago
It's helpful to look past the illusion of the two parties and realize that most of the politicians in each party are more on the same side in the big picture stuff than not.
- quasse 8y ago
  This is an oft trotted out saying that completely lacks any substance and serves as a distraction to keep people from recognizing how much more some politicians are working against their personal interest than others. WI (the topic of this discussion) is a perfect example. We went from having Russ Feingold (a true shining star of progressive politics and the only senator to vote against the PATRIOT act) to Ron Johnson who is a true weasel. Don't try and tell me that the guy who voted against the Iraq war, thought Dodd-Frank didn't go far enough, and worked actively for campaign finance reform is the same as a climate change denying, anti-abortion, anti-EPA shill.
  - rgrieselhuber 8y ago
    You pointed out one individual, that hardly proves your point.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
sonnyblarney 8y ago
They didn't get anything. In fact, if a company is not going to invest after such massive subsidies are offered, then it's probably a huge valid signal that it really doesn't make sense for them.

They got their $4billion handout from Scott Walker and are predictably walking back on it. Corruption from the so-called party of "fiscal responsibility"

by nimish 8y ago

They got their $4billion handout from Scott Walker and are predictably walking back on it. Corruption from the so-called party of "fiscal responsibility"

bilbo0s 8y ago

Actually, they didn't get it yet. That said, yes, there are already millions in "sunk costs" that have already been borne by the people of Wisconsin. But at a time like this, it's probably best not to let the "Sunk Cost Fallacy" get the better of you.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Cool. Let Wisconsin recoup those costs with tariffs (through the Federal gov) on Foxconn products crossing the US border.
- trhway 8y ago
  >Let Wisconsin recoup those costs with tariffs (through the Federal gov) on Foxconn products crossing the US border. i.e. from US iPhone users. I'd prefer that Wisconsin bear the costs on their own - they would think better next time when electing people like Walker as the right to elect your representatives is free like speech not like beer. There is a reason California for example doesn't elect those "pro-business low taxes" self-styled magicians.
  - analog31 8y ago
    Electing a governor is one thing, and notably, we just elected a new one. But representatives are protected by gerrymandering and are thus not "elected" in a completely straightforward sense. At the very least, overturning the composition of the legislature could be a more complicated matter.
    - magduf 8y ago
      Gerrymandering doesn't affect votes, it just affects how they're counted. The people of the state are still electing those representatives, the gerrymandering is just a mechanism whatever party is currently in power uses to give themselves an edge in staying in power a little longer. It's still up to the people to provide the votes for that party, and they do. Voting districts still have to be roughly equal in population (which is why they're redrawn periodically), so if that party stays in power, it's because a majority of the people in that state have voted for that party. As always, the people are getting the government they elected and that they deserve.
      - vkou 8y ago
        > so if that party stays in power, it's because a majority of the people in that state have voted for that party. False. Depending on how well you can gerry-mander, you can easily get a situation where in a two-party system, the party that gets the minority of the vote gets the majority of the seats, and a super-majority of the power.
        bluGill 8y ago
        That can only happen when the minority of votes is small though. A large majority of votes eventually cannot be contained.
        phaedrus 8y ago
        What do you consider a large majority? Consider a three mathematically ideal gerrymandered districts. Two are engineered to have 50% + epsilon supporting party voters. "Burn" the third by stocking it with 100% dissenting party voters. 1/2+1/2=1. 1/2+1/2+2/2=2. A 2:1 majority of voters receives a 1:2 ratio of representation.
        bluGill 8y ago
        That is a complex question. Your simple math doesn't work out in the real world. There is no way to know for sure that someone who you think supports you actually does and will vote. Voters (and courts) look down on districts that are too irregular and a few will change based on that (including not vote for someone they otherwise like). The party out of power can run someone moderate and thus flip a few voters. When your party is in power you are more likely to stay home and not vote. All of these mean that practically your epsilon needs to be fairly large. Note, the above is for a large set of districts. Gerrymandering does work well to keep one politicians in power.
  - sremani 8y ago
    What is wrong with Pro-Business representatives? Things are not super hunky dory with CALIPERS, the budget gymnastics of California are world renowned. California is a such a top heavy reliant state, one brutal year in the stock market and returns of ultra rich, California will have a really bad time. CA is not a model governance state, not even close.
moate 8y ago
IDK that it's an option. Is the current administration in Wisconsin able to walk away from the deal they made with Foxconn? If so, then great, they can ignore the sunk cost fallacy and walk away only slightly injured. But, and I'm not an expert here, I assumed that deals like these have some kind of protections in place to limit exactly that sort of course reversal from happening. From an outsider, this appears to be a situation where they may not be getting handed the full 4 Billion Dollars that everyone mentions, but they still used deceptive tactics in order to receive a sweetheart deal from the Wisconsin government. My current understanding is that this isn't as good as some people are trying to make it seem (Net positive for the state! Much Gains!) but also not as bad as others seem to assume (we paid 4 billion dollars and get 0 return on that during the lifetime of the deal) and instead seems to be somewhere in the middle (we are paying more money than this deal is actually worth)
- shagie 8y ago
  That's a rather interesting question... maybe. https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2018/11/27/murphys-law-is-foxconn-contract-illegal/ https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2018/11/27/murphys-law-is-foxconn... > First, the fact that state passed a law with special benefits for only one party. “It’s a principle of law that you can’t pass a law for the benefit of only one business or person,” Flynn says. > Specifically, the Wisconsin Constitution has a provision prohibiting special laws to benefit a particular party that are not general in scope. And the law providing a subsidy for Foxconn gives the company different legal treatment than any business in Wisconsin: > -Foxconn is exempt from state law requiring an Environmental Impact Statement to be filed by any new company building a plant; > -And Foxconn has been awarded special legal treatment under the courts, whereby any legal claims made against it can bypass the state court of appeals and go straight from circuit court to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In fact, any decision by a circuit court is automatically “stayed” or delayed, until the Republican-leaning Wisconsin Supreme Court takes up the case. > No other business in Wisconsin has been accorded these benefits. The Republican-dominated legislature sought to disguise this, Flynn notes, by targeting the benefits to any company in a designed investment area, “but then they said there can be only one company allowed in this area. That’s tantamount to saying only Foxconn can benefit from this, which is unconstitutional.” > ... > A second challenge to the legality of the Foxconn deal, Flynn notes, is for breach of contract. The company promised to build a Generation 10.5 plant, with a factory of workers building panels for 75-inch TVs, but it now says it will build a much smaller Gen 6 plant, with most of the manufacturing done by robots. > The deal, moreover, was supposed to provide a state subsidy in return for 13,000 jobs going to Wisconsin workers, but Foxconn is now considering bringing workers from China, as the Wall Street Journal has reported. The company denies this, but had earlier denied the change away from 75-inch TVs, only to later concede these news reports were correct. > Moreover the company said that while Wisconsin workers will be the first priority, “We will supplement that recruitment from other US locations as required.”
vanadium 8y ago
They _finally_ finished construction on the I-94/I-41 upgrade (also accommodating a new Amazon warehouse near Kenosha) a couple of years back, and this Foxconn agreement meant having to tear it all up again and redo it even wider than before. It's (IMO) unsafe to drive through in the Winter time. It's a perpetual mess in Southeast Wisconsin. The problems extend far further than just the economics of the deal, into perpetual construction, shady eminent domain and reclassification of generational farms as "blighted", etc. It's criminal how much this one "deal" cost the area.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  Don't misunderstand me, I'm a Wisconsinite as well. So I'm incensed by this whole cluster-F. I was just pointing out that while we have spent millions on construction and royally screwed over a lot of farmers and people in southeastern WI, we haven't actually handed over any money to Foxconn yet. So we may be best advised to take our losses, which I concede are considerable, and leave the table so to speak. I'm just trying to be rational.
  - vanadium 8y ago
    It's definitely not a knock on you or your position; it's more a knock on these sorts of politically-motivated, but empty, sweetheart deals. Walker's a particularly efficient trigger when the subject comes up. Also, I'm just a bit bitter as someone who travels back to my hometown area (the Fox Valley) often from Chicago and it's never the same thing twice. ;)
    - logfromblammo 8y ago
      I'm not so much bitter as filled with pity, to see all the effort Kenosha went to to try to recover from the loss of AMC, and then the remaining Chrysler factory jobs. But the downtown streetcar from nowhere to nowhere takes the prize for worst idea. The only way for it to be sadder is if it were an elevated monorail. The reason people stay is that nowhere better wants them to come. And they can at least scrape some value out of the traffic between Chicago and Milwaukee, and from the far-flung commuters, and Chicagoans looking for a cheaper place to tie up their weekender sailboats during the summer. 13000 jobs would have been a real boon for the area, if they were ever real. But the Rust Belt is rusting, and states and communities are competing against one another to be the last spots of steel left, when everything else around is grimy red holes. Kenoshans will vote for anyone that promises more jobs or better jobs, no matter how transparently false the story may be. Their dads built cars, and now they're stuck cleaning the go-karts at Action Territory, or waiting tables, or commuting for an hour or more each way. So the one who tells them the most comforting lie wins. I think it's probably the exact same story in Janesville, after the GM plant is finally closed for good, with no backsies. In another 10 years, someone will promise them a big manufacturing plant there, and the voters will fall for the exact same trick, all over again.

moate 8y ago

I think "fiscal responsibility" isn't the term Republicans really operate under anymore. They seem to be more "anti-tax" and "anti-entitlement" at this point.

bluGill 8y ago
fiscal responsibility is something the Republicans have only operated on when not in power. The democrats were making fiscal responsibility noises while out of power [on a national level], if it continues at all it is only because there is a division of power.
- moate 8y ago
  I think "fiscal responsibility" is absolutely a code-word for "minority party obstructionism".
  - bluGill 8y ago
    That is one of the code words. All parties have code words that will fire up the base, but they don't really believe in.

75dvtwin 8y ago

could that be that newly elected governor from the Bribes-R-US party, is sabotaging this to stick it to conservatives?

sj3k 8y ago
wöwwwww just wow

rgrieselhuber 8y ago

It's helpful to look past the illusion of the two parties and realize that most of the politicians in each party are more on the same side in the big picture stuff than not.

quasse 8y ago
This is an oft trotted out saying that completely lacks any substance and serves as a distraction to keep people from recognizing how much more some politicians are working against their personal interest than others. WI (the topic of this discussion) is a perfect example. We went from having Russ Feingold (a true shining star of progressive politics and the only senator to vote against the PATRIOT act) to Ron Johnson who is a true weasel. Don't try and tell me that the guy who voted against the Iraq war, thought Dodd-Frank didn't go far enough, and worked actively for campaign finance reform is the same as a climate change denying, anti-abortion, anti-EPA shill.
- rgrieselhuber 8y ago
  You pointed out one individual, that hardly proves your point.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

sonnyblarney 8y ago

They didn't get anything. In fact, if a company is not going to invest after such massive subsidies are offered, then it's probably a huge valid signal that it really doesn't make sense for them.