Foxconn may build Iphone plant in PA - create up to 50,000 jobs... (Milton: real estate, buying)

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by jtab4994

The Harrisburg plant from the 2013 article was projected to employ only 500 people, not 50,000. Was that even the same project?

That's really not the point, though. What's more troubling is that lots of companies, including Foxconn, make grandiose promises for job creation, very often because of tax breaks or other taxpayer-funded incentives, and then never follow-up with actual jobs nearly to the extent that they claim will happen.

The criticism is that this is likely another gimmicky, "flash in the pan" announcement to score political points. Only now Wisconsin is likely in for a bigger letdown. In fact, just saw this article this morning that Wisconsin may pledge $3 billion in incentives--that'a A LOT of dough to put on the line: Foxconn's Wisconsin factory comes with a $3 billion catch - CBS News

[jtab4994]

Originally Posted by Duderino

That's really not the point, though. What's more troubling is that lots of companies, including Foxconn, make grandiose promises for job creation, very often because of tax breaks or other taxpayer-funded incentives, and then never follow-up with actual jobs nearly to the extent that they claim will happen.

The criticism is that this is likely another gimmicky, "flash in the pan" announcement to score political points. Only now Wisconsin is likely in for a bigger letdown.

Somehow I doubt Wisconsin's letdown will be bigger than PA's, though I'm not sure how much B.S. the local WI politicians and press shoveled.


There is competition among states for business, and tax breaks are part of luring companies. We can argue whether tax breaks are "taxpayer-funded" or not. Should PA taxpayers be celebrating and Wisconsin taxpayers be grumbling over the final destination of the Foxconn plant?

[BPP1999]

Originally Posted by Duderino

The criticism is that this is likely another gimmicky, "flash in the pan" announcement to score political points. Only now Wisconsin is likely in for a bigger letdown. In fact, just saw this article this morning that Wisconsin may pledge $3 billion in incentives--that'a A LOT of dough to put on the line: Foxconn's Wisconsin factory comes with a $3 billion catch - CBS News

It is for a plant that will employ 3,000 people. Probably less so for one that would employ 50,000. However, there are bragging rights that will go along with having scored this plant, so that counts for something.

I thought it was Trump that said FoxConn would hire 50,000 people in the US, but maybe that was a misguided headline (I don't want to say "fake news" as that term is beyond nauseating at this point).

[jtab4994]

Originally Posted by BPP1999

I thought it was Trump that said FoxConn would hire 50,000 people in the US, but maybe that was a misguided headline (I don't want to say "fake news" as that term is beyond nauseating at this point).

The 50,000 jobs touted by Trump in December 2016 was related to Softbank, a Japanese bank that also owns Sprint.

[jtab4994]

Originally Posted by Duderino

... just saw this article this morning that Wisconsin may pledge $3 billion in incentives--that'a A LOT of dough to put on the line: Foxconn's Wisconsin factory comes with a $3 billion catch - CBS News

Boy, that article sure throws up a bunch of caveats. Like, where in Wisconsin are they going to find 3,000 people to work in a "high tech factory"? Foxconn has sprawling factories in China, Mexico, and Malaysia among other places. Why in the world is it easy to find workers in those places but in Wisconsin it's a problem?

[pman]

Originally Posted by jtab4994

There is competition among states for business, and tax breaks are part of luring companies. We can argue whether tax breaks are "taxpayer-funded" or not. Should PA taxpayers be celebrating and Wisconsin taxpayers be grumbling over the final destination of the Foxconn plant?

tax breaks are typically ineffective

[jtab4994]

Originally Posted by pman

tax breaks are typically ineffective

From whose point of view?


The new coal mine that recently opened in Western PA was helped in part by a $3 million grant from the Wolf administration. From the point of view of the 100 workers who were hired, that tax break probably looks pretty effective.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by jtab4994

From whose point of view?


The new coal mine that recently opened in Western PA was helped in part by a $3 million grant from the Wolf administration. From the point of view of the 100 workers who were hired, that tax break probably looks pretty effective.

Who's tracking the employment, though? For how long will those individuals be employed? If said company does not in fact end up hiring the number of workers promised, will the grant be revoked?

None of those aspects are clear, which is why these types of incentives can be so questionable, particularly when they are accompanied by large-scale hiring news.

[jtab4994]

Originally Posted by Duderino

Who's tracking the employment, though? For how long will those individuals be employed? If said company does not in fact end up hiring the number of workers promised, will the grant be revoked?

None of those aspects are clear, which is why these types of incentives can be so questionable, particularly when they are accompanied by large-scale hiring news.

OK, if that's the definition of "typically ineffective" then I disagree. The idea of opening a coal mine or an iPhone factory is that it's going to stay open for a very long time or "forever".

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by jtab4994

OK, if that's the definition of "typically ineffective" then I disagree. The idea of opening a coal mine or an iPhone factory is that it's going to stay open for a very long time or "forever".

Of course it's unreasonable to expect a business to be operating forever, but it that's not what criticism is getting at.

I think the point is for public incentives it's not unreasonable to tie-in a timeline for a grant/tax break, or phase the funding so that it's not given away all at once. There's a number of ways to structure such a program to make sure taxpayers are getting the most bang for their buck.