[arcseco]

>On another note, I wonder what it will take for middle America to let go of the dream of well-paid manufacturing jobs. I understand the hope and allure, but it's plain that this ship has sailed long ago.

Liberalization of global markets has not had that long of a time to run its course. You speak so confidently that the status quo will run eternal. What is happening in middle America should be seen as pragmatism, the people of Wisconsin are beginning to accept their current predicament. They are accepting a leveling of environmental standards to foster competition with East Asia rather than choosing to go the way of the Dodo. Is this not what classical liberals dream of, a leveling of competition across boarders? So quickly the west is ready to externalize the cost of environmental pollution in the name of liberalization of markets but hypocritically don't appreciate the same leveling of standards domestically out of necessity. Perhaps the coasts should subsidize the cost of living in the mid-west to maintain the cost of keeping environmental standards well above those in developing countries.

Please don't turn your nose up at people that are desperate to make a living and are willing to sacrifice a lot in order to do so.

[thrmsforbfast]

Except by now, even Foxconn has openly admitted that there aren't going to be tens of thousands of $60k+ manufacturing jobs. WI spent 4B+ on the "deregulated manufacturing hub" idea and it's still going to fail to materialize well-paying jobs for non-college-educated folks. This by Foxconn's own public admission.

Furthermore, the attitude that "either you're a coastal elite or you believe in the future of well-paid manufacturing jobs" is extraordinarily presumptive.

Has it occurred to you that some of us want "middle America to let go of the dream of well-paid manufacturing jobs" precisely because we are from/currently live in middle America, desperately want what's best for it, and believe manufacturing isn't going to provide that?

By the way, why on earth do you believe the Midwest needs manufacturing for a robust economy? That assertion -- that the Midwest can't build a thriving information/services-based economy -- seems far more like "turning your nose up" at the Midwest than your parent's post!

Frankly, whenever I encounter this mentality, I read it as: "oh yes, those [small-town] midwesterners, what could they ever do for society if they don't have assembly lines to work on."

[restingrobot]

I don't think you understand what the environmental concessions actually were. The article tries to make it sound like they were related to the dumping of heavy metals, but in reality they are just for the construction of the site and water usage, (e.g. For every of acre they fill to build, they have to create 1.2 acres of new wetlands). The company will still be held to the same pollution standards as every other company in the state.

[arcseco]

>The Walker administration had also exempted Foxconn from the state’s usual environmental rules, allowing it to discharge materials into wetlands and reroute streams during construction and operation. The state also exempted the company from doing an Environmental Impact Statement. At stake was a huge swath of land: the plan calls for Foxconn to eventually own 4.5 square miles of what had been mostly farmland. Adriaens says these exemptions and the fact that Wisconsin is allowing Foxconn to operate unusually close to Lake Michigan are “red flags.”

I am only going off what the article purports as truth.