4 ms·
> Why is Amazon choosing its second headquarters location via a public process? Because Foxconn got such an amazing deal and we want to get some of those sweet
by quirkot 9y ago
> Why is Amazon choosing its second headquarters location via a public process?
Because Foxconn got such an amazing deal and we want to get some of those sweet, sweet tax credits, too
- ceejayoz 9y agoYup. "Amazon seeks a city to provide cushy tax credits in exchange for vague, unenforceable promises of job creation" would've been a more accurate headline.
- sanderjd 9y agoI understand (and largely share) the annoyance about these sorts of tax breaks, but as a software developer, it seems obvious that having an Amazon headquarters in my city would result in lots of job opportunities for me - not just at Amazon, but at other software companies that locate nearby over time due to the increased concentration of workers. So I don't understand your skepticism at the "job creation" part.
- mywittyname 9y agoIt will also greatly increase prices for good/great developers.
- blackguardx 9y agoThe skepticism is that the US is a place where the government isn't supposed to pick the winners and losers. If we want to go down this road, we should do what what many Asian countries do and offer incentives for anyone to open a facility in a given geographic region. Skepticism over the job creation part is because there are usually no guarantees with how many jobs the company ends up creating. In the Foxconn case, they could make the factory fully robotic and end up employing very few people. There will still be increased economic activity, but there seems to be better ways to generate it than singling out one company.
- nambit 9y agoIf there are better ways to generate it, then I'm sure they'll come to the fore. I agree that the practice is unfair and the government should pass some laws preventing it, but for the cities themselves, there's no better way to generate such job/tax growth. If you've seen Amazon's crazy hiring for the past few years, you wouldn't doubt that they'll create a lot of jobs.
- ceejayoz 9y agoMost of those jobs would've still been created without tax breaks, though. These incentive packages are a race to the bottom, transferring taxpayer money into major corporations with dubious returns.
- sanderjd 9y agoThis is true in absolute terms, but not true at the level of each locality. Those jobs will still be created without tax breaks, they just likely won't be created here (for nearly everyone's definition of "here"). I totally agree that these incentives are yucky, but I don't think down-playing the benefits to the "winning" locality is the right way to argue against it.
- ceejayoz 9y agoI don't think a megacorporation should be having its jobs (which it was going to create anyways!) subsidized by the taxpayers of relatively small, desperate localities engaged in a race-to-the-bottom against other similarly small, desperate localities.
- sanderjd 9y agoI don't disagree at all! But that is a larger point than the question of whether it will improve the job market in that locality for people with the right skills: it definitely will. What I'm saying is that I don't think it is wise to downplay the job creation aspect when arguing against things like this. You have to make the counter-argument despite the job creation potential.
- turk183 9y agoAnd the slippery slope continues.
- pc2g4d 9y agoAmazon is more or less conducting an auction. Cities will bid on hosting their second HQ. The best bid wins. Or maybe a better analogy is the Olympics site selection process.