3 ms·

Why do you think they wouldn't hire current residents? Isn't this supposed to be a whole new HQ? I thought they had said it would be 50,000 NEW jobs. Philade

Why do you think they wouldn't hire current residents? Isn't this supposed to be a whole new HQ? I thought they had said it would be 50,000 NEW jobs. Philadelphia has a 6% unemployment rate. Don't you think HQ2 might drive that down some? Here in Dallas, there has been a stream of companies moving headquarters in from out of state. Even though they are bringing their people with them, they wind up scouring the landscape for new workers. Toyota relocated and brought 3200 people along but they are still hiring 1000 locals.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Philadelphia has a 6% unemployment rate. Don't you think HQ2 might drive that down some? It might drive it up, if the tax incentives and other provisions required to secure it mean it's not paying for it's fair share of shared infrastructure, so that either overall infrastructure crumbles or is paid for by others (through higher overall taxes), either of which can drive other businesses away.
- OrwellianChild 9y ago
  I'm sorry, but this is economically faulty reasoning... Intensification of development creates external growth. More people making more money on new jobs and spending it into the economy boosts everyone else. You are conflating concerns about infrastructure (which is a government expenditure) with job growth. HQ2 in Philly (or anywhere else) would add to government coffers, both directly (from wage tax, etc.) and indirectly (from property taxes, wage tax from non-Amazon business growth, etc.). The only way infrastructure would "crumble" is if the government doesn't properly direct some of its windfall towards maintaining it.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > HQ2 in Philly (or anywhere else) would add to government coffers Only necessarily true if you assume there are no government costs in attracting it; but, yes, it's probably at least a slight net gain in tax revenue because the incentives alone probably don't directly outweigh the revenue. They might, however, when you add in the induced capital (for utility extensions, roads, etc.) and maintenance (for both the new and existing facilities induced by increased utilization from the HQ). And if that's the case, there are either reduced expenditures relative to the level of need or increased taxes as a result of the incentives to Amazon, and those absolutely can drive away other businesses.
alistairSH 9y ago
Philly doesn't have 50,000 skilled, but unemployed, residents waiting around for Amazon. Sure, some locals will quit their jobs and work for Amazon. And some may come off the unemployment list. But, the majority will need to be brought into the area, which causes congestion, drives up real estate values and rent, etc.
- ameister14 9y ago
  It also increases the money available for restaurants and entertainment, local purchases and shopping - creating local jobs for less skilled and unemployed people.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Philadelphia has a 6% unemployment rate. Don't you think HQ2 might drive that down some? It might drive it up, if the tax incentives and other provisions required to secure it mean it's not paying for it's fair share of shared infrastructure, so that either overall infrastructure crumbles or is paid for by others (through higher overall taxes), either of which can drive other businesses away.

OrwellianChild 9y ago
I'm sorry, but this is economically faulty reasoning... Intensification of development creates external growth. More people making more money on new jobs and spending it into the economy boosts everyone else. You are conflating concerns about infrastructure (which is a government expenditure) with job growth. HQ2 in Philly (or anywhere else) would add to government coffers, both directly (from wage tax, etc.) and indirectly (from property taxes, wage tax from non-Amazon business growth, etc.). The only way infrastructure would "crumble" is if the government doesn't properly direct some of its windfall towards maintaining it.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > HQ2 in Philly (or anywhere else) would add to government coffers Only necessarily true if you assume there are no government costs in attracting it; but, yes, it's probably at least a slight net gain in tax revenue because the incentives alone probably don't directly outweigh the revenue. They might, however, when you add in the induced capital (for utility extensions, roads, etc.) and maintenance (for both the new and existing facilities induced by increased utilization from the HQ). And if that's the case, there are either reduced expenditures relative to the level of need or increased taxes as a result of the incentives to Amazon, and those absolutely can drive away other businesses.

alistairSH 9y ago

Philly doesn't have 50,000 skilled, but unemployed, residents waiting around for Amazon. Sure, some locals will quit their jobs and work for Amazon. And some may come off the unemployment list. But, the majority will need to be brought into the area, which causes congestion, drives up real estate values and rent, etc.

ameister14 9y ago
It also increases the money available for restaurants and entertainment, local purchases and shopping - creating local jobs for less skilled and unemployed people.