3 ms·

I'm sorry, but this is economically faulty reasoning... Intensification of development creates external growth. More people making more money on new jobs and sp

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.