3 ms·

I had the same reaction. If the HQ is going to employ thousands of workers when its built, and will require a massive construction operation to build, you're l

• kfriede 9y ago
  Not to mention, the $5B tax break isn't money lost, it's merely an opportunity cost. If HQ2 wasn't moving to this city/state, they'd still be out that money.
  • eropple 9y ago
    It isn't "merely an opportunity cost." Putting up with Amazon's HQ2 will significantly increase local infrastructural load and therefore costs. It is explicitly reducing their revenue while increasing expenses and there's no reason to assume--it's possible but the assumption is dangerous--that there will be sufficient compensatory side-effect revenues to be worth the transaction.
• toomuchtodo 9y ago
  I would caution against broad statements that the state will receive a windfall of tax revenue. This is the same argument used to locate sports stadiums, paid for by the public, with the gains going to private owners (and local taxpayers left holding the bag). Will tax revenues increase? Surely. Will infrastructure and housing be strained? Undoubtedly (Not everyone wants their local community turned into Seattle). Will there be a windfall? No one has proven that. Amazon hasn't made the case its presence is a net benefit to the city it selects, and cities are arguably pragmatic for turning them away.