3 ms·

"The second alternative takes this same approach and applies it to very young companies and to emerging technologies with more speculative prospects." Aside fr

"The second alternative takes this same approach and applies it to very young companies and to emerging technologies with more speculative prospects." Aside from maybe being young, isn't this what tech companies are generally doing?... working on new ideas, not focusing on a single vertical and have multiple lines of somewhat experimental businesses? Instead of arbitrary tax breaks, it sounds like some cities ought to mandate the benefactors create at least some n number of jobs with a total comp of $x for employees living within the same town, city, county or whatever municipality.

abhiminator 8y ago
>benefactors create at least some n number of jobs with a total comp of $x for employees living within the same town, city, county or whatever municipality. Directives like the ones to create more jobs in order to reach an arbitrary target set by the bureaucrats in the government adds needless pressure and thus might stifle the potential and resources for innovation and experimentation in an organization, especially for a startup.
- trophycase 8y ago
  something something... when the measure becomes a goal it ceases to be a good measure
  - abhiminator 8y ago
    I think you're referring to Goodhard's Law -- "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- michaelt 8y ago
  Isn't the most popular justification for giving bungs to attract/retain employers that it "creates jobs"? If you're going to pay someone to do something, it makes sense to agree the details of what you're paying them to do - that seems like common sense to me. Otherwise you might spend $$$$ thinking you're attracting a software development centre with 200 employees on low-six-figure salaries, but instead get a data centre with 20 employees on mid-five-figure salaries.
  - abhiminator 8y ago
    I get the gist of your argument, but my point was when government interferes with the hiring process in the pretext of helping the local population (like setting an arbitrary number of job to create in exchange for tax-breaks, for example), it starts to have a strangulating effect on the performance of the private organization.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      Then that organization doesn't need the tax break. If you're not going to be able to bring something of value to the area, then my tax dollars should not be subsidizing you beyond what anyone else gets.
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>Instead of arbitrary tax breaks, it sounds like some cities ought to mandate the benefactors create at least some n number of jobs with a total comp of $x for employees living within the same town, city, county or whatever municipality. You can't go adding requirements in a race to the bottom. Cities are competing on tax incentives in order to attract business. If I start requiring contractual guarantees to those incentives it's functionally the same as just offering a smaller incentive and the business may go elsewhere. The problem is that cities are allowed to compete for business on this playing field at all.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  I don't even mind a city competing on that field if they want to do so. My issue is when cities compete on that field with state money ala Racine-Foxconn. So now Pardeeville, which has problems of its own, is on the hook to subsidize jobs for a bunch of illinois guys who will be taking the train in to Racine every morning. That's not cool. But yeah, if Racine County wanted to come up with the 4 billion on their own, that would be a whole different story.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
    >I don't even mind a city competing on that field if they want to do so. I think you should since it's fundamentally distortive of the market. While a few giant corporations who are going to get the mayor and some council member's names splashed across the paper get billion dollar deals the rest of the employers in the area don't - it's an unfair competitive advantage. There's two marketplaces at work here. One is with cities as atomistic units competing amongst themselves for jobs and the other is within cities with businesses competing amongst each other (on multiple dimensions.) Right now we corrupt both, the proper solution is to corrupt neither and that requires entirely ending these tax deals.

abhiminator 8y ago

>benefactors create at least some n number of jobs with a total comp of $x for employees living within the same town, city, county or whatever municipality. Directives like the ones to create more jobs in order to reach an arbitrary target set by the bureaucrats in the government adds needless pressure and thus might stifle the potential and resources for innovation and experimentation in an organization, especially for a startup.

trophycase 8y ago
something something... when the measure becomes a goal it ceases to be a good measure
- abhiminator 8y ago
  I think you're referring to Goodhard's Law -- "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
michaelt 8y ago
Isn't the most popular justification for giving bungs to attract/retain employers that it "creates jobs"? If you're going to pay someone to do something, it makes sense to agree the details of what you're paying them to do - that seems like common sense to me. Otherwise you might spend $$$$ thinking you're attracting a software development centre with 200 employees on low-six-figure salaries, but instead get a data centre with 20 employees on mid-five-figure salaries.
- abhiminator 8y ago
  I get the gist of your argument, but my point was when government interferes with the hiring process in the pretext of helping the local population (like setting an arbitrary number of job to create in exchange for tax-breaks, for example), it starts to have a strangulating effect on the performance of the private organization.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Then that organization doesn't need the tax break. If you're not going to be able to bring something of value to the area, then my tax dollars should not be subsidizing you beyond what anyone else gets.

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

>Instead of arbitrary tax breaks, it sounds like some cities ought to mandate the benefactors create at least some n number of jobs with a total comp of $x for employees living within the same town, city, county or whatever municipality. You can't go adding requirements in a race to the bottom. Cities are competing on tax incentives in order to attract business. If I start requiring contractual guarantees to those incentives it's functionally the same as just offering a smaller incentive and the business may go elsewhere. The problem is that cities are allowed to compete for business on this playing field at all.

bilbo0s 8y ago
I don't even mind a city competing on that field if they want to do so. My issue is when cities compete on that field with state money ala Racine-Foxconn. So now Pardeeville, which has problems of its own, is on the hook to subsidize jobs for a bunch of illinois guys who will be taking the train in to Racine every morning. That's not cool. But yeah, if Racine County wanted to come up with the 4 billion on their own, that would be a whole different story.
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  >I don't even mind a city competing on that field if they want to do so. I think you should since it's fundamentally distortive of the market. While a few giant corporations who are going to get the mayor and some council member's names splashed across the paper get billion dollar deals the rest of the employers in the area don't - it's an unfair competitive advantage. There's two marketplaces at work here. One is with cities as atomistic units competing amongst themselves for jobs and the other is within cities with businesses competing amongst each other (on multiple dimensions.) Right now we corrupt both, the proper solution is to corrupt neither and that requires entirely ending these tax deals.