22 ms·

Government leaders doing whatever it takes to bring jobs and prosperity to their constituents is a good idea. Seeking favors and special treatment under false

Government leaders doing whatever it takes to bring jobs and prosperity to their constituents is a good idea. Seeking favors and special treatment under false pretenses is bad. Amazon is in the wrong, clearly, since they actively misled others. If my city got a second headquarters for Amazon, I would have been ecstatic.

ethbro 8y ago
Announcing the list of finalists was in poor taste. Amazon could have at least let unchosen smaller cities believe they were seriously considered.
- esrauch 8y ago
  I assume the point was to get people (property owners, other constituents) in those cities put on pressure to the local government to land to deal even with more favorable terns for Amazon
- dorfsmay 8y ago
  Why? Anoucing early who's out prevents those contenders to spend more money and waste further time with the bid.
  - untog 8y ago
    They could be notified privately. After all, all details of the negotiations had been private up until that point.
    - ethbro 8y ago
      Indeed. The announcement and the mundanity of the finalist cities was pretty shitty to all the smaller towns Amazon insinuated could be in the running. I live in on the finalist cities, but I also have good friends in a nearby regional hub who made a good faith effort. It would have been one thing to tell them "We didn't select you." It's something different to say "We're still considering cities, but definitely not yours."
lotsofpulp 8y ago
It’s not a good idea, as it results in a race to the bottom as seen in this and countless other situations. No one has the ability to price in all the effects of a company moving in or not moving in, not to mention the opportunity of corruption that is opened up. Price obfuscation is bad for the payer (taxpayers in this case). The goal should be to be as clear and transparent as possible.
bachmeier 8y ago
> If my city got a second headquarters for Amazon, I would have been ecstatic. Would you have been ecstatic if that came at a cost of $5000 a year (out of your pocket)? There's a really big problem with these competitions in that the world sees the benefits (and even benefits that are more wishful thinking than actual) but they don't see the cost. Maybe a simpler way to look at the issue is to ask why local governments don't pay people to move into their cities. After all, growth is a good thing, more people means more jobs, more jobs means more income, more stuff gets sold, more tax revenue comes in. All the supposed benefits that come from the Amazon HQ apply equally to paying people to move to the city. Yet it's rare to hear anyone argue for that policy.
- esoterica 8y ago
  Why do you think it would cost taxpayers extra money to lure Amazon to their city? Corporations and high-income skilled workers pay far more in taxes than they cost the city in public services. If someone pays $20k in local taxes and uses $5k worth of public services, you can give them a 50% tax break to lure them to the city and still make $5k off them. > Maybe a simpler way to look at the issue is to ask why local governments don't pay people to move into their cities. Vermont is doing that right now. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/us/vermont-moving-money.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/us/vermont-moving-money.h... . The problem with that approach is that people usually move to where the jobs are, so paying corporations to move is more effective than paying people to do so.

ethbro 8y ago

Announcing the list of finalists was in poor taste. Amazon could have at least let unchosen smaller cities believe they were seriously considered.

esrauch 8y ago
I assume the point was to get people (property owners, other constituents) in those cities put on pressure to the local government to land to deal even with more favorable terns for Amazon
dorfsmay 8y ago
Why? Anoucing early who's out prevents those contenders to spend more money and waste further time with the bid.
- untog 8y ago
  They could be notified privately. After all, all details of the negotiations had been private up until that point.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Indeed. The announcement and the mundanity of the finalist cities was pretty shitty to all the smaller towns Amazon insinuated could be in the running. I live in on the finalist cities, but I also have good friends in a nearby regional hub who made a good faith effort. It would have been one thing to tell them "We didn't select you." It's something different to say "We're still considering cities, but definitely not yours."

lotsofpulp 8y ago

It’s not a good idea, as it results in a race to the bottom as seen in this and countless other situations. No one has the ability to price in all the effects of a company moving in or not moving in, not to mention the opportunity of corruption that is opened up. Price obfuscation is bad for the payer (taxpayers in this case). The goal should be to be as clear and transparent as possible.

bachmeier 8y ago

> If my city got a second headquarters for Amazon, I would have been ecstatic. Would you have been ecstatic if that came at a cost of $5000 a year (out of your pocket)? There's a really big problem with these competitions in that the world sees the benefits (and even benefits that are more wishful thinking than actual) but they don't see the cost. Maybe a simpler way to look at the issue is to ask why local governments don't pay people to move into their cities. After all, growth is a good thing, more people means more jobs, more jobs means more income, more stuff gets sold, more tax revenue comes in. All the supposed benefits that come from the Amazon HQ apply equally to paying people to move to the city. Yet it's rare to hear anyone argue for that policy.

esoterica 8y ago
Why do you think it would cost taxpayers extra money to lure Amazon to their city? Corporations and high-income skilled workers pay far more in taxes than they cost the city in public services. If someone pays $20k in local taxes and uses $5k worth of public services, you can give them a 50% tax break to lure them to the city and still make $5k off them. > Maybe a simpler way to look at the issue is to ask why local governments don't pay people to move into their cities. Vermont is doing that right now. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/us/vermont-moving-money.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/us/vermont-moving-money.h... . The problem with that approach is that people usually move to where the jobs are, so paying corporations to move is more effective than paying people to do so.