4 ms·
I think the difference is that it isn't a person bidding on the Amazon HQ, it is a city, and IMO, cities in the same country shouldn't be competing with eachoth
by GhostVII 8y ago
I think the difference is that it isn't a person bidding on the Amazon HQ, it is a city, and IMO, cities in the same country shouldn't be competing with eachother for business. Amazon has to put a headquarters somewhere in the US, what benefit do US citizens get by allowing cities to undercut eachother in an attempt to get the HQ in their city?
- EADGBE 8y ago> cities in the same country shouldn't be competing with eachother I feel like the US government is set up to allow just this sort of thing, though. States running themselves like countries and all...
- abecedarius 8y agoWe definitely should want competition in the governance market. But it needs to take the form of neutral rules instead of sweetheart deals for particular firms. It’s the latter that I would like to ban. The U.S. constitution has an analogous clause, the prohibition of "bills of attainder" against individuals.
- Spivak 8y agoThe citizens of that city enjoy the wealth that Amazon brings to the area. Cities, rightly, salavate over businesses that bring in outside money because that's how an area gets wealthier.
- webdood90 8y agoYou're not considering the negatives that come with 25k new jobs suddenly appearing in a city. The Denver metro area in particular is already struggling to manage the influx in transplants - this would only make it worse.