6 ms·

> That tax break is real money. Sure, but it's real money that your community doesn't get either way. You're living in a fantasy world if you believe that the

> That tax break is real money. Sure, but it's real money that your community doesn't get either way. You're living in a fantasy world if you believe that the choice was legitimately between "Tax money and 25,000 jobs" or "No tax money and 25,000 jobs." No, the choice has always been between "No tax money and 25,000 jobs" or "No tax money and no jobs." You're not getting the tax money either way. Either Amazon builds with subsidies and you get no tax money from them, or they go elsewhere, and you get no tax money from them. Your decision is really between "Do you want 25,000 jobs, or not?" 25,000 jobs whose incomes that can be taxed. 25,000 jobs that are going to shop at local stores, pay for local gas, pay local rents, raise local property values, and so on. And that choice is pretty damn clear.

Zecar 8y ago
Corporate welfare is, and always will be, theft.
ProfessorLayton 8y ago
I disagree. Amazon does not have as many choices as it would seem from the outset. Perhaps NYC is no longer going to get an HQ2 with 25k jobs, but Amazon will be expanding there regardless of subsidies. The talent required is not evenly spread throughout the cities that bid on HQ2, and a world-class city like NYC does not need Amazon as much as Amazon needs them.
youdontknowtho 8y ago
That's one way to look at it. Another way would be that only taxing the jobs, and all the economic activity they might generate would still not cover the strain that the company would put on the local system. Now they need to start taxing Wall St. heavily.
jakelazaroff 8y ago
Except it's not really just 25,000 jobs, right? It's increased stress on already struggling infrastructure. It's higher prices and increased gentrification in the same neighborhood that has the largest public housing development in the entire country. It's people who will need mail and emergency services and schools for their kids. All those things cost money. Usually, that money would come from taxing residents and local businesses. But given that we've agreed that the city wouldn't be getting that money, it's not at all clear that those 25,000 jobs would be a good thing.
AlexandrB 8y ago
> Your decision is really between "Do you want 25,000 jobs, or not?" Except that's not the choice either - as others have pointed out. If Amazon doesn't build something in NY, some one else will over the same time period. Will it be more or less than 25,000 jobs? Who knows. But NY is already an attractive metropolitan area judging by its density and property value. It's not a struggling rural town that can't attract talent and capital.
- Atheros 8y ago
  You make it sound like the city has a throughput of X new jobs per year that it allows to be created. There is no such limit. Without Amazon it's necessarily 25K fewer jobs than there would have been with Amazon.
door5 8y ago
Jobs for whom? Not the vulnerable members of New York, jobs for upper middle class yuppies like you or me or nearly anyone on this site from the rest of the country. People in Queens aren't stupid, they know what the impact of Amazon would be and how it absolutely would not benefit them. And almost certainly because of this struggle, the next City they try and go to isn't going to give them nearly as sweet a deal. They will demand more. Struggles like this are effective.
- SpaceManNabs 8y ago
  Thanks for saying this. People are forgetting the effect this move was going to have on locals. I am very dubious of the Queen's polls saying things like 70% approval. A dear friend of mine does social work and volunteering with inmates and was telling me how all their families were scared as hell at getting priced out.
pertymcpert 8y ago
NY does not need 25k jobs, it's growing fast. So no, it'll be better off with real tax paying businesses. Maybe they'll start slower, but it won't be a problem. So no, that's NOT the choice to be made. That choice is something you've pulled from nowhere.
null000 8y ago
So if you assume government costs scale linearly per person (which is actually probably opimisic) and then you turn down a bunch of money a company would normally pay as they're bringing in dump trucks of people from out of state, that's a pretty good way to ensure under investment in things like infrastructure and other public needs at best, or the situation where you shove the tax burden on to existing (in this case lower-income on average) residents.

Zecar 8y ago

Corporate welfare is, and always will be, theft.

ProfessorLayton 8y ago

I disagree. Amazon does not have as many choices as it would seem from the outset. Perhaps NYC is no longer going to get an HQ2 with 25k jobs, but Amazon will be expanding there regardless of subsidies. The talent required is not evenly spread throughout the cities that bid on HQ2, and a world-class city like NYC does not need Amazon as much as Amazon needs them.

youdontknowtho 8y ago

That's one way to look at it. Another way would be that only taxing the jobs, and all the economic activity they might generate would still not cover the strain that the company would put on the local system. Now they need to start taxing Wall St. heavily.

jakelazaroff 8y ago

Except it's not really just 25,000 jobs, right? It's increased stress on already struggling infrastructure. It's higher prices and increased gentrification in the same neighborhood that has the largest public housing development in the entire country. It's people who will need mail and emergency services and schools for their kids. All those things cost money. Usually, that money would come from taxing residents and local businesses. But given that we've agreed that the city wouldn't be getting that money, it's not at all clear that those 25,000 jobs would be a good thing.

AlexandrB 8y ago

> Your decision is really between "Do you want 25,000 jobs, or not?" Except that's not the choice either - as others have pointed out. If Amazon doesn't build something in NY, some one else will over the same time period. Will it be more or less than 25,000 jobs? Who knows. But NY is already an attractive metropolitan area judging by its density and property value. It's not a struggling rural town that can't attract talent and capital.

Atheros 8y ago
You make it sound like the city has a throughput of X new jobs per year that it allows to be created. There is no such limit. Without Amazon it's necessarily 25K fewer jobs than there would have been with Amazon.

door5 8y ago

Jobs for whom? Not the vulnerable members of New York, jobs for upper middle class yuppies like you or me or nearly anyone on this site from the rest of the country. People in Queens aren't stupid, they know what the impact of Amazon would be and how it absolutely would not benefit them. And almost certainly because of this struggle, the next City they try and go to isn't going to give them nearly as sweet a deal. They will demand more. Struggles like this are effective.

SpaceManNabs 8y ago
Thanks for saying this. People are forgetting the effect this move was going to have on locals. I am very dubious of the Queen's polls saying things like 70% approval. A dear friend of mine does social work and volunteering with inmates and was telling me how all their families were scared as hell at getting priced out.

pertymcpert 8y ago

NY does not need 25k jobs, it's growing fast. So no, it'll be better off with real tax paying businesses. Maybe they'll start slower, but it won't be a problem. So no, that's NOT the choice to be made. That choice is something you've pulled from nowhere.

null000 8y ago

So if you assume government costs scale linearly per person (which is actually probably opimisic) and then you turn down a bunch of money a company would normally pay as they're bringing in dump trucks of people from out of state, that's a pretty good way to ensure under investment in things like infrastructure and other public needs at best, or the situation where you shove the tax burden on to existing (in this case lower-income on average) residents.