The obvious analysis from this article is that at the margin (i.e. what actually drives decisions) is that none of these incentives are going to be enough to ma

The obvious analysis from this article is that at the margin (i.e. what actually drives decisions) is that none of these incentives are going to be enough to materially influence a decision to relocate or even to relocate to a specific jurisdiction (vs another with a lesser/differing incentive). One inconvenient fact about these high paid tech workers is that they're highly paid - that means the value of each dollar to them is relatively less. If you're already making 200k a year, adding another 12k in benefits is much less significant than if you're making 80k. This is especially true when you consider the certain costs of relocation (Geo-based pay cut, moving costs) as well as the probabilistic ones (less career growth, fewer potential future employers). So I guess the conclusion is that these policies are actually not very good since they're almost certainly not the main driver of relocation. In the case of Tulsa it looks like it's being funded by a private foundation but in other jurisdictions this amounts to local taxpayers paying newcomers money to do something they were already going to do.