18 ms·
What's funny is she (and many other critics) specifically called out that all it would take is a single bad quarters for all those HQ jobs to evaporate and they
by spamizbad 3y ago
What's funny is she (and many other critics) specifically called out that all it would take is a single bad quarters for all those HQ jobs to evaporate and they were right.
- nine_zeros 3y agoCorporate tax benefits should be tied to the number of payroll they have in that location in the quarter.
- Aunche 3y agoFrom I understand, this is already the case for all these sort of incentive.
- knallfrosch 3y agoIt's mentioned in the article, even with exact numbers. What's the point of discussing this, when people don't read?
- SrslyJosh 3y agoCorporate tax benefits shouldn't exist. The ones that make the news seem to be a corrupt bargain between corporations (which get huge tax breaks that the locality offering them will never recoup) and politicians (who get to campaign on "bringing jobs" or whatever while happily emptying the public coffers to make it happen).
- TuringNYC 3y ago>> What's funny is she (and many other critics) specifically called out that all it would take is a single bad quarters for all those HQ jobs to evaporate and they were right. Could you elaborate on the argument here -- are you suggesting that if a job has a potential for future loss, it is just better to not create the job at all? If I was mayor, i'd be happy to take a high-paying job in my locality even if it isn't perpetual. The key would be to tie incentives to actual payroll. Subsidy disappears as soon as the job disappears. But guaranteeing perpetual jobs is something no organization can do, not even governments.
- gotoeleven 3y agoI think we should just be proud of her for acknowledging the existence of business cycles.
- mypalmike 3y agoAre you implying that someone who graduated cum laude with a degree in economics and international relations would not understand business cycles?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pempem 3y agoI think we should openly admit 1. that organizations leverage and abuse these breaks 2. that its possible for layoffs to not impact the new teams and buildings pretty easily 3. that a single bad quarter shouldn't lead to layoffs esp from a company that literally is the poster child for not tanking share price when facing losses Its weird to have this subtext or joke that AOC wouldn't understand business cycles. She's not the first or last politician to try and spend money on lasting change.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nemothekid 3y agoIt's very easy to act righteous in hindsight, but she was skewered by the media for even acknowledging the existence of business cycles.
- theturtletalks 3y agoAOC was against the subsidies. No one is stopping Amazon from creating jobs and then then getting rid of them when they hit a downturn. The issue was the subsidies provided and if companies can be held accountable. Virginia paid $750M in subsidies for Amazon HQ2 to bring 2500 high paying jobs in 2023 and Amazon did not reach that goal. They'll probably miss the 2024 mark too. What recourse does Virginia have?
- philwelch 3y agoAll it took was a pandemic, almost all offices in the entire United States closing for periods lasting between months and years, the widespread normalization of remote work as a direct consequence, the migration of tech workers away from high-COL metropolitan hubs, and mass layoffs across the entire tech industry.
- nebula8804 3y agoThis scam that is big-tech wasn't going to last anyway. It takes people outside the bubble to see it.