Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the worth-it...for-Amazon dept.

'A Major Distraction': Is A Megadeal Like Amazon's HQ2 Always Worth It?

Thursday marks the deadline for bids in Amazon's highly publicized search for the location of its second headquarters, dubbed HQ2. Cities are clamoring to land the conglomerate's project and its unparalleled promise of up to 50,000 jobs paying an average of $100,000, at one of the world's fastest-growing companies.

But with that comes some public soul-searching: How much should a city or state subsidize a wealthy American corporation in exchange for such a shiny promise? [...] Financial incentives are among numerous criteria Amazon included in its solicitation of bids. [...] By multiple estimates, Amazon has already cashed in on more than $1 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies and incentives for its warehouses, data centers and other operations.

[...] "I often thought, as governor, it would be sort of nice, if all the governors just got together and said, 'Look, we're just not going to play this anymore,' " says former Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle. Doyle was at the helm during the financial crisis in 2008, when General Motors shuttered plants, including a factory in Janesville, Wis. But later, the automaker said it would reopen one location, bringing back the jobs. Wisconsin put together its largest incentive package yet — Doyle says he felt an obligation to — but it lost to Michigan's even bigger offer. [...] Since then, Wisconsin has become infamous for its eye-popping $3-billion financial incentive to get a Foxconn liquid-crystal display plant.

Previously: Amazon to Invest $5 Billion in Second HQ Outside of Seattle
Cities Desperate to Become the Location of Amazon's "Second Headquarters"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @03:12AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @03:12AM (#585089)

    So, after following the link and reading up ...

    ... some of their demands are pretty unrealistic. Amazon moves to a city and property prices don't rise? How the hell would that work?

    As for the "fair share" tax thing, they're directing that letter at the wrong people. It's their city council that they should be screaming at about that one.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @06:01AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @06:01AM (#585127)

    Well, if they don't ask, they have zero chance of getting what they want.

    the "fair share" tax

    It's a sure thing that Amazon's company vehicles and employees' vehicles will put extra demand on the roads.
    Perhaps there will be additional demand put on public transit.
    If the city has publicly-owned water/electricity systems, there will be added demand on those.
    Public employees' time will be needed for building permits, etc.
    There's gonna be an increased demand on inspectors' time.

    Without public infrastructure/services, most businesses wouldn't exist|wouldn't make a profit.
    Modern companies are often parasites in this regard, extracting wealth from the economy but not enhancing the community the way companies did in decades past.

    It's their city council that they should be screaming at

    I don't see your point.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]