Slashdot Mirror
Google Sought To Hide Political Dealmaking
A blog entry by Michael Kanellos at ZDNet links to and expands upon an article in the Charlotte Observer. Last year Google was apparently throwing its weight around in North Carolina, seeking tax breaks from state and local legislators. When the company didn't get what it wanted pressure was brought to bear on legislative aides, journalists, and politicians. The search giant was especially touchy about keeping the negotiations secret: "Executives didn't want anybody even to mention the company's name for fear that competitors could learn of its plans. Most involved with the negotiations were required to sign nondisclosure agreements ... That posed challenges for elected officials, charged with conducting the public's business in the open. As the tax measure wended its way through the legislature, some lawmakers began linking it to Google." The results of this deal are extremely lucrative for both sides. Google brought some $600 million in investment and as many as 200 jobs to the state, and legislation enacted with Google's help is projected to save the company some $89 million in taxes over 30 years.
Can we just all agree that Google is about as evil as the average corporation now? Or do some of you still believe that Google really is above the rest morally?
Philosophy.
Results 0 - 0 for search "backhander"
Did you mean to search for "Tax evasion"?
liqbase
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=google+corr uption
p tion
About 5.8 million hits.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=google+corru
About 2.9 million hits.
And they don't censure results, either.
The blog accuses Google of "[trying] to browbeat lawmakers".
But the article simply states that Google, in negotiating with NC and six other states, asked for confidentiality.
Ultimately, Google chose NC. Presumably, NC offered the best tax breaks to support 200 new jobs.
The blogger even says "Tax breaks actually are not that unusual."
So where is the evil?
As far as I'm aware the Microsoft tax "contribution" to the US from raising a global tax on computing is pretty damn close to zero, so I can't see why Google can't manufacture a similar deal.
That's the sign of big business: getting the rules changed for you..
For 200 jobs.. I'm sure this will stimulate the economy in NC into an orgasmic frenzy of uncontrolled capitalism and exploding growth. Google has no concern at all for the social well being of the residents of NC, that part is plainly obvious. One can only hope after google is firmly established in the state and construction is complete, the next house of reps will renig on this lousy deal and raise taxes the bastards at google. You think the social welfare benefits and public services in this state are free? Fucking hell they are.
"The results of this deal are extremely lucrative for both sides. Google brought some $600 million in investment and as many as 200 jobs to the state, and legislation enacted with Google's help is projected to save the company some $89 million in taxes over 30 years."
Lets see, NC gets $600 Million investment that could have gone elsewhere, 200 odd new jobs (and tax revenue from employee's) that also could have gone elsewhere and it just cost them $89 million tax revenue over 30 years, tax revenue that they would probably not have got if they had not done the deal.
Sounds like NC got the better end of the deal by a long margin
The secrecy and nondisclosure agreements are pretty standard, for reasons that are obvious if you give it two minutes worth of consideration
Do no evil!!!! Unless you're in china or in politics, cuz then you're just trying to fit in. Right? Right?
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
This is just standard buisness practice. States compete to attract large companies with jobs and those large companies do their best to cut good deals for them.
There is nothing even slightly unethical about this. One might argue that such a system is undesierable as it gives large companies an advantage over small companies, and their is some truth to that, but on the other hand large companies may have requirements that aren't easily dealt with in non-negotiated ways.
So I certainly see an argument for the federal government outlawing states from making deals with companies to attract them (some sorts of tax breaks are already forbidden) google certainaly didn't do anything immoral by using the same system that everyone else does. I mean that's like arguing your a bad person for taking advantage of Bush's tax breaks just because you voted against them.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
The problem with open-source search engines is that it's not really an open-source venture, but a hardware venture.
You are gathering information, which needs storage, and you need huge amounts of bandwidth and processing power. The actual algorithm is rather unimportant in that context.
So while it might be interesting to see corporations and universities team up to create a search engine, it is questionable if the costs are worth it.
What would you say is the advantage of an open search engine, other than having a competitor to Google (and there's still Yahoo, MSN, Ask.com for that)?
"Writing apps to rank and sort web pages strikes me as the type of problem that a lot of smart people would find a lot of fun."
Your at least a decade too late, the ship has sailed and it's called google.
"Yeah, the shine's definitely gone off Google, eh? at the rate google (and yahoo) are swallowing up other sites there's going to be some major monopolising going on."
Playing one state of against another is just the regular kind of "evil" found in all big-bussiness, big-bussiness don't pay tax bills like ordinary folk, they negotiate thier tax bill (global corporatization on a smaller scale). Google are paying tax and staying in the US. The politicians did thier job by attracting a large corporate to thier turf and getting gauranteed revenue for 30yrs plus all the spin-off effects on the economy, what more do you want?
Attacking google for this behaviour is like kicking the cat after a bad day, if you want to attack "evil" there are plenty of targets, corporations that lay the planet to waste and supply waring tribes with modern weapons. They destroy lives and feed from the public trough rather than create meaningfull employment and a nice pot of tax money. OTOH: "Kick the cat" often enough and it will scratch your eyes out while your sleeping.
Evil is as evil does - Gump.
The state where I live (not part of the US) built a power plant specifically for an Aluminium smelter, gaurenteed cheap dirty (and drit cheap) electricity for 30yrs or so. They also built a massive sewer to take the waste from a large paper mill and dump it in the ocean and called it a "green project" to rehabilitate the river the mill had already killed. The mill threatened to move overseas/interstate if it had to spend money and went so far as to infiltrate "enemy" community groups in order to discredit them. The crap these places spew and the fairy tale propoganda they use to justify it, is IMHO "evil", but try telling that to anyone who's livelyhood depends on it. Try telling the guy at the nuclear missle plant or the biological warfare lab that his work is "evil" and he will claim he is "preseving freedom" or some such rationalization, to him the thought of not planning for nuclear war is "evil".
I get kind of sick of the "we caught google being evil" shit that accompanies so many articles, it's not like they are claiming they have God on their side or that anyone else is "evil". Here in Australia we have some odd expressions, the one that fits google on slashdot is Tall poppy syndrome.
Disclaimer: "you" - not picking on "you" personally, just the general sociopathic pendantry that surround google's brilliantly provocative slogan.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
When you make any sort of investment, like buying insurance or a retirement plan, you don't ask how evil the corporations are. All you want is the biggest return for the lowest price, which means the portfolios that will make your investment will be composed of stock from the companies with biggest profit.
Thank you for many of you to point out, that "this is just stndard business practice."
Evil starts with "standard business practice", doesn't it?
Governments, financed by public money, should be transparent and accountable to the public at all cost, without a very few exception.
Corporate interest would not be one of those exceptions.
In fact, any "standard business practice", which is trying to deform this basic political principal should be refused, reported to criminal investigation.
Attempting to corrupt the political system should trigger the ultimate capital punishment for corporate violators.
Given that they are building a giant data center on the Colombia River to take advantage of cheap (but not cheap on the environment) hydro power I propose the following new slogan something along the lines of the following:
"Download a movie (YouTube), kill a salmon."
Perhaps someone else could make it catchier, but you get the idea.
In Capitalist North Carolina officials laugh as Googles legislation explained to you after vote.
In Soviet Union lucrative new North Carolina potassium agreement explained to you!
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
>>"...at the rate google (and yahoo) are swallowing up other sites there's going to be some major monopolising going on."
Big doesn't equal evil monopoly, unless Google buys every search site on the planet a-n-d acts to stop new competitors from entering the market.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
As a resident of "Carlotte", North Carolina my entire 25 years on this Earth, I gotta let you in on a secret; we named it Charlotte. What is this "Carlotte" you speak of? ;p
Aw Frell this
Sadly, this is pretty normal these days, and I don't blame Google for doing it. They have to look out for their share holders, and that involves saving money when reasonable. I only partially blame the state, since if NC didn't do this, another state would and the jobs would go that way too, making NC a worse place for their residents. But the sad thing is that small businesses are just now getting their tax bills for the year from their counties (yes, for the privilege of having a file cabinet in my office, I owe the county more money). And the tax breaks that the big businesses get are basically discrimination against smaller businesses and anti-competitive.
We are raising barriers of entry into every large industry we create. I don't think that it's up to the states to fix this, but the federal level should pass a law banning these anti-competitive practices. No city, county, or state should have the right to change taxes on one group in such a way that it discourages competition. We should implement this similar to anti-discrimination laws that we already have to minimize the impact on the local governments right to raise money.
That is, wind as in "winding road" as opposed to "tilting at windmills"?
Here is why financing jobs with tax(break) money is evil:
1) large corporation "buys" hundreds of new empoyees to create wealth, increase profit for the sole benefit of the corporation ("yes, but they create jobs, don't they?" Corporations need those new employees to achieve their goals, employment for corporations is like any other commodities "human resources", like "financial or natural resources", needed to run the business, it's a side-affect, that "human resources" happen to be voters in the political system, in fact, that's the only reason why they have the value to bargain for tax break, but the corporation will let "human resources" go in a moment, when they are not needed, just like dropping an order for new supply of raw material)
2) public is financing the purchase of increased profitability
3) corporation gets larger, wealthier, with the help of the public
4) larger, wealthier corporation uses its power to get further brakes, special treatment, even influencing legislation, for a simple goal: to avoid or minimize paying tax, in other word: to support the public
5) The very same public, which supported, financed them at the first place with tax(breaks) to become large, wealthy and powerful
6) and to become the loudest advocate of the "power of free market", "less government", "no subsidies", etc.
Disappointing.
corporations are corporations; expecting one to be nice is like asking a hyena to be gentle. It's just in their DNA.]
what is surprising (or perhaps not, given human intelligence) is that people fall for the were just a couple guys interested in [insert technology here] and not really greedy corporate monsters schtick over and over anover.
dollars to donuts, the same thing will happen again with the next google
Some capitalists believe taxes are evil.
/me ducks and runs away.
So Google, by trying to pay as little tax as possible, are trying to do less evil.
Google is in business. In order to remain competitive Google must take advantage of all incentives available to business in deciding where to locate. The competition certainly will and next thing you know we'll be reading about how Google failed in it's responsibility to it's stock holders. Evil stock holders like your pension fund and your insurance company which are NECESSARILY EVIL because they do not have the power of TAXATION. Next thing you know people will be complaining that Google AND Exxon should be paying windfall profit taxes. It's not like people NEED Google any less than the NEED gasoline. Hell, how are they gonna know where to drive their SUVs. You guys should walk a block in my Birks and try to find a place to park the VOLVO at the mall. mmmm...chinese chicken....mmmm HOLD THE FsCKING ACCENT!
I don't think so. $600 million, divided by 30 years, divided by 200 jobs = $100,000 per job per year.
Why not just give $100,000 a year to 200 people and cut out the middleman?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
...and just about every company on the planet does it in one form or the other and it's not that bad as long as it's done within reason and this doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. I think it's worth pointing out that this type of behavior is no different than negotiating a lease, in fact I'd say these deals are a necessity in some places of the US given the taxes and regulations that companies have to put up with. I'm all for moderate regulation and a reasonable tax on business, but this is the type of thing (high taxes) that drives companies to do this type of deal making. If states and counties got their taxes under control then this would become less common place.
In the end, high taxes, over regulation and unwillingness to soften those issues are what's going to drive more business out of a particular state, county, or even country because otherwise it's hard to compete when your competition has lower costs than you.
-c
Sheesh, I can't believe the comments about this, that it's somehow damaging to Democracy. This sort of thing helps Deomcracy!
One of the unique things about the United States, and a very underrated aspect that helps strengthen our economy, is the fact that we have so many states with separate governments that compete with one another. When The People (read: business) have the opportunity to negotiate directly with governments, it helps keep them in line to not create punitive and damaging (and greed) tax laws.
"Corporations" are not alive. They represent real people. This was a win for The People against oppressive government taxation.
Disclaimer: I am NOT a Libertarian. Yes, government does have a role in regulation capitalism. But it's critical that government also be regulated.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
They should change it to: "don't get caught being evil"
What happened to "do no evil"? That $89 million they'd have paid NC in taxes could go toward any number of good things -- schools, roads, etc. What Google should have asked for in this case was some input on how their $89 million in tax money was spent.
blog |
Surely Zonk means the Charlotte . The Carlotte Observer which is a trade newspaper for used car dealers.
Google, meet Evil.
Or perhaps more accurately, "Google, meet Hypocrisy."
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
My gut reaction to this is, "yep, just as expected, now that they have shareholders, 'evil' is a sliding scale."
However, $600M in investment, and 200 Jobs, in exchange for $89M dollars, over 30years. That balance to me does not seem evil at all. ($89 million dollars? Over 30 years?)
I agree with the other posters, the evil here is the NDA. And it makes me wonder, since no one signs an NDA over $3M/yr in tax breaks, what was really being negotiated? Or is it that the jobs are are puppy killers?
$3M per year for a company w/ capitalization of 147.41B is not a big break. Given the fact that the state will benefit from the presence of Google, I would state that this is a win-win situation.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Elton John helps raise money for Gore
September 20, 2000
Web posted at: 9:40 AM EDT (1340 GMT)
ATHERTON, Calif. (Reuters) - Flamboyant rock star Elton John, making his first foray into American politics after three decades of performing in the United States, endorsed Vice President Al Gore at a ritzy Silicon Valley fund-raiser.
John, the entertainer at a $10,000-a-plate dinner Tuesday, began his set with "Your Song." But before his next number, he showed his political stripes to the business leaders of America's technological mecca...
The fund-raiser, at the home of Novell Corp. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, raised $3.25 million for the Democratic National Committee...
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/0
Dr. Eric Schmidt
Chairman of the Executive Committee and Chief Executive Officer
Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin recruited Eric Schmidt from Novell, where he led that company's strategic planning, management and technology development as chairman and CEO...
http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html#eric
Hi, welcome to America. About 75 years ago, we decided that basic civics was too hard to figure out/keep on top of. We changed things around a bit so that now "the business of America is business" and that government's job is figure out inventive ways to move money from the tax base into the revenue column of a couple hundred corporations.
This makes civics a lot easier; instead of discussing things like "rights" and government's "mandate" or "powers", you just have to ask whether companies like X in order to determine whether X is good and represents the American Way of Life (TM)
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
What Google did here was to say that they did not want their competition to find out the deal. Once they do, they will want it as good or better. In fact, it is in the state's best interest to not tell either. That way, they can encourage somebody like yahoo to come in, but with less incentives. The evil comes in when you use your weight against them. For example, if Google was to say to NC that if you do not give us a good deal, we will rate other states above yours (or even to imply it). That is how MS (and to a degree yahoo) has operated. That is what evil is. But a simple negotiation is not evil.
As to operating in a backroom approach, well, that goes on ALL the time. Nearly every company does that with states when they are seeking to come to the state. In fact, I would not be surprised if NC approached Google first, and they kept it quiet. Now, if the deal is kept quiet after the fact, or is not released prior to the congressional vote, that becomes an issue. But the article does not say (or even imply) that.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
How do we define what is "morally right" for corporations?
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
The beauty of open source for corporations is that someone else spends much or even all of the capital for development. Instead of IBM having to outlay the capital to develop linux in order to sell services, they can simply provide services. Companies like RedHat invests in linux development as a loss leader so that they can sell assorted linux services while maintaining a competitively advantageous position in the market. But the point is that someone, somewhere is paying for development.
Do you have the same reaction? Why or why not?
I don't think it is evil for a corporation to make the best deal it can. The article left out a very important figure. How much tax will Google be paying over the next 30 years? North Carolina is not giving Google money, Google will just be paying less than if they moved there without negotiating tax breaks. With today's technology, a corporation can locate in any state. So just like businesses compete for customers, governments need to compete to attract businesses. North Carolina will be getting taxes from Google, income tax from Google's employees, sales taxes from Google and their employees doing business in NC and so on. It will definitely be a large net gain for North Carolina.
The non-disclosure statements don't bother me unless they violated any state sunshine laws. When a business deal is made, it's between the parties involved. Like Ludacris says "Stay outta my biznass."
(BTW the article is not clear if 100 million is the maximum amount of tax breaks or if it is 89 million in breaks plus up to 100 million more.)
>That posed challenges for elected officials, charged with conducting the public's business in the open.
The only real challenge that they worry about is the public finding out about the backroom deals. Violating state ethics and disclosure laws doesn't worry your average politician one little bit.
A lot of companies do this. Look at some of the recently opened car plants (as oposed to the closed ones). They all negotiated sweetheart deals with the state and local governments.
The real scandal here is that they can do this at all. Why should corporations be allowed to negotiate taxes? Can individuals do that? "Hello, state! I am thinking of moving to your state and being productively employed! And some of the money I make will be spent in the local economy! Promise! I will do so if you cut me some slack on property taxes and state income taxes!"
You'd get laughed at. Scale? so what, could 200 independent single individuals do the same? Nope. But a corporation can.
The same with those land seizures. XYZ corp wants to put in an import*mart or golf course, the local government seizes some poor guys land, forces him to move or close his business, so the bigger corp can put their crap there. Nuts. Does the opposite ever happen? "Hiya state! I want you to seize this local golf course/stripmall/sports stadium for me. I will bulldoze out all the lamer energy hog neon sign enhanced buildings and ugly crap in the way, and then plow it up at my expense with my tractor and make free community gardens, saving local consumers millions a year with the grocery bill". Go ahead, try to do something like that, see what happens.
It is not "getting to the point", it is well past the point that governments exist to cater to large corporations for the most part. "Hiya largest government! I have a problem" You see, I have been in the entertainment redistribution business for generations. It was costly to do this, every copy cost a lot of money to reproduce and distribute, but we did it and made a lot of profit. Unfortunately recent technological advances have made this sort of business almost completely obsolete, which threatens our bottom line. It is now technically possible to do what we did in the past 100 to 1000 times cheaper, and get the product to the consumer. But we are so used to making so much net profit a "unit" for our products that we can't allow this dangerous replicator technology out there without severe restrictions on the consumers, else we would lose our traditional profit structure, and we certainly couldn't charge the 2 cents a unit that would be possible now..it's UnAmerican! So please pass laws that force our business model to stay in place in perpetuity. Oh, and we need to extend the limits on this "IP" stuff as well, after all, even with the tech restrictions, we want todo this forever! We'll get back to you once that time limit approaches again, and we'll extend it even further! Thanks! Oh ya, here's some completely unrelated huge bags of cash, just an amazing coincidence that we are handing this to you, really, no strings attached!"
It is not a big deal if Negotiations are done quietly. The problem comes in, when taxbreaks or laws are passed, but are hidden, or when pressure is brought by other politicians (W/Cheney WRT Halliburton and the iraqi invasion). From reading the article, it does not sound like Google was asking them to pass laws, taxbreaks in secret, just the negotiation of such.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
NC didn't have to pass all this sweetheart legislation, and Google didn't have to put a data center in NC. Apparently, the state legislature felt it was worth the loss in tax revenue they'll see as a result of this deal in order to get Google into their state. Why is this even an issue? There's no extortion here. If NC didn't want to do this, some other state may have. If I'm looking to put a data center in the mid-atlantic region, I'm going to ask NC, SC, VA, MD, etc., what can you do for me? Why is that bad?
When does this happen in the movie?
... mod this person down, surely he is attacking our dear Goog (its name is not worthy to be spoken out loud in our mouths) ! We cannot permit anyone to speak bad about Goog (its name is not worthy to be spoken out loud in our mouths). I say, let's ready the stake and bring out the gasoline !
Or, ofcourse, just mod him down like you always do, good followers of Goog (its name is not worthy to be spoken out loud in our mouths). (bows)
There's at least one prototype open-source search engine. It's called YaCy (pronounced like "ya see"), and it works without a centralized server. They call it a p2p web search. Honestly I don't see how it could function without any central server at all, but I don't know much about the nuts and bolts of p2p.
There's a lot to like about this kind of search (transparency, uncensorability) but queries are said to take much longer than they do at google. I can't give a personal account; I tried to install it but I couldn't get it to work.
Scanning the posts so far, I haven't seen the view rebutted that the deal itself is not bad for the "common good" that should be government's aim.
In summary, that the short-term construction work generated combined with the 200 (and probably growing, that's a good bet) permanent job count, will gain the economy in general and the government coffers in particular, more than $89M/30y tax expenditure.
Whereas the "evil" seems to lie entirely in the deal having been cut outside public view. Like about half the deals any government does involving public funds, if they involve a new business arrangement.
The government should do as little as possible outside public view, and nothing outside public REVIEW, very preferably review before the next election, but that level of disclosure seems to be met here. As soon as the deal was cut and could be disclosed without compromising google's strategy to its business competitors, it was.
If the citizens the politicos are working for don't like the deal, they can be fired, and the next bunch thereby warned not to take even good deals that will improve the state, if they involve an NDA for even temporary secrecy.
I doubt they will.
Dude, you're getting a Google! :)
Yeah...
The word "evil" means different things to different people.
That's a fact.
Phrases like "Do no evil" are designed to endear one's self to others, but don't actually say anything useful.
You still don't get it!
What?
First of all, who cares?
I care about what Google does in terms of technology: supporting open source, open formats, and so on.
Anything that has to to with stock markets, tax breaks and such....not so much.
If Google forces its partners into a corner like the 'others' do or it does things to make life harder on their users, I might care.
Its like the China storyline: people want to push their own political agenda and are pissed off when other people dont. If Google wants to support Hugo Chavez, good for them but you know the stringent sets will whine and bitch as well.
In terms of technology, Microsoft and Apple are more 'evil' because of the way they treat they clients, how they limit their choices based on their profit margin, not technology.
Though the "corporations" represent real people, they do not represent "The People". They represent a select group of The People that happened to invest in that particular corporation. On the other hand governements aren't alive either and the government does represent "The People" (though they may not do this as well as some may like, they represent "The People" better than any one corporation). So actually this is a win for a select group of people who invested in Google against The People and thus evil. Though anybody who actually believed Google would do no evil just because they said so need to stop drinking the kool-aid. Public corporations are required by law to try and make money, even if they must be "evil" to do it.
negative expose' articles about Microsoft's back-room deals, extortions and payoff?
Cat got your tongue, or are you adicted to Microsoft's ad money?
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Laborers are providing income -- they're doing the work, and they're paying the income tax. This game that people have bought in to that companies don't have to pay their fare share because they have employees is just asinine. Google requires roads. Google requires regulated utilities. Google requires police protection of their property.
Just like the rest of us, Google should pay taxes.
Governments need to toughen up, and stop undermining the legislative process by making exceptions and deals for individual parties. It isn't ethical, it isn't fair, and it's a foolish race to the bottom.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
That's a brilliant idea indeed.
Actually in that case I'm wrong, and algorithms do matter.
Hm, maybe I should have gone into P2P research after all (distributed systems etc.).
It probably already is. The interns and job applicants see the blazing, "Don't Be Evil" signs on the walls. Only after they make management would they learn the real motto, the unwritten rule.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
So Link is a farm boy. What does Twilight Princess have to do with anything?
Look at www.kresko.com, a domain that I was interested in a few years ago. Kresko is Esperanto for growth. Does that page have anything to do with growth? Is it related to anything at all?I visited kresko.com and got gardening links. How does your garden grow?
The only important difference between squatter pages and link-farm pages is that the squatter pages don't poison search engine algorithms.Unless Google can detect that a page is a squatter page and internally applies rel="nofollow".
I live in NC and its been slowly evolving to an anti business stance for a while. When FedEx wanted to build a new cargo hub in the Triad, the homeowners fought it. When Dell built a center in the Triad they got hundreds of millions of dollars in tax abatements then cut the number of projected new jobs in half. The local governments are now suing them to get ALL the abatements back even if it means Dell closes up shop. NC, which is, or I guess used to be the #3 state for the motion picture industry now wants to place all kinds of restrictions on that industry in order to squeeze more money out of them. Now Google...
Ok what you have to understand about NC is that first and foremost the grassroots movement to eliminate property taxes of all kinds is very strong. This is the home of the John Locke foundation and anything that smacks of corporate benefits before homeowners is fought. So these folks would prefer if there was no business at all in NC if it means those businesses get tax breaks that they feel would be borne by homeowners.
NC killed its own furniture industry, its own textile industry and is working to kill the tech industries and health science, biomedical science industries too. I think what they ultimately want for NC is to have an economy based entirely on selling real estate and insurance to each other, and Wal*Mart and Home Depot.
In Soviet Russia, you don't disclose deals to the government.
In Capitalist America, Government deals non-disclosed to you!
Google has never been any better or worse than the average corporation. They are, after all a corporation with all the intrinsic qualities. For more on intrinsic qualities of a corporation see "The Corporation" one of the best documentaries in many years.
Their mottos and slogans are nothing more than marketing platitudes designed first of all to defend and protect their business plan.
http://thecorporation.com/
Sounds like Google played the same game as all the others. For every significant new facility, there's a game of secrecy and of squeezing the most free land, tax abatements, etc. from each state/locality by playing them off of each other. This is neither new nor unusual; it's the way "economic development" works and has worked for decades. What can be done? Nothing short of federal intervention. There is no way that any effective systematic state or local legislation can be passed because the incentive to individual states to cheat on interstate agreements is too high. Unfortunately, Congress and the Executive branch are even more owned by corporations, so federal laws limiting greenmail are unlikely to be passed. The worst problem is not with Googles, auto factories, or even retail or call centers, but with warehouses -- "distribution centers." They employ very few at low wages, don't raise (actually lower) educational levels, eat huge quantities of real estate that could be used for production or housing or left "undeveloped," and add to the congestion and pollution problems at their location. Why do these things ever get any "incentives"? I sure don't know, but they do.
...well, some of us are here by choice.
IT (especially when connected to R&D or rapidly changing environments) can be as dynamic or encompass disciplines one would normally associate with engineering.
Don't lump us all in together, man.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
If corporations and governments really wanted to be open about this, they'd use Ebay.
L@@K Multibilliondollar company branch office, top brand name, 200 highpaid jobs, 30yr guaranteed contract!
[Bid] [Buy it now: $89m tax breaks over 30yrs]