Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Is Getting More Than $2 Billion For NYC, Virginia Expansions (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Over the last year, Amazon has dangled in front of cities the possibility that they could host the company's "second headquarters" -- a massive $5 billion facility that would provide 50,000 white-collar jobs. On Tuesday, Amazon confirmed what had been widely reported: nobody would be getting this massive prize. Instead, the expansion would be split in half, with New York City and Arlington, Virginia, (just outside Washington, DC) each getting smaller facilities that will employ around 25,000 people each. Amazon's Seattle offices will continue to be the company's largest and will continue to be Amazon's headquarters by any reasonable definition. But pretending to have three "headquarters" undoubtedly makes it easier for Amazon to coax taxpayer dollars out of local governments. [...] The tactic seems to have worked, as governments in both locations have offered Amazon hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives to locate their new offices there. Virginia officials appear to have driven a harder bargain than their rivals in New York. Amazon says it's getting $1.5 billion in government incentives for its New York expansion, whereas Virginia is offering a comparatively modest $573 million in direct incentives.
Federal Government should tax these 'gifts' from states to companies at 50%.
No, the federal government should use the commerce clause to ban these incentive payments. They are a corruption of free markets, and are a Prisoner's Dilemma. Cities feel obligated to pay up because other cities are doing the same, but we would all be collectively better off if nobody did it. Preventing this kind of destructive race to the bottom is exactly what the commerce clause was designed to prevent.
The incentives are also, arguably, a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Why should Amazon get a sweetheart tax deal that is denied to other businesses?
Much of the rationale for these subsidies is that they "create jobs", which is mostly nonsense. NYC and DC already have very low unemployment, and even lower for people with the skills that Amazon desires. They also have limited housing, limiting the ability of new workers to move in. So Amazon will just suck workers from other companies, rather than creating net new employment, and some of those companies, deprived of their ability to find the workers they need, will move away.
This is a massive scam and the cities in New York and Virginia are going to get anally raped by Amazon. Massive anal rapage. Just wait and see.
First, Amazon will go to Seattle and demand big tax breaks. If Seattle says no, Amazon will threaten to move out and take everything to one of their other locations. Once Amazon squeezes everything they can out of Seattle they'll do the same thing in New York, then they'll do it in Virginia. 100% Guaranteed.
But that's assuming Amazon actually builds these new headquarters. Foxconn is already backpedaling furiously on that factory in Wisconsin. Won't surprise me a bit if Amazon does the same. Once they land all those big juicy tax breaks, all that sweet taxpayer money, the actual number of people Amazon hires will keep going lower and lower.
50,000 people? 50,000 "high paying white collar jobs"? Doing what? What could Amazon possibly need an extra 50,000 people for? That's an extra $5 Billion a year in salaries, at least, probably more. On top of construction costs. For what?
Something smells.
And here's a thought: If the economy is as great as Republicans claim, if wages are up, as claimed, if unemployment is at an all time low, as claimed, why are cities so eager to throw Billions of dollars at Amazon, or Foxconn or any company that promises to create a few jobs?
"Alexa, buy 55 gallon drum of lube!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Run for Senate. Seriously.
You don't understand politics.
In the 2016 presidential election there were two candidates in favor of corporate welfare, Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. Between the two of them, they got 94% of the vote.
There were two candidates opposed to corporate welfare, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Between the two of them, they got 4% of the vote.
Bill De Blasio and Andrew Cuomo are offering up these subsidies precisely because they are popular and win votes.
It is not the best policy that wins. It is the best policy that fits on a bumper sticker.