News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Amazon to Build Second HQ in North America by Geekette on Thursday September 07, 2017 @12:48PM (#15193570)
I've read in the past of how such deals (of factory/office X choosing to open location Y based on tax incentives) ultimately not benefiting the city involved, especially when the companies pull tactics like closing unexpectedly shortly after receiving incentives and moving elsewhere. Given this, I'm fairly sure that a wide-ranging study of such infrastructural deals would show that many (most?) communities involved are left at a net loss financially.
Re:Amazon to Build Second HQ in North America by Animats on Thursday September 07, 2017 @01:26PM (#15193932)
Most such deals are a net loss for the community. Some of the bad ones have been for data centers, which employ very few people. Neither do manufacturing plants, which just don't need that many people.
Re:Amazon to Build Second HQ in North America by Pxtl on Thursday September 07, 2017 @03:43PM (#15195062)
Warehouses employ lots of people but they're the shittiest of jobs.
Re:Amazon to Build Second HQ in North America by kamaal on Friday September 08, 2017 @06:52AM (#15199273)
Its not realistically possible by very definition to scale high quality jobs with quantity.
Re:Amazon to Build Second HQ in North America by lend000 on Thursday September 07, 2017 @01:22PM (#15193893)
I believe you're thinking of taxpayer funded sporting events, e.g. NFL stadiums and Olympic games. There's a big difference between that and a legitimate business.
Re:Amazon to Build Second HQ in North America by Geekette on Thursday September 07, 2017 @01:34PM (#15194020)
Nope, I was actually thinking of businesses e.g. automotive brands opening assembly/manufacturing plants.