Nonetheless, the author doesn't seem to have written much of anything about Elon or his projects in the past couple years, but starting with Elon's media spat in June, he's penned this, and two other articles about him.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/04/elon-musk... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/10/a-great-i...
The article does a good job of illustrating the growing crisis among lower class people. But its framing is suspect.
The employees raise rent and make locals homeless. Landlords often don’t live in the small towns where they own property these days. The employees buy gas and groceries from corporate outlets and shop online. The locals, desperate for low prices, do the same.
Your vision sounds like something my parents would say. I don’t know where you people come from but it sounds incredible.
That's not inherently true. I will concede that it may force people to move to other accommodations that they can afford, but, they're not forcing anyone to be homeless.
> Landlords often don’t live in the small towns where they own property these days.
Maybe not, but, those landlords are paying property taxes locally. The guy who mows the lawns and the guy who unplugs the toilets all live locally. They are creating jobs inside that community and raising the standard of living for everyone.
> The employees buy gas and groceries from corporate outlets and shop online.
Why do you say corporate stores like its a bad thing? Keep in mind, even if you contend that they're moving profit out of the community they are still creating jobs inside that community. Someone needs to stock the shelves, bag the groceries and pump the gas.
Like trailer parks.
> Maybe not, but, those landlords are paying property taxes locally. The guy who mows the lawns and the guy who unplugs the toilets all live locally. They are creating jobs inside that community and raising the standard of living for everyone.
[...]
Why do you say corporate stores like its a bad thing? Keep in mind, even if you contend that they're moving profit out of the community they are still creating jobs inside that community. Someone needs to stock the shelves, bag the groceries and pump the gas.
That seems like a contradiction. Creating jobs is not the ultimate goal, the ultimate goal should be to provide usable public infrastructure.
If you create jobs all you want but at the same time move the profit from those jobs away (because the company stores don't have to pay taxes either) then what exactly is won?
Well, more jobs means more job options, which means better quality of life. Not to imply that it is a net gain, but it is a factor to consider.
You're right though, I hadn't thought of that perspective for the US.
Is that net-tax logic invertible? Can employees exempt themselves from paying taxes if their employer already does so?
I don't get this.
Firstly, aren't most of the taxes they were exempted from at the state level, not the local level?
Secondly, don't the new Tesla employees live in the local communities, pay property taxes on their homes (or by proxy via rentals) and shop and pay sales tax at local merchants?
Finally, while you can for sure say that the tax breaks mean that Nevada is bringing in less tax revenue than they would have if Tesla had built the gigafactory there with 0 tax incentives, I don't see how they are making the case that there are fewer tax dollars coming in.
The one thing I can see is the argument that there are lots of new people living in these communities, and the fact that revenue hasn't increased proportionally is an issue. That seems thin to me as they say Sparks is a community with 100k+ residents and perhaps 1,000 new Tesla/Tesla-adjacent people have moved to the area. A 1% population change should not create a measurable crisis for the public works infrastructure of a city that was already well run.
Ultimately, this reads to me as a hit-piece against Tesla with a thin core of truth: Because Tesla moved in the cost of living has been driven up in the form of higher rents (and perhaps other ancillary things, but, mostly rent/housing). Ultimately, this is entirely disconnected from the premise of the article that the tax breaks are to blame and therefore the entire article comes across as completely disingenuous to me.