I’m sympathetic to that view. Anyone who can bring as many jobs of that much value should be welcome. Not Amazon alone. If you can bring 25k employees at an average wage of $109k, we’ll be happy to have you. I’m even all right with some sliding scale with a reasonable minimum.

If You’re afraid of public officials gambling with private money, force referenda.

>Anyone who can bring as many jobs of that much value should be welcome.

i'm curious why a 10 employee company with the same $109K wouldn't be eligible for the same tax breaks, etc.?

Foxconn is getting from Wisconsin close to $300K per each of 50K/year job ($4B for 13K jobs). Why such a perk isn't available to a 10 or 100 employee company?

Interesting that be it red or blue state/government when it comes to Big Business both are completely overpowered and taking the position of full submission. And that is why laws limiting such overpowering are needed. It isn't laws limiting the power of local/state government, it is laws limiting the power of Big Business in dealing with local/state government, i.e. limiting the perks/breaks Amazon/Foxconn can extract from a government.

Because the benefits don’t scale down. For a 25k person office I’m looking at revitalization of my city’s downtown, support restaurants, etc. Through scale they’re actually creating a lot of value. If a ten-man team comes to town no new restaurants will result. So you can’t get the same gain.

while the [non]scaling of benefits argument does have a lot of merits in theory, to show that it isn't the primary reason on practice : imagine that the 10-man team comes to town simultaneously with Amazon, then it is kind of obvious that addition of their $109K salaries would provide proportionally the same benefits as those Amazon salaries. Yet that 10-man team would still not get the same tax breaks/etc. Because the benefits are _forced_ from the government by Amazon for Amazon, and not _given_ by the government to the businesses satisfying some criteria of being beneficial for the locality.