Amazon’s HQ2 Spectacle Should Be Illegal

Re:Amazon’s HQ2 Spectacle Should Be Illegal by matt4077 on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @05:35PM (#18445575)

Ruinous is not "the quality of having led to the ruin of a specific entity". Rather, it is defined as follows:

disastrous or destructive: a ruinous effect on the environment. • costing far more than can be afforded: the cost of their ransom might be ruinous.

I think it's pretty obvious what's being destroyed: the ability of local jurisdiction to collect tax revenue from large cooperations. Without this little beauty pageant of ugly capitalism, Amazon would still hire the same number of new employees, possibly even in the same locations. Only difference is that a billion $ could be invested in public goods, instead of going Amazon shareholders'.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon’s HQ2 Spectacle Should Be Illegal by chrisseaton on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @05:40PM (#18445603)

The cities who bid obviously did a calculation and decided that it was net worth it... otherwise why on earth do you think they did it?

And it's not a zero-sum game. Perhaps a better proposition from a city makes a more productive Amazon? We're talking about efficient transport and things here, after all.

Your approach is let everyone make things equally as bad and let Amazon pick any of the worst. Amazon's approach is 'what can cities do to help us maximise both our success and yours?'

I think it's positive and constructive.

[ Parent | on HN ]