Re:NY state tax break is $48k per Amazon HQ job
by smsm42 on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @04:08AM
(#18492656)
> The class of beneficiaries has only one member.
That's not true - a lot of companies get such kind of deals, all the time. Some even mentioned in this thread.
> If carpool lanes were built for the exclusive use of Patrick Stewart, widely loved though he may be, as an inducement to live in California
If Patrick Steward would bring California several billions in income by living there, then maybe giving him private lane would be a good deal.
> Social change is hard, it doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.
It's worth discussing, but nobody would listen to a proposal for reducing government economic meddling. Everybody love to pile on Amazon and such, but when they go to vote, they ask politicians "bring us jobs". How do you think that would look like? It looks like this - politicians hustle so they can say they brought jobs. In the next election the New York mayor - if Amazon thing works out - would say to his opponent "ok, I brought X thousands of jobs and Y billions of income to New York, here's the list of deals I arranged. What did you do for New York?". And the electorate would listen and support that. So how could they not do it?
> But if that's the incentive that happens to dominate the news it will frame the conversation.
That's the problem. The government meddling happens all the time, but we only discuss it in "outrage of the day" format. But in this format it can never be fixed. Even if somehow enough people become outraged that the deal falls through - Amazon has a long line of mayors willing to do the same. And vast majority of people outside of the "outrage of the day" format think that's exactly what the government is supposed to do. So what's the point of being outraged here? Nothing would change, because that's what people want!
That's not true - a lot of companies get such kind of deals, all the time. Some even mentioned in this thread.
> If carpool lanes were built for the exclusive use of Patrick Stewart, widely loved though he may be, as an inducement to live in California
If Patrick Steward would bring California several billions in income by living there, then maybe giving him private lane would be a good deal.
> Social change is hard, it doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.
It's worth discussing, but nobody would listen to a proposal for reducing government economic meddling. Everybody love to pile on Amazon and such, but when they go to vote, they ask politicians "bring us jobs". How do you think that would look like? It looks like this - politicians hustle so they can say they brought jobs. In the next election the New York mayor - if Amazon thing works out - would say to his opponent "ok, I brought X thousands of jobs and Y billions of income to New York, here's the list of deals I arranged. What did you do for New York?". And the electorate would listen and support that. So how could they not do it?
> But if that's the incentive that happens to dominate the news it will frame the conversation.
That's the problem. The government meddling happens all the time, but we only discuss it in "outrage of the day" format. But in this format it can never be fixed. Even if somehow enough people become outraged that the deal falls through - Amazon has a long line of mayors willing to do the same. And vast majority of people outside of the "outrage of the day" format think that's exactly what the government is supposed to do. So what's the point of being outraged here? Nothing would change, because that's what people want!