
NY state tax break is $48k per Amazon HQ job - samfisher83
http://www.fox5ny.com/news/48k-per-amazon-hq-job
======
vdnkh
1) Incentives are not given up front. They are given proportional to the
results Amazon has achieved. Amazon must make a report each year detailing
their progress before any award is given.

2) The city-level incentives are available to any business. State-level
incentives (I think 300m) are not.

3) Amazon has pledged to invest in the local community as part of the deal.
There are plans for an elementary school and tech education center.

4) The NYC tech sector is more diverse than SV. 47% of tech workers in NYC are
immigrants [0]. Is there any evidence supporting the claim that Amazon will
ship in majority groups to displace minorities or immigrants?

5) There is direct investment in tech education for minority groups in the
city [1]. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that they will receive a chunk
of these jobs in the future. If you support increased diversity in tech, it is
inconsistent in your beliefs to not support 25k more tech jobs in NYC.

6) LIC built almost 2.8k rental units last year. [2] I think they have built
6k this year so far. 28k units were built city-wide last year [3]

Please tell me what about this is bad.

[0] [https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/our-immigrant-
population...](https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/our-immigrant-population-
helps-power-nyc-economy/) [1]
[https://codenation.org/](https://codenation.org/)
[2][https://licpost.com/long-island-city-had-more-housing-
units-...](https://licpost.com/long-island-city-had-more-housing-units-built-
in-2017-than-any-other-nyc-neighborhood-with-biggest-pipeline-of-units-to-
come) [3] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/amenities-war-breaks-out-in-
lon...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/amenities-war-breaks-out-in-long-island-
city-rentals-1519225200)

~~~
fmmow
Tech hasn't been kind to Seattle or SF. Maybe to the people attracted likely
to be filling this jobs, but not to the people in the surrounding areas.

LIC was mostly warehouses at one point and you're right a lot of the new units
are housing for people moving away from Manhattan. But the concern is not just
about LIC; it's about Corona, Astoria, Jackson Heights. These are areas with a
lot of immigrant communities, communities that'll start getting pushed out
once the Amazonians move in.

~~~
cycrutchfield
No, NIMBYs haven't been kind to Seattle or SF. You are attributing the
unkindness to the symptom, not the problem.

~~~
rayiner
The proof of this is what happened elsewhere. the Dallas and Houston metro
areas grew more in _each_ of the last two decades the Bay Area has grown
_total_ since 1980. But prices haven’t skyrocketed because development has
been permitted.

~~~
dmitriy_ko
Why Amazon didn't choose Dallas or Houston?

~~~
cycrutchfield
Not enough local talent, most likely.

------
rb808
This is such a great deal for NYC

As the article says, they give up $1.5B over 10 years, but then get "Projected
incremental tax revenue of more than $10 billion over 20 years."

I dont know where that comes from but the payroll and property taxes paid by
25k employees dwarves the incentives.

The most important part is it cements NYC as the main tech center on the East
Coast. That is invaluable.

EDIT: I wonder if NYC with tax incentives, Amazon would still pay more tax
than regular tax rates in FL, TX.

~~~
CPLX
I beg to differ.

New York City doesn't have a problem attracting jobs. Like not even a little
bit. The idea that this is actually incremental revenue for the city is
extremely debatable.

New York City is a _really_ big place. Midtown is the largest central business
district in the country, and Lower Manhattan is the third largest, after
Chicago. There are 1,700,000 jobs in Manhattan alone and 3,900,000 in New York
City. We're supposed to all bow down before a sixth of a percent change,
spread out over 5-10 years? Really?

There are _single buildings_ in New York City that employ as many as 25,000
people. Back when the twin towers were around they contained 55,000 employees
between them.

JP Morgan Chase is putting about 15,000 employees in their new HQ building,
without a breathless 13 months of coverage. This shit happens all the time.
You could pick any number of random single city blocks in Manhattan with way
over 25,000 jobs.

Amazon needs New York way more than New York needs Amazon. It's the global
center of media, fashion, advertising, finance, and many other categories of
Amazon's business.

This giveaway is a goddamm travesty. How about instead, Cuomo gives me and any
other startup founder who's been in Brooklyn or Queens for decades $48,000 for
every job we've created, and we tell Amazon to go fuck themselves.

~~~
Spooky23
NYC needs more diversity outside of finance.

This potentially puts NYC on top for retail again. I think incentives and
payments for this purpose is a meh idea, it if you’re going to do it, bet on a
winner.

~~~
nerdponx
Imagine giving $48,000 to 25,000 small business owners over 10 years instead.

~~~
zjaffee
They already do this, the excelsior tax break among other community
development incentives are available to any employer that wants to locate in
long island city. Small employers are probably less effective at leveraging
these things, but nothing amazon is getting isn't totally open to the public.

------
metildaa
Perhaps the citizens should object, I hear one of their congress critters is
shitposting on twitter to that end. If the locals don't want their lives
upended by gentrification, Berlin has shown a good example of how to block
uninvited expansion by tech giants: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-45971538](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45971538)

~~~
cycrutchfield
They elected the people that made that decision. If they don't like it, they
can vote them out.

Citing an example of some Berliner NIMBYs is not really helping your argument.

~~~
metildaa
> They elected the people that made that decision. If they don't like it, they
> can vote them out.

It seems you didn't read my prior comment, some of their elected officials are
opposed to Amazon moving in.

> Citing an example of some Berliner NIMBYs is not really helping your
> argument.

It shows how a community can fight back. Much of the change mega-corps bring
to the neighborhoods and cities they set up shop in is not good, current
locals definitely have a right to reject.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _some of their elected officials are opposed to Amazon moving in_

The opposition to an almost-done deal is almost always louder than the
support. Supporters want to keep the _status quo_ , _i.e._ the deal closing.
Opposers want to stop it.

I think this is a good deal. I prefer having Amazon in New York, and I prefer
the billions of extra tax dollars they're going to pay New York City and
Albany versus potentially losing those dollars to another city, state or
country. I'm not making a lot of noise because I think the Mayor and Governor
have it handled.

TL; DR I don't think one can assume popular opposition to this deal.

~~~
Apocryphon
Probably the best way to gauge the support/opposition was to put this deal
into a city-wide referendum to begin with.

~~~
cycrutchfield
How'd that work out in the case of Brexit? Direct democracy is not really the
best way to govern.

~~~
Apocryphon
The distance of separation between a New Yorker and the city government is
magnitudes closer than between a Briton and the EU agencies.

------
pchristensen
[disclosure - I work at Amazon, but have no internal information whatsoever.]

This is over 10 years, so ~$5k/job/yr. For reference, economic development
incentives for corporate relocations are commonly $20k-75k per job, and often
for jobs paying much less than Amazon is expected to pay HQ2.5 employees.
Also, I believe that Amazon will receive tax rebates based on the number of
jobs created over time, which is better than many packages that don't have any
accountability, limits, or clawbacks.

I don't think economic development incentives are a wise use of funds, but
this one is notably only for the scale and publicity. People are so mad
because this the first time most people have heard of the practice.

For more information (and many much worse examples), see the book "The Great
American Jobs Scam" \- [https://www.amazon.com/Great-American-Jobs-Scam-
Corporate/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Great-American-Jobs-Scam-
Corporate/dp/1576753158)

------
chiefalchemist
Let's be clear, the free market this is not.

It's yet another perfect example of government gone wild. It's one thing for
to use taxpayer monies to create jobs and job opportunity (i.e., education).
That's a reasonable expectation within the scope of gov's governing.

However, it's another thing for gov to buy jobs - and thus votes - by
effectively subsidizing some mega-corporation. If Amazon needs money, that's
what Wall Street is for. If Wall Street isn't willing to give Amazon et al
money then that's a red flag and taxpayers should naturally stand clear.

Some might say, "But without such things Amazon would have to raise prices,
and that's not good for consumers." But it's the consumers that paid the
__higher__ taxes to supply the subsidy. The difference is, with the latter
method the gov gets to skim some off the top.

Bottom line: The taxpayer / consumer loses. Politicians and Big Inc win.

~~~
NoblePublius
Literally the opposite. The tax gains out number the tax breaks 3 to 1. Each
one of these $150k jobs will net NY state $13.8k of income tax per year and
(at least) $2500 of sales tax. The tax break per job is $4800 per year (the
$48k figure you may have seen is over ten years).

~~~
jopsen
It's still a race to the bottom. Attracting businesses with tax-exempts is a
zero-sum game.

In the EU we have rules against things like this. As it's considered anti-
competitive behavior.

~~~
bb1234
I believe you mean to say prisoner's dilemma, rather than a zero sum game.

------
avip
In 96', when Apatosaurus still roamed the earth and "Atari" was a thing,
Israel granted Intel 600MM$ to build FAB18 in the desert. Over a decade later,
an official government report concluded that the country lost some 400MM$ on
the move. Bottom line, big-corps can extort states or cities and bid for
ridiculous tax incentives that never pay off. I feel sorry for the residents
of NY and the bad deal imposed on them.

~~~
umanwizard
Trying to understand your position... do you think Israel, a democracy,
shouldn't have been able to decide to make that deal?

Who was Israel harming by making that decision?

Is a deal made freely and with complete information between two parties always
"extortion", if it turns out with the benefit of hindsight not to have turned
out to be in the best interests of one of the parties?

~~~
Fomite
They never said they shouldn't have been able to decide to make that deal -
but rather that they _shouldn 't have made it_. Presumably who was harmed was
Israelis who could have benefitted from a government with more money to spend
elsewhere.

------
ajiang
We should never accept standalone numbers. They are incredibly deceptive and
don't tell the whole story.

1\. What is the return that NY is going to get from increased tax revenue?

2\. What is the time period that $48,000 is going to be "paid out" over?

3\. How many jobs does this bring to NY? What's the average salary of those
jobs?

Context is king, but doesn't make for sensational headlines.

------
gfodor
No opinion on the actual policy, but it infuriates me when the weasel words
"paid for" are used in contexts like this. Giving a company or a person a tax
write-off is not a "cost" to taxpayers, unless you assume a) the alternative
reality was 100% likely and these exemptions had no effect on the final
outcome, which is obviously a positive net revenue expectation, and b) saying
tax reductions are a "cost" to tax payers implies the taxman by default has a
claim on all income and only by the graciousness of politicians do we earn the
right to keep any of it.

------
maaaats
Race to the bottom between states (and governments) to attract big businesses.
Tragedy of the commons.

It's also unfair for the smaller players, they never get the same kind of
treatment.

------
amoitnga
It implies only negative, doesn't it also has a lot of positive to it, like
economic growth?

~~~
praneshp
Well, each NYC resident pays 48000 one time to get back 30000 per year for 10
years is not something that HN would upvote into the front page.

~~~
GhostVII
$48,000 is the cost per job, not the cost per resident.

~~~
qaq
It's not a cost though it's tax break over 10 years and there would be no tax
revenue if NYC didn't get the office in the first place.

~~~
cglace
How do you know other companies wouldn't move in?

~~~
qaq
Did I ever claim others would not move in?

~~~
cglace
"and there would be no tax revenue if NYC didn't get the office in the first
place."

------
britch
It's unclear to me from the article is this a one time cost? Is it yearly?
Monthly?

edit: On reading a bit closer it's over $48,000 per job over 10 years.

~~~
noer
One time cost paid over 10 years, IIRC

~~~
AlimJaffer
This doesn't necessarily sound terrible? If most of the jobs are going to be
6-figures, their tax rates will be reasonably high + they'll be contributing
to the local economy in terms of buying goods and services. Am I missing
something?

~~~
britch
I'm inclined to agree. I'm against it in principle (why should taxpayers be
subsidizing large corporations at all?) but it isn't robbery.

I guess it get fuzzier when you factor in in harder to quantify costs like
further increasing the cost of living.

------
jrockway
I feel like each Amazon employee will pay way more than that in taxes over 10
years, so this is just basic investment. Pay $48,000 over 10 years to get
$30,000 a year forever. Seems smart.

~~~
qaq
It's not a payment it's a tax break. If HQ2 was not in NYC they would not get
the tax revenue anyway.

------
andjd
In comparison, over the next 10 years, the MTA is projected to spend 6 billion
extending the 2nd avenue subway a mere 1.5 miles to 125th st.

I don't know that I approve of the incentives to bring Amazon to NYC, but I
suspect New Yorkers will see a better rate of return on that investment than
on other government excesses.

------
vthallam
It is over 10 years per job. That will ideally by tax by an amazon employee
over 5 years. Doesn't reflect the passive economic growth and indirect jobs
that gets created over the time.

Also, Amazon and the new Google's expansion will invoke chain reaction in
terms of tech activity and new start-up's.

~~~
vdnkh
Do you really believe that there isn't a tech sector in NYC aside from FAANG?
Google, Facebook, and Twitter have been here for years (to name a few), along
with tons of other startups.

------
edoo
Going to New York is a political move. They could have set up in the midwest,
paid everyone 75% as much as the going rate in NY or silicon valley, and the
employees would have 50% more expendable income than they are used to. This
wasn't for the employees.

~~~
akhilcacharya
> They could have set up in the midwest, paid everyone 75% as much as the
> going rate in NY or silicon valley, and the employees would have 50% more
> expendable income than they are used to. This wasn't for the employees.

SDE's in Detroit, Madison, and Twin Cities are paid _exactly the same_ as the
SDEs in Seattle.

~~~
seatdrummer
They will match Facebook/Microsoft/Amazon/Google's 110k salary + bonus + stock
that you can get in Seattle (As a college grad)?

Even smaller firms are giving away jobs for 150k salary for just a couple
years of experience.

~~~
akhilcacharya
I'm talking specifically about Amazon, which has a presence in all 3 of the
cities I mentioned. Also yes, $145.5k total compensation at Amazon with a
Bachelors (I'm not sure if this is competitive though)

------
jdoliner
The article is very disingenuous about this being a "cost" to tax payers. It's
a tax break, it's not extra money that's going to be added to NY's tax bill,
it's taxes that Amazon theoretically would have had to pay if they decided to
build their offices there and didn't have the tax break. There are some other
real costs to tax payers in the form of subsidies, but they're much smaller
than the 1.5 billion figure quoted here. If you consider the fact that Amazon
is going to probably pay much more in taxes over the lifetime of their offices
in NY then it seems like a reasonable deal for their government to make.

~~~
dang
Ok, we replaced "taxpayers to pay" with "state tax break" above.

------
twblalock
$48k per Amazon HQ job is about the the annual federal income tax of a
software engineer at Amazon, and it's 4-5 years of New York state income tax.
This assumes an annual total compensation somewhere around $200k.

Some people will tell you that such a compensation is not realistic, but at
Amazon it is common for mid- to senior-level engineers to make at least that
much.

Altogether it is not a total sellout on the part of New York, at least not
after 5 years. Ideally some of those Amazon engineers will leave Amazon to
join other companies or start their own, which will be good for New York.

------
jakelarkin
the gentrification angle is predictable. people want a generous government
sector but don't want the local economic growth thats necessary to keep it
afloat.

for Amazon its seemingly a PR nightmare versus just quietly leasing some large
amount of office space in satellite locations. Hope the incentives are worth
it.

the interesting thing to me about HQ2 is its also a wealth transfer from
future workers to Amazon the company which is facilitated/financed by the
local government via taxes. They're selling future worker income/sales tax to
the government.

------
lambdasquirrel
Maybe some context would be appropriate. New York has been trying to diversify
beyond finance for a long time. The cost per employee is amortized, as stated
by others, but it’s almost moot — as if it were a hedge.

Amazon has a rep for not retaining many of its engies beyond a year or two.
Perhaps the hope is that those folks will go on and bootstrap a real startup
economy. NY already has a Google and FB office. Two is interesting but three
and you start to have a pattern.

If you ask me, it’s worth the bet. $1-2B is cheap change on this level of
macroeconomics.

------
bwb
These posts seem to always miss the big picture... like what do they get back
in payroll taxes and other perks? How many other companies is this going to
bring into the local eco-system over the next 20 years. What does this do to
the local real estate and the increase in property taxes?

If you were running a business and you had a client that had 25,000 seats,
would you give them a discount to become a marquee client that could take your
business to the next level? Why are cities any different?

Is the end goal of the city to have a higher GDP and better services for the
people living in it, or something else? In the USA it seems like the only
conversation happening in politics is GDP.

------
NoblePublius
It’s $4800 per hire per year over ten years. Average salary will be $150k.
That’s $13.8k of NY state income tax per year and $2500 (at least) of sales
tax per year. Seems like a great deal for the NY welfare state.

------
tantuyu
Let us hope that the residents of the Queensbridge Houses housing projects get
some employment opportunity out of their new neighbor AMAZON HQ2.... As one of
the residents put it in the NYT:

“Not everyone here has a Ph.D., but anyone eager to work should be able to get
job,” he said. “It can’t be nothing but a plus.”

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/nyregion/amazon-queens-
qu...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/nyregion/amazon-queens-queensbridge-
houses.html)

------
candybar
I think people are, if anything, underestimating how good this is for the tech
scene in NYC and for New York in general, at least from a fiscal perspective.

LIC is increasingly well-developed but mostly as a residential area. It's not
Manhattan and doesn't really have top-tier employers. The tech scene in NYC is
almost entirely concentrated in Manhattan, with the exception of maybe a tiny
tech scene in parts of Brooklyn, which Queens (which Long Island City is part
of) is not generally hip enough to have. This adds a top-tier employer with
lots of high-paying jobs in a new location without displacing any of the
existing tenants occupying prime office space in Manhattan. It also doesn't
worsen the rent situation substantially where it's the worst. Rent is high
everywhere but Queens has more supply, way more potential supply and is
overall better positioned to deal with the additional demand than Manhattan or
Brooklyn. Also, this isn't obvious to people who aren't familiar with NY but
while LIC is easy to get to from most parts of NYC, it's just far enough that
you probably wouldn't want to live in New Jersey, while that isn't as true of
many parts of Manhattan. This definitely makes the location more attractive
from the perspective of New York State, who doesn't capture the state tax from
those that commute from New Jersey.

Also, you can't usually hire that many people by poaching people from other
companies and they need a balance of junior and senior hires so lots of them
will have to come from outside, at least on a net basis. This will include
highly-compensated senior transfers from their other offices (to maintain the
corporate culture, etc), will include new graduates (many of them would have
gone elsewhere) and new immigrants who would've gone anywhere for the job.
This also creates additional economic demand which will boost overall
spending, creates an upward pressure on tech salaries which will add to the
tax base. Also because Amazon does churn through people, this has the
potential to bring many more people than 25K that come to NYC for Amazon and
stay around to do other things. Ex-Amazonians as a group are also probably a
good group to have around for any tech scene.

There's been a need for an alternative to Silicon Valley and this actually
moves the needle in a significant way to positioning NYC that way. Combined
with Google's plan for expansion, recent arrival of several SV tech companies
and the natural advantage of being already the world's capital of finance,
media, fashion, etc, at a time when tech is increasingly central not to its
own industry but to every industry, this squarely puts NYC in contention.

~~~
oculusthrift
so now our govt is paying amazon to create jobs from h1bs and displace
natives?

------
akvadrako
This is a much better deal than Wisconsin gets with Foxconn. They are paying
between $219.000 and $587.000 per job.

[https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/aug/11/...](https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/aug/11/melissa-
sargent/wisconsin-offering-pay-taiwan-tech-firm-foxconn-1-/)

------
ppeetteerr
It's a good deal for NY. Can't build a bridge for 1.5B.. and this will have
perpetual return on investment + auxiliary businesses will flourish.

------
dqpb
The title here is curiously different from the source:

 _NY state tax break is $48k per Amazon HQ job_

vs

 _NY taxpayers to pay $48,000 per Amazon HQ job_

I don't think those are equivalent statements.

------
refurb
The only way you could say it costs NJ $48,000 per job is if you assumed that
Amazon would have chosen them for HQ2 anyways, which is obviously not the
case.

Saying it costs $48,000 per job is no different than when production companies
claim piracy costs $1B+ per year (or some other ridiculous figure). That
assumes all the people that would have pirated the movie would have paid full
price otherwise.

------
chiefalchemist
For those believing that subsidizing Amazon is net gain:

"After the Retail Apocalypse, Prepare for the Property Tax Meltdown"

[https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/property-tax-dark-
sto...](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/property-tax-dark-store-theory-
retail-apocalypse-walmart/574123/)

------
downrightmike
1.2 billion over the next 10 years to receive 10 billion in tax revenue in the
same time frame.

------
zeko1195
I wonder what would make people happy. Amazon should have opened their HQ2 in
Bangalore. They wouldn't face this much criticism there and people would
welcome it.

------
SomeHacker44
As a born and long time NYC resident... I am so unhappy about this, I cannot
even tell you. Why can't we put $2B in the MTA's pocket? Or schools? Or
healthcare? Or affordable housing? Or almost anything other than Bezos's
pocket?

I did vote against Cuomo even as I helped flip our one NYC Republican district
to Democrat, so I did everything I could as a voter.

We need a law/constitutional amendment preventing this sort of thing.
Companies are abusing governments with these tactics and deals. I was also
against our government's subsidies of the two NYC stadiums (Yankees and Mets)
and arena (Nets).

~~~
tim333
They are not putting $2bn into Bezos's pocket. Rather they are receiving
several times that in new tax revenue and maybe out of that they will put some
into the MTA or similar.

------
robertsd247
I do not necessarily have a problem with the government shelling out taxpayer
funds to attract employers, but this is highway robbery.

------
sxp62000
I was so sure Amazon was going to move to Hudson Yards in Manhattan, but Long
Island City seems like a smarter decision. More trains.

------
snek
Amazon could have chosen anywhere, somewhere where they could make a
difference, create jobs, kick-start the economy. Serious bummer.

~~~
vdnkh
Why can't they create jobs and make a difference in NYC? Plenty of
underrepresented developers and future developers in NYC who will benefit from
these new jobs.

------
yumario
This type of tax incentives should be illegal. A lot of people argue that NYC
still benefits from this deal, but we should not be thinking at a city level.
But a country level, does the country benefits from this? No.

Has these type of incentives been illegal, Amazon would have to pick a city
from the US and the overall US economy would be 1.5 billion richer.

The problem with incentives is that presents a "prisoner dilemma" to cities.
And overall drives taxes down.

Sorry for my English.

------
patrickg_zill
Next time someone defending Amazon tells you that the internet is a level
playing field... Point to this.

~~~
throwaway427
Thanks for the advice patrickg_zill! It happens to me all the time!

------
wnevets
Seems way more effective for NY to just give these people the money directly.

------
ocschwar
It's time the Federal government passed a law treating these inducements as
taxable income.

If communities had to throw money at Washington, DC every time they threw
money at Amazon/Foxconn/Apple et cetera, they'd be more redicent about doing
it.

------
musgrove
This is such a disingenuous, low-insight, clickbait headline.

------
plasticchris
They say the average is $150k - do they mention the median?

------
m3kw9
Or call it an investment as there is a future payoff.

------
aussieguy1234
If this isn't welfare, what is?

------
nemo44x
It's not so much that it's a "bad deal" for NYC but rather that this practice
needs to be better regulated if legally possible.

It's a policy that both the Libertarians on the right and the Social Democrats
on the left can mainly agree on here and could work together to solve which is
limiting corporate welfare that pits cities against each other.

------
trhway
still beats the Foxconn deal - $300K per $50K/year job :)

------
mychael
The worst part is that people read headlines like this and think that this is
what capitalism is.

(Hint: this is not capitalism, this is crony capitalism and corporatism).

~~~
htk
Worse yet is people making up their minds about a subject only by reading a
headline. I don't know if you did this, but it appears so.

------
simplysimple
crony capitalism at it's "finest". What a joke, of course - it's ok when New
York elites do it but it's evvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiil when Donald Trump wants to
give tax breaks to _all_ Americans.

~~~
drchickensalad
Literally nobody has claimed giving tax breaks to the 90% of Americans is
evil. Your comment appears sololy meant to be inflammatory and promote low
quality conversation.

~~~
simplysimple
Wrong. Chuck Schumer called it a "one-two gut punch to the middle class".
Nanci Pelosi called it "simply theft — monumental, brazen theft — from the
American middle-class and from every person who aspires to reach it". And that
is only if the tax cuts are not renewed in 2027 - which the democrats voted
against making them permanent.

------
rustcharm
Compare that to SF's roughly equivalent payment per homeless person

[https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-
recor...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-
record-241-million-on-homeless-6808319.php)

------
microcolonel
The representation of this is a bit extreme here, but this is NY we're talking
about. If _this_ is the first thing that you're upset about paying for in NY,
you probably have not been looking at the budget.

------
Dowwie
Have you ever worked with a former employee of Google or Amazon? Evidently,
they don't relocate every time they change jobs. The entire economy gains as
new talent arrives and stays.

------
Roritharr
This is like House of Cards levels of evil. So good at playing this evil game
that I can't help but respect this move of skullduggery.

~~~
del82
How? I mean, you can argue against tax incentives for corporations, but you
can also argue for them. For example, you could say (as others in this thread
have) that $48k per job over 10 years is a good investment, and will likely
generate much more than that in economic activity. How is it evil?

~~~
Roritharr
To me it is evil in the sense that this is taking advantage of the public
interest.

For the community on a pure economic sense this might be seen as a good
investment, but these kinds of tax incentives just further set apart the
position of smaller companies and large corporates.

Imagine a mom&pop bakery with a 20year history receiving a comparable pile of
money per job created, soon enough they wouldn't be small anymore.

To me the ability these deals have to further push for monopolys is simply
unethical, but I'm german and have different sensibilities I guess.

~~~
somethingwitty1
You'd likely need to look at the local tax laws to state that they aren't
getting similar incentives. I'm not in NYC, but I can speak to where I live
and many of the laws, obligations and even taxes that apply to an Amazon-size
corporation, do not apply to a mom & pop. For example, food labeling/testing
is required (not cheap) for larger corporations. Healthcare options and
covered sick days is tied to size of your corporation (again, not cheap).
There are also numerous loans and incentives for smaller corporations that the
bigger companies aren't eligible for.

I'm not trying to paint this as being equal, but to call it evil is a gross
mischaracterization of what is happening here.

