Am I alone in not seeing the problem here? Cities went into this with their eyes open, no? It was a bidding war to attract a major employer to the city.
Amazon's employees will pay taxes, buy property, and spend money, all of which enrich the local economy and government. That's why they're willing to offer tax breaks.
Any subsidies Amazon could have received from a city, but chose not to would amount to a gift to the city. Why would they do this? City governments are not the first place I would think of when giving to charity.
The article is asking what is the point? Why make cities compete for your presence. Amazons presence in a city brings along with it all the good things you mention above, as the richest man in the world and one of the richest companies in the world, the article is asking why be greedy and make cities grovel at your feet for the "good" you can bring, why doesn't Amazon just be an agent of good and bring good to the city? Not only because it is the ethical thing to do (doing good and not asking for repayment) but because in the future it will have positive repercussions for Amazon, rather than having people strike "bad" deals with Amazon cause Amazon has the upper hand now but then later on someone else uses it (The deal) as a campaign point to witch hunt Amazon cause the city made a bad deal. He is asking Bezos to Just be generous, everyone will gain.
I got what the article was saying. The point just makes no sense to me. Amazon got $2.4B in subsidies. To say, "it's unethical to ask for that" is functionally equivalent to saying "the only ethical thing is for Amazon to donate $2.4B to the cities."
And if the argument is Amazon shouldn't take the subsidies because it's bad PR, well you'll have to weigh the cost of that bad PR against the $2.4B savings they've negotiated for themselves.
You assume it's a "bad" deal. But Amazon says they'll spend $5B on construction costs and upwards of $5B per year paying their employees for years and years to come. Seems like a smart deal for the city on the face, assuming maximizing tax revenue is a goal.
I think what is trying to be said is that Amazon doesn't need a handout. They are fully capable of picking any city in the US to set up shop. What would have happened if nobody bit on the whole scheme anyway? Would have they just picked some random Townsville,USA and paid full price? Without the subsidies, Amazon wouldn't have been "donating" $2.4B, that's just the extra cost of doing business there. Amazon will be great for wherever they go but the money, in my opinion, is better spent on other things.
While I admire DHH taking a stand, I doubt much will come out off the current backlash that Amazon or Jeff faces. As for legacy, that too is in no harm. Look at Bill Gates for example - after making some of the most unethical decisions in the industry, he is hailed as one of the biggest philanthropist of our times.
It's my impression that people who've achieved such immense wealth & power don't operate with anything resembling the moral compass the rest of us peasants do.
A peasant friend recently approached a billionaire pitching a service the billionaire could actually use. The billionaire proceeded to push & grind him down on price to save a few hundred dollars.
To me, if I had billion$, I'd like to think I'd be benevolent: "Hey, that sounds useful, and yes I'd pay for it!". It just seems you don't get to the top with kindness or charity.
7 comments
[ 11.5 ms ] story [ 35.1 ms ] threadAmazon's employees will pay taxes, buy property, and spend money, all of which enrich the local economy and government. That's why they're willing to offer tax breaks.
Any subsidies Amazon could have received from a city, but chose not to would amount to a gift to the city. Why would they do this? City governments are not the first place I would think of when giving to charity.
And if the argument is Amazon shouldn't take the subsidies because it's bad PR, well you'll have to weigh the cost of that bad PR against the $2.4B savings they've negotiated for themselves.
You assume it's a "bad" deal. But Amazon says they'll spend $5B on construction costs and upwards of $5B per year paying their employees for years and years to come. Seems like a smart deal for the city on the face, assuming maximizing tax revenue is a goal.
A peasant friend recently approached a billionaire pitching a service the billionaire could actually use. The billionaire proceeded to push & grind him down on price to save a few hundred dollars.
To me, if I had billion$, I'd like to think I'd be benevolent: "Hey, that sounds useful, and yes I'd pay for it!". It just seems you don't get to the top with kindness or charity.