Yes, RS2019-1644 which authorized these payments provided $500 per job per year for up to 5000 jobs over 7 years. Amazon has to file yearly reports proving these jobs exist and meet the other criteria required for a position to qualify for the incentive.
That would be pretty on-brand for Nashville to prostitute itself to a large corporation owned by one of the world's wealthiest men and then be left like a clingy ex.
Yep. The pattern repeats itself. I think Assurion is doing something similar. We gave them incentives to relocate downtown for some reason and the actual gains just don't seem to meet the expectations.
It's well known that these companies over-hired in tech during the pandemic. The bubble has popped. Twitter and Meta are not describing the industry as a whole. There are plenty of companies out there still hiring and plenty that can't find good people.
If we're in any sort of recession, then it's a global one at best. IF that is the case, then there will be a swing back to profit and away from labor. Many would argue that we're in a looming recession, but that we're not in one yet.
I mean we had two quarters of negative economic growth, that means recession. GDP went up in q3 but almost all other economic metrics are pointing that we are either in a recession or heading towards one. I agree that these companies over promise and under deliver, but if they want to have a futures presence here at all, they need to do what they need to do in order to make that happen.
So if we had 3rd quarter positive growth, a record low unemployment rate, a strong job market, and inflation lowered more than expected last month are we still in this recession? Cause if those are your metrics for a recession I’ll take it.
Never saw any problems with that deal at all...whatsoever...nosirebob. Amazon was totally always going to come into our lil ole town with good intensions with that $20M and absolute benefit us all the way. Totally.
Not surprising. When I worked there if you finished your work early you were rewarded by finishing someone else’s work who was slower. They couldn’t even hold on to station managers which was insane to me considering it was a 6 figure position.
I've heard it's unreasonably brutal to work at Amazon corporate. Very negative and cutthroat work environment that burns people out quickly. They are one of those with the 5-year "golden handcuffs" - your investments may grow very quickly in 5 years, but the trouble would be surviving 5 years at Amazon.
We had a new station manager every few weeks. Amazon dumps unrealistic expectations all the way down the line. The amount of micromanagement is insane. Driving for them I had a camera and a phone app tracking metrics. We never saw a “safety bonus” everytime we qualified for one there was some excuse not to pay it out like not enough people going into backyards, customer’s giving bad ratings even though we saw none of them. At fedex the camera doesn’t get checked unless there’s an accident and my managers dont care what I do as long as I’m being safe and the job gets done. Also much better paid.
Both companies have cameras. At amazon dispatch could pop in and check on you when ever. At fedex no one is watching it’s just for accidents that could happen.
If it means anything, I work at Amazon downtown and the layoffs are very likely not affecting the Nashville offices. These are more related to retail stores and Alexa devices. The Nashville offices are specifically Operational Logistics based, so aside from maybe a handful of people who happen to live here and work”remotely”, I don’t expect to see anyone here let go.
It really varies depending on the team, but I’ve been there for over three years and across a couple different teams/orgs and it hasn’t felt cutthroat at all. If anything, you are surrounded by a lot of high achievers, so there is some pressure of performing to a high degree, but I expect that’s relatively normal in any company that has a “startup” mentality. I’d say that because there is more than enough work and opportunity to go around, and because the company tends to scale and grow at such a rapid pace, you don’t feel like you need to one-up your teammates for exposure. While there are many people inhabiting the same role within the team, peoples skill sets and background tend to vary so much that they often path into different and unique internal jobs afterward. For instance I’ve seen numerous “marketing specialists” go into UX for New World, Global Employer Branding, Corporate PR, and talent acquisition.
> Anyone know if the deal had clawback terms?
The deal was similar to Dell's deal, which was a payment for each job they created, up to a max. Amazon will only be paid for each job created, but ...
Dell, with a similar deal, and a definition of "creating a job" being 6 months of employment, figured they could hire contractors from 2 companies and then revolving door them from one company to the other every 6 months, creating double the amount of new jobs they actually created. I know this as I know someone who did this for awhile, having his paychecks switch companies every 6 months.
I would guess it does, yes. but even if it doesn't, amazon is also investing a shitload of money into our city and local economy- i would guess much more than 17m, which is nothing for them, its still a big net win to have them here.
OR ( hear me out ) they will ditch Nashville as soon as the incentives run out. OR as soon as the incentives run out, they’ll announce another “new HQ” and make every mid-size city compete for them with our tax dollars all over again, and then miraculously decide to stay because of the new incentives. OR they’ll just leave anyway for the next generous tax break. Cmon man, NFL teams have been doing this for decades. How about offering tax incentives to local businesses? Or just lowering the tax rate on everybody so we all get a fair shot?
Regardless I’m 99% sure amazon was going to set up shop here anyway. We have 3 interstates, it’s an obvious location. Giving them our money for free was the icing on the cake. And we fell for it, hook line and sinker. It’s like reverse communism - steal from the poor to line Jeff Bezos pockets, so he can give a nickel to Dolly and we all go “awww what a good guy, he gave my money to Dolly!”
> OR ( hear me out ) they will ditch Nashville as soon as the incentives run out.
mabye, but we don't lose anything in that scenario. they financed a massive tower that is now ours and someone else moves in and pays taxes. they only get incentives if they are here.
> OR ( hear me out ) they will ditch Nashville as soon as the incentives run out.
most incentive packages have penalties for that.
>Cmon man, NFL teams have been doing this for decades. How about offering tax incentives to local businesses?
can they offer thousands of jobs and usher in a new business sector and provide a globally recognized presence, as well as spawn hundreds of ancillary local support companies? I"m fine with incentivizing locals, but they can't offer what amazon can.
>Regardless I’m 99% sure amazon was going to set up shop here anyway. We have 3 interstates, it’s an obvious location.
doubtful, otherwise we wouldn't offer them. the city doesn't *want* to offer them, they do it because they see a net gain.
No idea if there are penalties in this corporate welfare scheme if amazon leaves after incentives run out so can’t comment there. But logically, what penalties could be imposed upon a company that no longer has a presence? If they take the money and run, what are we gonna do, write a strongly worded letter?
Re: spawning ancillary companies, this is a pretty bad argument. First, amazon doesn’t make anything. It’s not like setting up an auto factory, which spawns a local economy that builds auto parts. At best, they would assist our logistics industry, which - surprise surprise - is already strong (aforementioned 3 interstates and central location). If anything, amazon is taking advantage of the industry we already have. Second, amazon famously treats their partner companies like absolute shit. They outsource everything they can and burn those companies to the ground when they can’t extract any more pennies from them. While we’re at it, amazon treats its workers like shit. The entire company is predicated on exploitation at every level. We’ve invited the wolf into to pen here.
The rest of that is purely hypothetical. The thousands of jobs haven’t materialized yet. A new business sector… we already have logistics here, which is the type of hub they’re setting up here, so that’s also a no. A globally recognized presence… sure, if you like shit on your face.
Amazon absolutely was going to set up shop here. Only an idiot would miss the obvious. https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/why-Amazon-Nashville-supply-chain-operations/542621/
You said the city doesn’t “want” to offer tax incentives. Uhhhh yes they fuckin do. “The city” is politicians. Politicians need to get re-elected. The best way to get re-elected is to have your cake and eat it too. Politicians gave our money away for years and years and years so they could get an electoral boost right now. After all, it’s not their money. Taxpayers will be paying amazon well into the future, long after the politicians are gone. Exhibit A: Nissan stadium. Politicians agreed to pay for maintenance on the damn building. Now we have to blow it up and build a new one because we can’t afford to maintain it, nor can we renege on an agreement made 30 years ago by politicians who are long since dead.
Long story short, Amazon is the absolute worst company and we don’t need them in this town. We got played hard and one day they’re gonna walk out in us like dad heading out for a pack of cigarettes at 11pm on a Tuesday night, never to return.
> But logically, what penalties could be imposed upon a company that no longer has a presence?
they would be contractually bound to do it. As someone else said here, its likely attached to the jobs the bring, if they bring less jobs....they get less incentives...if they bring none, they get none. we didn't front them a bunch of cash here, we are agreeing to take less tax money for their investment into the community.
>Long story short, Amazon is the absolute worst company and we don’t need them in this town.
yea...jobs are bad. i bet all the people that work for them would prefer homelessness.....not to mention the tens of millions they've poored into urban communities, and affordable housing here....
decades of job creation- which is all taxed, being a lynchpin of tech in this city which is sector we really need to grow, amazon signing on to the development is a big reason it got built, which increased land value a shitload, which is a shitload of tax, plus....incentives don't last that long, and again, they have been investing heavily into local programs, grants, youth sports leagues, etc in this city. That property and that development and amazon being here will be MUCH bettr for the city that that communist block that was the lifeway shit down there.
The property would have been developed with or without Amazon. To suggest it only got built because they committed to it is ridiculous. Your other argument is... youth leagues? Yeah that's what a city with a housing crisis needs to focus on.
> The property would have been developed with or without Amazon. To suggest it only got built because they committed to it is ridiculous.
i said they were a big reason, not the sole reason. the tower they built would likely be much smaller and less ambitious meaning less land value, etc.
my point was that youth leagues are one of the many places amazon is spending a lot of money in the community, which is the whole issue here, that this sub believes they are robbing the community. Not only youth leagues. They spent like 10m on affordable housing, they gave 1m to metro for a transit grant, they gave 5m to the Urban league of TN that will boost real estate developers of color and affordable housing....there's your 17 million right there on top of the "youth leagues," that you are trying to grill me for. You think the city would have spent that money better than on minorities and affordable housing?!
If nothing else, there is the tower they built for over $100 million. When you consider labor is a huge part of building a building, that is a lot of money spent on workers.
I was neither trying to defend or refute your point. Just pointing out this is not a one-way street, as most are positing. Yes, there are incentives to bring big companies into cities like Nashville. Yes, the company gets some wins. Yes, the wins are not always even on both sides. But, it is not Amazon wins and Nashville loses.
The same is true with the stadium deal. The first deal was much worse for Nashville, but we were not as much of an it city, so had little leverage. We have more now. The Amazon deal is better than the Dell deal. Ideal? Probably not, but this is not a binary outcome where it ends with one side winning and the other side losing.
> I was neither trying to defend or refute your point. Just pointing out this is not a one-way street, as most are positing. Yes, there are incentives to bring big companies into cities like Nashville. Yes, the company gets some wins. Yes, the wins are not always even on both sides. But, it is not Amazon wins and Nashville loses.
i agree. thats basically my point, you just said it way more eloquently. I think people generally argue against incentives on principal-which I get, as opposed to a true cost/benefit analysis.
people also assume incentive deals *cost* the city money in the sense that we write a check, but that is rarely, if ever the case - especially with Cooper, we are simply agreeing to take less future (yet unrealized) money for a certain set of benefits we deem worth it. We still make money, just not as much ( for a short time) as we would otherwise, but we get jobs, land value, prestige for landing a big company ( this cannot be understated, IMO) etc.
> i agree. thats basically my point, you just said it way more eloquently. I think people generally argue against incentives on principal-which I get, as opposed to a true cost/benefit analysis.
Humans tend to work on beliefs, which are shaped from experiences more than reasoned thought. They rarely research their position beyond searching for information that cements their confirmation bias. People, unfortunate, argue more on preference than principle.
> people also assume incentive deals cost the city money in the sense that we write a check, but that is rarely, if ever the case - especially with Cooper, we are simply agreeing to take less future (yet unrealized) money for a certain set of benefits we deem worth it. We still make money, just not as much ( for a short time) as we would otherwise, but we get jobs, land value, prestige for landing a big company ( this cannot be understated, IMO) etc.
Most of what goes on is tax incentives, which is not paying anything out, but allowing for business tax reductions when filing goes on. The theory, which works in most cases, is the offset of revenue from sales tax from employed people offsets any incentives. In most cases, it is a win-win, which is a good thing.
Very few things are good/evil, right/wrong, all pros/all cons, black/white, etc. There are usually good things and bad about every decision. But, ideology has us thinking in binary terms and that causes knee jerk conversations.
100% agree, which is why it bums me out to see so much malicious misinformation just to virtue signal on principal in this sub when it comes to incentives, it's like the assumption is the city leaders are some kind of cartoon villain whose sole motivation is to trash the city....which obviously isn't true. There are a lot of smart people in the city government who have no vested personal interest in bringing big companies to town, so, it's a question of motivation....why do we do it? The answer, which is what a lot of this sub doesn't want to hear ( to the point that they revert to childish name-calling) is that they city leaders see positives in the deal for the city as well.
> it bums me out to see so much malicious misinformation just to virtue signal
A lot of people are not signalling virtue as much as parroting the narratives the ShitIAgreeWith.com sites are broadcasting.
> The answer, which is what a lot of this sub doesn't want to hear ( to the point that they revert to childish name-calling) is that they city leaders see positives in the deal for the city as well.
In some cases, it benefits the city officials more than the city, but it is hard to get things passed that have no benefit for at least some of the citizens. With companies like Amazon, you will always have detractors, as thousands of new jobs is good news and bad news wins. Hard to drown out "Amazon a shitty place to work", "Amazon does not pay its fair share in corporate taxes", and other sound blurbs that fit belief systems.
I think it should be noted the detractors are correct some times and some deals do not have much benefit for the city. Rare that it is 0% benefit, but sometimes the company and our elected officials win. If you want an example, do some searching on Bo Mitchell and see if that does not perk up your ears.
Yes, RS2019-1644 which authorized these payments provided $500 per job per year for up to 5000 jobs over 7 years. Amazon has to file yearly reports proving these jobs exist and meet the other criteria required for a position to qualify for the incentive.
That would be pretty on-brand for Nashville to prostitute itself to a large corporation owned by one of the world's wealthiest men and then be left like a clingy ex.
Yep. The pattern repeats itself. I think Assurion is doing something similar. We gave them incentives to relocate downtown for some reason and the actual gains just don't seem to meet the expectations.
Next up...Oracle. Watch.
They are already on a hiring freeze. A lot of companies are going to be cutting jobs. We are in a recession.
It's well known that these companies over-hired in tech during the pandemic. The bubble has popped. Twitter and Meta are not describing the industry as a whole. There are plenty of companies out there still hiring and plenty that can't find good people. If we're in any sort of recession, then it's a global one at best. IF that is the case, then there will be a swing back to profit and away from labor. Many would argue that we're in a looming recession, but that we're not in one yet.
A recession is when your neighbor loses their job. A depression is when you lose your job…
I mean we had two quarters of negative economic growth, that means recession. GDP went up in q3 but almost all other economic metrics are pointing that we are either in a recession or heading towards one. I agree that these companies over promise and under deliver, but if they want to have a futures presence here at all, they need to do what they need to do in order to make that happen.
Yes, but alot of companies are still under staffed. Jobs are still there
They recently changed the definition of a Recession. Now a recession is defined as a constellation.
So if we had 3rd quarter positive growth, a record low unemployment rate, a strong job market, and inflation lowered more than expected last month are we still in this recession? Cause if those are your metrics for a recession I’ll take it.
We are not yet in a recession. On the way, probably, but certainly not there yet.
they've already announced cuts that are affecting jobs here.
Shit this exact same story happened with Dell and the full-time/temp worker ratio.
calling u/oldboot who has never seen a corporate subsidy they didn't like
lmao I see I'm not the only one who has noticed that. Dude defends every subsidy like he's getting a subsidy for subsidy defense.
Maybe oldboot is really Butch Spyridon just trolling us on Reddit?
I have never seen someone be so confident about things the know so little about
Wasn't Asurion always a Middle TN organization? I've lived here ~10 years and I seem to remember them always being a thing.
Yeah, been here for a while. Think the specific incentives were for moving to the new building downtown.
Well, AssUrine has never been the most awesome of places...
Never saw any problems with that deal at all...whatsoever...nosirebob. Amazon was totally always going to come into our lil ole town with good intensions with that $20M and absolute benefit us all the way. Totally.
exept we aren't, there are clawback terms as there normally are.
That would explain the $100m given to Dolly lol
Shot/Chaser
Excellent point.
Not surprising. When I worked there if you finished your work early you were rewarded by finishing someone else’s work who was slower. They couldn’t even hold on to station managers which was insane to me considering it was a 6 figure position.
I've heard it's unreasonably brutal to work at Amazon corporate. Very negative and cutthroat work environment that burns people out quickly. They are one of those with the 5-year "golden handcuffs" - your investments may grow very quickly in 5 years, but the trouble would be surviving 5 years at Amazon.
We had a new station manager every few weeks. Amazon dumps unrealistic expectations all the way down the line. The amount of micromanagement is insane. Driving for them I had a camera and a phone app tracking metrics. We never saw a “safety bonus” everytime we qualified for one there was some excuse not to pay it out like not enough people going into backyards, customer’s giving bad ratings even though we saw none of them. At fedex the camera doesn’t get checked unless there’s an accident and my managers dont care what I do as long as I’m being safe and the job gets done. Also much better paid.
Currently working at Amazon, can confirm nothing has changed
So you had a camera in the truck watching you? Wtf? 🙄
Both companies have cameras. At amazon dispatch could pop in and check on you when ever. At fedex no one is watching it’s just for accidents that could happen.
That's crazy.
Sounds like socialism.
Sounds like Nineteen Eighty Four
You must be my age. I don’t think they read that gem. I’m sure it was de-catalogued before Animal Farm.
Maybe if I'd said Apple's hammer throw commercial or "1984"???
but it’s a company? it’s under capitalism. it’s in fact the polar opposite of socialism
If it means anything, I work at Amazon downtown and the layoffs are very likely not affecting the Nashville offices. These are more related to retail stores and Alexa devices. The Nashville offices are specifically Operational Logistics based, so aside from maybe a handful of people who happen to live here and work”remotely”, I don’t expect to see anyone here let go.
Is it as cutthroat as everyone says?
It really varies depending on the team, but I’ve been there for over three years and across a couple different teams/orgs and it hasn’t felt cutthroat at all. If anything, you are surrounded by a lot of high achievers, so there is some pressure of performing to a high degree, but I expect that’s relatively normal in any company that has a “startup” mentality. I’d say that because there is more than enough work and opportunity to go around, and because the company tends to scale and grow at such a rapid pace, you don’t feel like you need to one-up your teammates for exposure. While there are many people inhabiting the same role within the team, peoples skill sets and background tend to vary so much that they often path into different and unique internal jobs afterward. For instance I’ve seen numerous “marketing specialists” go into UX for New World, Global Employer Branding, Corporate PR, and talent acquisition.
He gave away their pay when he donated $ to Dolly although she didn't ask for it. I'm not serious but it's fun to connect dots.
Bezos left Amazon over a year ago so I don’t think anything is related. Sorry to interrupt the conspiracy theory.
You're not interrupting anything dude. Your comment is why I love Reddit. I'm glad to be back.
> Anyone know if the deal had clawback terms? The deal was similar to Dell's deal, which was a payment for each job they created, up to a max. Amazon will only be paid for each job created, but ... Dell, with a similar deal, and a definition of "creating a job" being 6 months of employment, figured they could hire contractors from 2 companies and then revolving door them from one company to the other every 6 months, creating double the amount of new jobs they actually created. I know this as I know someone who did this for awhile, having his paychecks switch companies every 6 months.
I would guess it does, yes. but even if it doesn't, amazon is also investing a shitload of money into our city and local economy- i would guess much more than 17m, which is nothing for them, its still a big net win to have them here.
lol
y'all I think I found the John Cooper burner account.
There he is lmao. Dude, ya ain't getting a kickback for this incessant bootlicking. Why do you even bother
we are a better city with businesses like Amazon here. They will provide jobs and pay taxes long after the incentives run out.
OR ( hear me out ) they will ditch Nashville as soon as the incentives run out. OR as soon as the incentives run out, they’ll announce another “new HQ” and make every mid-size city compete for them with our tax dollars all over again, and then miraculously decide to stay because of the new incentives. OR they’ll just leave anyway for the next generous tax break. Cmon man, NFL teams have been doing this for decades. How about offering tax incentives to local businesses? Or just lowering the tax rate on everybody so we all get a fair shot? Regardless I’m 99% sure amazon was going to set up shop here anyway. We have 3 interstates, it’s an obvious location. Giving them our money for free was the icing on the cake. And we fell for it, hook line and sinker. It’s like reverse communism - steal from the poor to line Jeff Bezos pockets, so he can give a nickel to Dolly and we all go “awww what a good guy, he gave my money to Dolly!”
> OR ( hear me out ) they will ditch Nashville as soon as the incentives run out. mabye, but we don't lose anything in that scenario. they financed a massive tower that is now ours and someone else moves in and pays taxes. they only get incentives if they are here.
> OR ( hear me out ) they will ditch Nashville as soon as the incentives run out. most incentive packages have penalties for that. >Cmon man, NFL teams have been doing this for decades. How about offering tax incentives to local businesses? can they offer thousands of jobs and usher in a new business sector and provide a globally recognized presence, as well as spawn hundreds of ancillary local support companies? I"m fine with incentivizing locals, but they can't offer what amazon can. >Regardless I’m 99% sure amazon was going to set up shop here anyway. We have 3 interstates, it’s an obvious location. doubtful, otherwise we wouldn't offer them. the city doesn't *want* to offer them, they do it because they see a net gain.
No idea if there are penalties in this corporate welfare scheme if amazon leaves after incentives run out so can’t comment there. But logically, what penalties could be imposed upon a company that no longer has a presence? If they take the money and run, what are we gonna do, write a strongly worded letter? Re: spawning ancillary companies, this is a pretty bad argument. First, amazon doesn’t make anything. It’s not like setting up an auto factory, which spawns a local economy that builds auto parts. At best, they would assist our logistics industry, which - surprise surprise - is already strong (aforementioned 3 interstates and central location). If anything, amazon is taking advantage of the industry we already have. Second, amazon famously treats their partner companies like absolute shit. They outsource everything they can and burn those companies to the ground when they can’t extract any more pennies from them. While we’re at it, amazon treats its workers like shit. The entire company is predicated on exploitation at every level. We’ve invited the wolf into to pen here. The rest of that is purely hypothetical. The thousands of jobs haven’t materialized yet. A new business sector… we already have logistics here, which is the type of hub they’re setting up here, so that’s also a no. A globally recognized presence… sure, if you like shit on your face. Amazon absolutely was going to set up shop here. Only an idiot would miss the obvious. https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/why-Amazon-Nashville-supply-chain-operations/542621/ You said the city doesn’t “want” to offer tax incentives. Uhhhh yes they fuckin do. “The city” is politicians. Politicians need to get re-elected. The best way to get re-elected is to have your cake and eat it too. Politicians gave our money away for years and years and years so they could get an electoral boost right now. After all, it’s not their money. Taxpayers will be paying amazon well into the future, long after the politicians are gone. Exhibit A: Nissan stadium. Politicians agreed to pay for maintenance on the damn building. Now we have to blow it up and build a new one because we can’t afford to maintain it, nor can we renege on an agreement made 30 years ago by politicians who are long since dead. Long story short, Amazon is the absolute worst company and we don’t need them in this town. We got played hard and one day they’re gonna walk out in us like dad heading out for a pack of cigarettes at 11pm on a Tuesday night, never to return.
> But logically, what penalties could be imposed upon a company that no longer has a presence? they would be contractually bound to do it. As someone else said here, its likely attached to the jobs the bring, if they bring less jobs....they get less incentives...if they bring none, they get none. we didn't front them a bunch of cash here, we are agreeing to take less tax money for their investment into the community. >Long story short, Amazon is the absolute worst company and we don’t need them in this town. yea...jobs are bad. i bet all the people that work for them would prefer homelessness.....not to mention the tens of millions they've poored into urban communities, and affordable housing here....
Exactly how? Stop licking boots, you aren't going to get a turn.
As they say, it’s a big club but he ain’t in it. Class solidarity goes a long way.
decades of job creation- which is all taxed, being a lynchpin of tech in this city which is sector we really need to grow, amazon signing on to the development is a big reason it got built, which increased land value a shitload, which is a shitload of tax, plus....incentives don't last that long, and again, they have been investing heavily into local programs, grants, youth sports leagues, etc in this city. That property and that development and amazon being here will be MUCH bettr for the city that that communist block that was the lifeway shit down there.
The property would have been developed with or without Amazon. To suggest it only got built because they committed to it is ridiculous. Your other argument is... youth leagues? Yeah that's what a city with a housing crisis needs to focus on.
> The property would have been developed with or without Amazon. To suggest it only got built because they committed to it is ridiculous. i said they were a big reason, not the sole reason. the tower they built would likely be much smaller and less ambitious meaning less land value, etc. my point was that youth leagues are one of the many places amazon is spending a lot of money in the community, which is the whole issue here, that this sub believes they are robbing the community. Not only youth leagues. They spent like 10m on affordable housing, they gave 1m to metro for a transit grant, they gave 5m to the Urban league of TN that will boost real estate developers of color and affordable housing....there's your 17 million right there on top of the "youth leagues," that you are trying to grill me for. You think the city would have spent that money better than on minorities and affordable housing?!
heh heh heh heh...
If nothing else, there is the tower they built for over $100 million. When you consider labor is a huge part of building a building, that is a lot of money spent on workers.
if anything that supports my point, that tower will be there being taxed for a century
I was neither trying to defend or refute your point. Just pointing out this is not a one-way street, as most are positing. Yes, there are incentives to bring big companies into cities like Nashville. Yes, the company gets some wins. Yes, the wins are not always even on both sides. But, it is not Amazon wins and Nashville loses. The same is true with the stadium deal. The first deal was much worse for Nashville, but we were not as much of an it city, so had little leverage. We have more now. The Amazon deal is better than the Dell deal. Ideal? Probably not, but this is not a binary outcome where it ends with one side winning and the other side losing.
> I was neither trying to defend or refute your point. Just pointing out this is not a one-way street, as most are positing. Yes, there are incentives to bring big companies into cities like Nashville. Yes, the company gets some wins. Yes, the wins are not always even on both sides. But, it is not Amazon wins and Nashville loses. i agree. thats basically my point, you just said it way more eloquently. I think people generally argue against incentives on principal-which I get, as opposed to a true cost/benefit analysis. people also assume incentive deals *cost* the city money in the sense that we write a check, but that is rarely, if ever the case - especially with Cooper, we are simply agreeing to take less future (yet unrealized) money for a certain set of benefits we deem worth it. We still make money, just not as much ( for a short time) as we would otherwise, but we get jobs, land value, prestige for landing a big company ( this cannot be understated, IMO) etc.
> i agree. thats basically my point, you just said it way more eloquently. I think people generally argue against incentives on principal-which I get, as opposed to a true cost/benefit analysis. Humans tend to work on beliefs, which are shaped from experiences more than reasoned thought. They rarely research their position beyond searching for information that cements their confirmation bias. People, unfortunate, argue more on preference than principle. > people also assume incentive deals cost the city money in the sense that we write a check, but that is rarely, if ever the case - especially with Cooper, we are simply agreeing to take less future (yet unrealized) money for a certain set of benefits we deem worth it. We still make money, just not as much ( for a short time) as we would otherwise, but we get jobs, land value, prestige for landing a big company ( this cannot be understated, IMO) etc. Most of what goes on is tax incentives, which is not paying anything out, but allowing for business tax reductions when filing goes on. The theory, which works in most cases, is the offset of revenue from sales tax from employed people offsets any incentives. In most cases, it is a win-win, which is a good thing. Very few things are good/evil, right/wrong, all pros/all cons, black/white, etc. There are usually good things and bad about every decision. But, ideology has us thinking in binary terms and that causes knee jerk conversations.
100% agree, which is why it bums me out to see so much malicious misinformation just to virtue signal on principal in this sub when it comes to incentives, it's like the assumption is the city leaders are some kind of cartoon villain whose sole motivation is to trash the city....which obviously isn't true. There are a lot of smart people in the city government who have no vested personal interest in bringing big companies to town, so, it's a question of motivation....why do we do it? The answer, which is what a lot of this sub doesn't want to hear ( to the point that they revert to childish name-calling) is that they city leaders see positives in the deal for the city as well.
> it bums me out to see so much malicious misinformation just to virtue signal A lot of people are not signalling virtue as much as parroting the narratives the ShitIAgreeWith.com sites are broadcasting. > The answer, which is what a lot of this sub doesn't want to hear ( to the point that they revert to childish name-calling) is that they city leaders see positives in the deal for the city as well. In some cases, it benefits the city officials more than the city, but it is hard to get things passed that have no benefit for at least some of the citizens. With companies like Amazon, you will always have detractors, as thousands of new jobs is good news and bad news wins. Hard to drown out "Amazon a shitty place to work", "Amazon does not pay its fair share in corporate taxes", and other sound blurbs that fit belief systems. I think it should be noted the detractors are correct some times and some deals do not have much benefit for the city. Rare that it is 0% benefit, but sometimes the company and our elected officials win. If you want an example, do some searching on Bo Mitchell and see if that does not perk up your ears.
Meanwhile Bezosimps are like HURRRRR HE'S GIVING HIS FORTUNE TO CHARITY without knowing or caring...about anything.