31–40 of 286 posts
Because the non-collusive city will come out ahead in this prisoner dilemma.
This isn't a prisoner's dilemma, the cities are allowed to talk to each other, and to gang up to punish those who break ranks.
The idea of a "collective bargain" in a "winner takes all" situation doesn't make sense.
Just want to add the opinion to the comments section that I think it's completely ridiculous that Amazon gets incentives from cities to go there, as if they need the money. This is monopolistic behavior to the detriment of cities, citizens, and smaller firms.
Tell that to major sports teams. Want to see real hostage taking? See what happens when a team wants a new stadium.
CN 19 https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/citations-needed/e/52555894
CN 20 https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/citations-needed/e/52636015
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this a race to the bottom? 19 cities won’t get any tax revenue by definition. The one that gets the building will probably wave taxes so it’s getting the same amount of direct tax revenue as it was before namely 0. So the city does get sales tax revenue from the new jobs due to new spending. It might get income tax that it didn’t get before. Where is the bottom?
Was paraphrasing the article that mentions the race to the bottom, but I believe that there is a net positive on the city that receives the HQ2 and that's why they are competing with each other.
Because the cities are rivals in a competition for Amazon's HQ, not colleagues who all stand to benefit from a collective bargain. In this case, there will be one winner so the incentive to cooperate is greatly diminished.
But the chosen city would win even more if they were to cooperate. Sure, the cooperation would quickly break down but that is why the federal government should decide on such benefits (basically to ensure companies stay within the country, if that is deemed beneficial) rather than local government. It’s for me mindbaffling how anyone believes HQ2 would bring back billions of USD - even if you include secondary and te…
Right and the 19 losers are cooperating why again?
>Sure, the cooperation would quickly break down
Good job undercutting and highlighting the faults in your own argument. If you can figure it out in two sentences I think there's probably a few people directly involved who this is obvious to. So since cooperation isn't viable in your own estimation, might as well try to win.
>but that is why the federal government should decide on such benefits
Unfortunately that proposition doesn't appeal to everyone, so good luck there.
Stadiums I think overall have a better impact, as they can create or revitalize an economic area, provide longer terms jobs, and sports teams provide back to their communities.
Amazon is on a completely different level. They will bring thousands of skilled workers, and generate trillions in economic activity. HQ2 will stand for a long time, it can completely change the trajectory of a city. There are many many issues with bringing Amazon to your city, home prices and infrastructure to name a few -- but isn't this a problem you'd rather have than not?
Regions (such as US Northeast, or Nashville - Atlanta - Raleigh) might be able to assemble a useful coalition to share the bennies and any pains.
Not sure if BOS and NYC wouldn't stab each other in the back.
I don't understand people who are conflating the search for HQ2 with Olympic bids and sports stadium bids. The Olympics are most likely a one time thing for a month, although in the future I could forsee it revolving around qualified sites, it takes a lot to convert facilities used for the Olympics into regular infrastucture (see Atlanta and LA). Stadiums I think overall have a better impact, as they can create or re…
That's been suggested before at the state level. But it runs into a Constitutional limitation. Interstate compacts have to be approved by Congress. Article I, Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." US cities are legally parts of states, not standalone entities.
Trying to get an anti-business deal like that through the current Congress would not work.
I completely disagree with the “race to the bottom” framing of the idea that cities shouldn’t compete to provide the best services for the commercial enterprises which reside there. At the 50-75 year timeframe we are talking about at least hundreds of billions of dollars of economic value, if not trillions. The clustering effect of becoming Silicon Valley 2 cannot be overstated. My personal opinion is cities should b…
I completely disagree with the “race to the bottom” framing of the idea that cities shouldn’t compete to provide the best services for the commercial enterprises which reside there. At the 50-75 year timeframe we are talking about at least hundreds of billions of dollars of economic value, if not trillions. The clustering effect of becoming Silicon Valley 2 cannot be overstated. My personal opinion is cities should b…
I believe you and would like to learn more. Do you have some sources I can look into?