Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
I don't think you understand what the state actually offered. It's called EDGE. You don't get any tax breaks until you actually hit an agreed upon level of jobs creation AND retention. You could promise 25,000 jobs all you want, but if you "only" provided 10,000 at the end of the day, and the agreement was 25,000 jobs created, you would get literally none of your tax incentives. That's how it works, and this has been done in Illinois for a long time. It's entirely possible that they would have taken years to even get any tax benefits due to how hard it is to actually hire 25,000 skilled workers at one employer. Quite honestly, it's insane. It could have taken them a decade before getting anything in the form of incentives.
Based on your comments, it seems like this is news to you and you don't actually understand the structure of what was offered.
|
Well what you said really doesn't make a difference to me. If he gets 25000 employees, whether in 10 years or in 20, if he has a successful HQ2 here in Chicago (benefiting from the local infrastructure and workforce that already exists, I might add) then that should be incentive enough for his company.
Yes, I know incentives are used to lure major HQs etc here, and in some cases, it may make sense. Government has to intervene at times to encourage investment, stimulate growth, and yeah they utilize public resources to do that. However, most companies are not Amazon, and most companies are not asking for $3B+ in incentives and parading themselves around. Amazon's now posturing and threatening to leave NY because the legislators there are reconsidering giving them such a huge package, and who can blame them, especially when their region doesn't even need Amazon.
My whole argument is, its too much for Illinois (and yeah Chicago doesnt need to bend over for this guy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias
Maybe in whatever industry you work in you're getting overpaid compared to the rest of the country but tech, in Chicago, is not one of those industries. Relative to what Chicago offers, existing tech employers practically cheat Chicago workers with low salaries and equity participation that would be laughable on the West Coast.
Bringing in a big West Coast employer would put much-need competitive pressure on local companies taking serious advantage of local tech workers. That would not only benefit current workers but help attract top-tier talent here, which would attract more tech firms, etc.
But perhaps you're okay with local companies underpaying tech workers simply because they can?
|
I am all for the healthy competition. If Bezos wants to bring in Amazon and pay his workers more than other tech companies, that's terrific. But again, I am not for the state forking over billions (whether in 5 or 20 years down the road) for them to make it happen.
Im not some businessman or a techie, Im a lowly civil engineer. But I think even an average person could see that the cost in dollars per job, even if you factor in potential indirect growth for the region (projections for which really varies and is an unknown) is not justifiable, especially when you are talking about a company with a near-monopoly and simply doesn't need the incentives.
I realize this is an unpopular opinion around here, especially when so many were hopeful for HQ2, but I honestly think we are probably a bit better off.
Threaded Mode