ok you're trolling me. i know you're not just suggesting new york can create $24,000,000,000 in additional tax revenue out of thin air.
if they could, why haven't they been doing this for decades? why doesn't every state?
Printable View
god you love these word games. i guess that means you agree with my general sentiment. but i'll indulge you
let's say "new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."
should we call it a day?
They are doing this and have been doing it for decades. The customers pay the 24bil not the jobs. Labor costs are a fraction of the price of a product. And whoever is the last in the supply chain pays for it. This shouldn't be too revolutionary. For some strange reason you think 5th last in the chain is the one that pays for.
Oh and when you break this in pieces it's subsidizing jobs.
can someone other than gimmick explain his point to me, especially if you agree with it?
does anyone on this forum agree with his reasoning?
limitles please don't chime in.
You're treating this like a non zero-sum game where every player that loses loses the value of the whole pot. That is the consequence if we say NY lost 60k jobs.
Ok we don't have to go with literal meaning of lost. We usually do, but whatever.
I don't know if i need to ask if you agree with your own question now. This one.
"new york didn't lose 60,000 additional jobs and $24,000,000,000 in tax revenue. however, it could have gained 60,000 jobs and $24,000,000,000 in revenue but now won't."
My point is that it isn't a unique offer in it's nature. Saying no to Amazon doesn't mean NY has no way of using tax breaks to attract businesses. That's why it's wrong to say NY "lost" 60k jobs. They might not get as good deals or they might get better deals. I don't know. But i know they can get offers and if they feel like it they can invest in small businesses. Oh and that's how AOC gets her 25k jobs. I think that was the original question.
You can make a case for lost equity. Cost of some other batch of 25k jobs likely isn't precisely 3.4bil (or potential gain), but the source is roughly the same. It just isn't Amazon.
This ends up working like marketing. Say there's 2 competing products like Coke and Pepsi. Both have a marketing budget. It is paid as a fraction of the cost of product. The customer pays it.
Lets say there are 2 customers (Larry and Harry). They both see the same ads. When Larry buys a Coke he pays for the whole ad campaign not just his part. And the same thing happens when Harry buys a Pepsi. Because of this cross buying in the long term they pay for advertising of both products. It's just collected when either company sells a product.
This is what happens when States try to attract businesses. Tax payers are the customers and they pay for the whole show. Maybe you could say it's like reverse credit card roulette. In credit card roulette in the long run you always pay for your meal. If you keep playing with the same group of people, no one gets a free meal.
The jobs you "win" are equal to jobs you "lost" when some one else "won". This happens when they keep playing with the same group.
gimmick, would you say that conceding is something you're capable of doing?