[taurath]

> You also have things perfectly backwards. These companies are what is driving growth in Seattle, not the other way around. These companies are responsible for more than doubling local government revenue in the past decade. The companies create the growth, not the ‘amenities’ of Seattle city.

Why in the world would companies insist on staying in the bay area when they could pay people half in Ohio? This is HN, and story after story talks about how VCs /demand/ you locate yourself in the bay for the talent pool.

Seattle is in no danger of becoming Detroit, or an entire industry leaving, not when software skills are as in demand as they are right now. Its in no danger of Amazon picking up and leaving. Reminder, we're talking about $20 million dollars here, which is less than the budget for benches outside their brand new buildings.

I honestly think it would be a great thing for companies to go set up somewhere else and not over-inflate the 4-5 "chosen" tech areas. Maybe then housing prices can get reasonable, and some town that desperately needs any jobs can get started again.

[AmericanChopper]

I don't think the industry is going to pick up and leave Seattle, but it undoubtably puts more pressure on businesses that are already finding better places to operate elsewhere. It's these companies that have generated the revenue boom that the Seattle City Council has experienced over the past decade. If it wants more revenue and more jobs in the city, then it shouldn't make it harder for businesses to operate nor should it tax jobs. Especially when there are so many desirable areas to operate directly next door, and especially when all of those areas are already experiencing enormous growth.

[taurath]

I honesty don’t think the city should be concerned with revenue and jobs at this point. The unemployment rate is incredibly low. It should be focused on housing affordability and amenities to make it more livable for everyone who lives there, not just the new upper class who are experiencing all of the benefits already. A place where more people can have security and opportunity. And guess what, that makes for a much better city even for the upper class.

[AmericanChopper]

That’s great, but what you’re describing is jobs and growth. Housing is another area where Seattle has failed to manage its resources, so I’m not going to argue that affordability isn’t a problem. But you won’t solve it by stifling growth, which is literally what many in Seattle are advocating. But that security and opportunity you’re talking about, that’s jobs and growth. You can’t argue that the free market has been so successful at creating jobs that you don’t need to worry about it any more. The market forces that brought jobs and booming growth to Seattle can just as easily take them elsewhere.