[chrismanfrank]

Am I alone in not seeing the problem here? Cities went into this with their eyes open, no? It was a bidding war to attract a major employer to the city.

Amazon's employees will pay taxes, buy property, and spend money, all of which enrich the local economy and government. That's why they're willing to offer tax breaks.

Any subsidies Amazon could have received from a city, but chose not to would amount to a gift to the city. Why would they do this? City governments are not the first place I would think of when giving to charity.

[adim86]

The article is asking what is the point? Why make cities compete for your presence. Amazons presence in a city brings along with it all the good things you mention above, as the richest man in the world and one of the richest companies in the world, the article is asking why be greedy and make cities grovel at your feet for the "good" you can bring, why doesn't Amazon just be an agent of good and bring good to the city? Not only because it is the ethical thing to do (doing good and not asking for repayment) but because in the future it will have positive repercussions for Amazon, rather than having people strike "bad" deals with Amazon cause Amazon has the upper hand now but then later on someone else uses it (The deal) as a campaign point to witch hunt Amazon cause the city made a bad deal. He is asking Bezos to Just be generous, everyone will gain.

[chrismanfrank]

I got what the article was saying. The point just makes no sense to me. Amazon got $2.4B in subsidies. To say, "it's unethical to ask for that" is functionally equivalent to saying "the only ethical thing is for Amazon to donate $2.4B to the cities."

And if the argument is Amazon shouldn't take the subsidies because it's bad PR, well you'll have to weigh the cost of that bad PR against the $2.4B savings they've negotiated for themselves.

You assume it's a "bad" deal. But Amazon says they'll spend $5B on construction costs and upwards of $5B per year paying their employees for years and years to come. Seems like a smart deal for the city on the face, assuming maximizing tax revenue is a goal.

[apacheCamel]

I think what is trying to be said is that Amazon doesn't need a handout. They are fully capable of picking any city in the US to set up shop. What would have happened if nobody bit on the whole scheme anyway? Would have they just picked some random Townsville,USA and paid full price? Without the subsidies, Amazon wouldn't have been "donating" $2.4B, that's just the extra cost of doing business there. Amazon will be great for wherever they go but the money, in my opinion, is better spent on other things.