[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.