[cmsmith]

Yes, it is a good thing for Nevada in that it is better for them than if the plant was built in California. But, it is a bad thing for the country that businesses of a certain size are able to extract this type of concessions from states.

See also: why are professional sports teams able to force cities to pay for their stadiums? If the federal government disallowed this type of interstate competition, the factories and stadiums would still get built but their owners would pay their fair share in taxes.

[sounds]

You have a point when it comes to sports teams, but not factories.

Factories will _not_ "still get built" if somewhere else is a more favorable economic deal.

See manufacturing's move to Asia, from 1970-present.

[jychang]

Yep, everyone who's bought something "Made in China" should know about how job-producing factories can and will move to the cheapest location.

Nevada giving incentives to have a factory built is no more corruption than tariffs to protect imports/exports is corruption. You can argue if it's a good or bad thing, but it's definitely not illegal nor should it be illegal.

[gph]

>You can argue if it's a good or bad thing, but it's definitely not illegal nor should it be illegal.

That doesn't make much logical sense. If you think it's a bad thing you would want it to be illegal so that it doesn't happen. Just like if you think tariffs are bad that they should be illegal.

Maybe not illegal in the criminal sense, but illegal as in regulated to not be allowed makes perfect sense.

[d_luaz]

If every "bad" thing should be illegal, then tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, prostitution, lobbying, protectionism, should be banned. Then again, we have to argue what is "good" or "bad".

[gph]

Yes, people in the past (and even some currently) thought that marijuana and prostitution were "bad" so they made them illegal.

We are not living in a libertarian society, though I guess you can believe we should if you want.

[Drakim]

It's bad to be rude, but it shouldn't be illegal to be rude.

[cynicalkane]

We have federal taxes that are supposed to pay for general national welfare. Beyond that it is not clear why the state of California "deserves" to collect taxes more than Nevada, which offers more for less.

[Shivetya]

I guess by the same token its bad that wealthy individuals can choose which state they live in based on taxes and such?

Not at all. These are good things because they force states to not go out of control, to practice restraint in taxation and expenditures, while at the same time providing proper services to people and companies.

[GreenPlastic]

Personally, I think the money is better spent in Tesla's hands than in the state government's hands.

[gph]

Perhaps in this specific case, but what if it was for a company you don't think has a good chance to succeed? Or how about a company you don't agree with ideologically?

Like I said in another comment these types of deals are turning governments into quasi-investors. They put money up front with the intention that decades later it will pay off. What if some of these projects fail before the pay off?

Up to this point these deals have largely paid off. But if this starts becoming the norm, and government leaders start coming under pressure to outbid each other, I fear for what might start transpiring. Elected officials that are looking to score points for the next election are not someone I'd trust making these long-term decisions.

[15characterlimi]

You touched on the part that I don't agree with, it's the picking and choosing of specific companies to favor that doesn't sit well with me.

[ENGNR]

It seems like a pretty safe bet for the state though. $1B not collected in exchange for $100B benefit overall. And a bunch of high tech and manufacturing skills added to the labour pool, which could attract other companies for less concessions in the future.

It doesn't seem as difficult competitively as eg picking stocks on wall st is what I'm trying to say.

[gph]

>It doesn't seem as difficult competitively as eg picking stocks on wall st is what I'm trying to say.

Not yet. But I'm a bit worried about the future. The governors in California and Texas are going to take quite a bit of flack from this. The bidding war for these types of projects is likely to get fiercer. As competition between states increases, the margins will get ever slimmer.

[untog]

People who cannot afford a Tesla are likely to disagree with you.

[webXL]

What does one have to do with the other? I can't afford practically anything Bill Gates can, but that doesn't mean I should automatically oppose what he wants to do with future government tax revenue.

Many of the 6500 workers at the gigafactory won't be able to afford a Tesla, but at least they'll be able to put food on the table.