Amazon HQ2 was supposed to add jobs last year. It shed them instead

Maybe that's a good thing. But specifically not with regards to state subsidies.

They shouldn't be competed away at the demands of business, but used with purpose.

Subsidies (or anything which quacks like a subsidy) should be regulated so this nonsense doesn't happen.

The local community actually wins.

Sure, its easy for people in NYC and San Francisco to say that nobody should compete for any of these jobs. They are going to get them anyway.

But the moment some other location tries to compete for that economic benefit, well now all of a sudden "their" jobs are being stolen by undeserving locations.

Would be the best antidote to this sort of thing, but is probably untenable to amend at this point.

This is how you end up with the Rust Belt.

Could you elaborate on the argument here -- are you suggesting that if a job has a potential for future loss, it is just better to not create the job at all? If I was mayor, i'd be happy to take a high-paying job in my locality even if it isn't perpetual. The key would be to tie incentives to actual payroll. Subsidy disappears as soon as the job disappears.

But guaranteeing perpetual jobs is something no organization can do, not even governments.

Which if office space was at a premium, then that means there was way more demand then there was supply. Meaning there is no reason to be paying people to move into this premium, high-in-demand product. All the more proof that her and others saying the same thing were correct.

https://archive.is/gRA45

> As of 2017, the median household income was $66,382 in Community Board 1[47] and $67,359 in Community Board 2.[48] In 2018, an estimated 18% of Community Board 1 and 20% of Community Board 2 residents lived in poverty, compared to 19% in all of Queens and 20% in all of New York City. The unemployment rate was 8% in Community Board 1 and 5% in Community Board 2, compared to 8% in Queens and 9% in New York City. Rent burden, or the percentage of residents who have difficulty paying their rent, is 47% in Community Board 1 and 51% in Community Board 2, slightly lower than the citywide and boroughwide rates of 53% and 51% respectively. Based on this calculation, as of 2018, northern LIC is considered to be gentrifying, while southern LIC is considered to be high-income relative to the rest of the city and not gentrifying.[43]: 7 [44]: 7

For what it's worth, my sister-in-law lives there (in a $4 million brownstone) and I visit with my wife for New Year's Eve every year. There may or may not be a ton of high-paying jobs literally in Long Island City, but it's on the bank of the East River, a two-minute train ride from Manhattan, maybe ten from Hudson Yards. They're probably better off converting all those old bottling plants to residences rather than office space anyway.

Also, not that she shouldn't care about LIC to whatever extent all people should care about other people, but AOC's district does not include LIC.

If you consider the fact that even before the deal fell apart people began buying up swaths of real estate in the area in preparation of pushing out her current constituents then I think she made the right move.

Her people are the blue collar workers of the district.

The previous rep who was the Democrats top connection to Wall Street didn't even live in the district. he lived in Virginia :talk about not representing their interests.

So I'm curious what a different concept of dividend/profit sharing might look like where it can help those who aren't the medium or super rich.