Surely, before we worry about corporations and the wealthy, we should first seek to include and empower all of our fellow citizens.
Well….”including and empowering (your) fellow citizens” costs money. And that money comes from tax revenues, which are going someplace else when future Amazon growth is in Indianapolis.
It is a false dichotomy to think in terms of “citizens OR the corporations”. It needs to be “citizens AND the corporations”.
Problem is that in a country where there’s always somebody else ready to make a deal, the City has no leverage. So, you either have to capitulate (less bad) or lose them (more, MORE bad).
The business community would argue that a “good and happy” life is based upon a thriving economy. According to them, the city would dry up without jobs and social ills would only get worse as the economic prosperity vanished.
Well, that’s kinda true. Take a look south. What’s Tacoma without Boeing?
There is no way to legislate away that self-serving mindset, and so, cities are made hostage to corporate wants and needs.
Well, that’s negative. Most corporations aren’t out to screw the city they’re in, it should be said. What they want is a fair deal, as they define it. If corporations were out to screw their cities, everything in Silicon Valley would have moved to Texas a long time ago. UT, Rice, SMU, TAMU, UH, and Baylor can output all the coders they need.
The gains brought forth by Amazon have not been adequately shared across the city’s population. And if we’re being honest, Amazon has avoided taking responsibility (e.g. paying taxes) for problems they’ve helped create, like transit and housing.
Confused now. It’s the city politician’s job, not Amazon’s, to allocate the Amazon tax revenues “fairly.” It’s the city politician’s job to manage the growth that Amazon generates. Seems like you’re blaming Amazon for the fact that your politicians haven’t been performing.
So one wonders why the average citizen should feel compelled to “unite around efforts to remain competitive to employers like Amazon.”
Well, because life would REALLY suck without them. Right now, it just KINDA sucks, if your characterizations are accurate.
Exclusive and extractive economies like this will never be as prosperous as those which share the gains. It’s time that the business community recognizes the long-term dangers of focusing on short-term gains.
Hmmmmm. Can you provide an example where the “gains have been shared” which is more prosperous than others?
So while it is silly to cheer for Amazon’s exodus (as some on the left are doing), it is equally myopic to argue that their presence is absolutely necessary for the continuation of Seattle’s success.
I suppose it depends on how one defines “success”.