Kshama Sawant! [Archive] - Simple Living Forums

catherine

11-16-13, 1:01pm

I went on her website and then found the very interesting article posted on Forbes' website: "Why is Seattle Socialist Kshama Sawant Allowed to Teach Economics?"
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexberezow/2013/11/11/why-is-seattle-socialist-kshama-sawant-allowed-to-teach-economics/)
In the article, the main reason that she should be prohibited from teaching economics is that, according to the author, she doesn't accept a basic principle of economics--that is, people respond to incentives, and socialists fail to emphasize incentives."

I found that one point to be extremely provocative. What "incentives" is he talking about? Clearly money is the only incentive worth anything, according to his view, because he states that a teenager who is asked to mow his lawn won't do it for free, but will for $50, with $25 more if he trims the bushes.

I don't know if this "basic principle" is right or wrong. I might be convinced of its veracity if the author's POV was a little bit less limited. Can't we extend "incentives" out toward the incentive of being part of a strong community? Kindness has proven to be a strong incentive towards future kindness, (i.e., paying it forward). Love is a VERY strong incentive. Promise of quality of life is a strong incentive. Your community acknowledging your dignity is a strong incentive.

As an example, I did get a little monetary "bonus" for a good report card when I was young, however, I could give a rats a$$ about that--what I wanted was approval from my father. Now that I'm older, there are many things I would be "incentivized" to do with no pay, like running my Exit 9 business, or reading a great book, or taking care of family members that need my help, or giving free tomatoes to my neighbors. Calling money the ONLY human incentive is very, very disingenuous in my book. And the fact that Sawanti might lack proper credentials to teach economics because she may not share one very limited definition is ridiculous.

I'm off the track here, but because Seattle politics is not relevant to me, I thought I'd address redfox's good news from a different perspective.

creaker

11-16-13, 1:39pm

redfox

11-16-13, 3:28pm

Catherine, there's been a lot of coverage of that article here. The biggest number of responses I've seen said that economics isn't the glorification of capitalism, it's the study of all economic theories. Assuming that someone with their PhD in economics isn't qualified to teach because of their personal stance is ridiculous. Forbes oughta know better!

catherine

11-16-13, 4:33pm

Lainey

11-16-13, 8:39pm

Pretty cool, thanks for sharing.

I'm sure the Europeans would laugh to see the hysteria that just the word "socialism" causes here in the U.S. Not to mention the stereotypes.
Reminds me of a work colleague who told me, straight-faced, that "Democrats hate capitalism!" I asked him whether the name George Soros rings a bell??

redfox

11-16-13, 8:55pm

Yup, Lainey. As the council member she defeated said, "When most people hear 'Socialist', they think Sweden. That's not so bad!"

iris lilies

11-16-13, 10:01pm

Socialism is such a loaded word. So many make the blanket statement "socialism is bad, bad ,bad" - and then you dig a little and find they like lots of socialism (things like public schools, highway, poilce, fire, etc), but they don't call those things socialism. Just the things they don't like.

Are we allowed to accept and even like socialized public service in moderation (the key being--moderation) or must we be forced to accept ALL services including the heavy handed service of Nanny G at the federal level for the price of sort of liking the public library and police, fire, and garbage service. Is it really all or nothing, that if I accept some local service I then must (the logic follows!) accept all federal programs shoved down my throat!

I think not. False dichotomy argument, but thank you.

creaker

11-17-13, 12:25am

Are we allowed to accept and even like socialized public service in moderation (the key being--moderation) or must we be forced to accept ALL services including the heavy handed service of Nanny G at the federal level for the price of sort of liking the public library and police, fire, and garbage service. Is it really all or nothing, that if I accept some local service I then must (the logic follows!) accept all federal programs shoved down my throat!

I think not. False dichotomy argument, but thank you.

I'm not saying all or nothing - I think a mix is appropriate. Discussing where that mix should lie I think is incredibly important. But it's hard to discuss where to draw the lines when a person says a blanket "no" to socialism when that's not what they really mean.

It's like saying "I don't eat meat" - and neglecting to say "except for beef and pork and chicken". Because when you put it all together it means "yes I do eat meat", even though I said exactly the opposite. It just makes it really hard to figure out what would be appropriate to make for dinner :-)

ApatheticNoMore

11-17-13, 1:18am

I went on her website and then found the very interesting article posted on Forbes' website: "Why is Seattle Socialist Kshama Sawant Allowed to Teach Economics?"

In the article, the main reason that she should be prohibited from teaching economics is that, according to the author, she doesn't accept a basic principle of economics--that is, people respond to incentives, and socialists fail to emphasize incentives."

I found that one point to be extremely provocative. What "incentives" is he talking about? Clearly money is the only incentive worth anything, according to his view, because he states that a teenager who is asked to mow his lawn won't do it for free, but will for $50, with $25 more if he trims the bushes.

Is that even responding to incentives, people need money to live in this society duh, when you offer quite a lot of money for a simple odd job almost any able bodied person can easily take (no commitment, no skills etc.) you'll find some takers, because people need money to live. So? The degree of responding to money as an incentive almost seems to to be some type of personality type thing (though I don't think it necessarily corresponds to MBTI). What is near universal: yes people want money to get their basic needs met, by hook, by crook, by begging or working whatever (not everyone will do everything just to get money, but overall people do want money to meet thier needs). There may be some disagreement on what basic needs are based on how one was raised etc. (have to eat meat or happy veggie, shelter in this neighborhood or that - so maybe needs isn't the best term - basic comfort really). But *beyond that point* I think the degree to which people respond to money as an incentive varies a lot. I think that beyond that point it's perfectly natural to want to be more motivated by other things in life than money (and I don't mean only if you are super rich, like I said the point is met way before then) because one has enough money already, one still might take some rewards in money (some babbles) but one doesn't keep prioritizing money. So yea Maslow may not be science either but it's better than just "people respond to incentives".

I don't know if this "basic principle" is right or wrong. I might be convinced of its veracity if the author's POV was a little bit less limited. Can't we extend "incentives" out toward the incentive of being part of a strong community? Kindness has proven to be a strong incentive towards future kindness, (i.e., paying it forward). Love is a VERY strong incentive. Promise of quality of life is a strong incentive. Your community acknowledging your dignity is a strong incentive.

yes

Now that I'm older, there are many things I would be "incentivized" to do with no pay, like running my Exit 9 business, or reading a great book, or taking care of family members that need my help, or giving free tomatoes to my neighbors.

yes the things I love I do for almost nothing, to do stuff noone would naturally do they have to pay you (but if it's something almost noone would do, then after you have enough money you really don't want to do it beyond that that point except maybe once in a while for an occasional baubble) [by the way as the commentators keep pointing out the comments are better than the article, he was paid cold hard cash for just dialing it in, and they make better points for no particular reason but hoping someone will read them]

Calling money the ONLY human incentive is very, very disingenuous in my book. And the fact that Sawanti might lack proper credentials to teach economics because she may not share one very limited definition is ridiculous.

yes

Gardenarian

11-18-13, 6:06pm

Yup, Lainey. As the council member she defeated said, "When most people hear 'Socialist', they think Sweden. That's not so bad!"
Nice.
Congrats on your new Council member!

lhamo

11-19-13, 6:49am

I'm a little sad that she had to run against Conlin, though -- I always thought he was one of the more progressive council members.

Gregg

11-19-13, 11:19am

I'm not saying all or nothing - I think a mix is appropriate. Discussing where that mix should lie I think is incredibly important. But it's hard to discuss where to draw the lines when a person says a blanket "no" to socialism when that's not what they really mean.

I always thought a good starting point has government providing things I can't provide for myself. I can't defend the nation or build/maintain a national highway system. I'm not in a position to establish international trade policy or inspect all the food that is headed to my grocery store. You get the idea. Once you pare it down to a relatively short list of things citizens can't do for themselves you have a logical starting point for a government. From there we need to decide if we are going to be a compassionate and generous society. If the answer is yes we then need to set up a system of safety nets that will support people who, for whatever reason, are at a disadvantage being able to provide for themselves. Some would call that socialist simply because there are provisions to take care of someone. Others would say it is a brutal example of laissez-faire capitalism run amok because it doesn't provide all things for all people. I figure that if both ends of the spectrum are bitching like crazy you're probably pretty close to a workable system.

Added: the Forbes article is kind of silly. I wish all our economists would have a chance to study under people with several different viewpoints. Strength from diversity can apply to a lot more than an ecosystem.

puglogic

11-19-13, 11:38am

Added: the Forbes article is kind of silly. I wish all our economists would have a chance to study under people with several different viewpoints. Strength from diversity can apply to a lot more than an ecosystem.

+1. And gosh, am I the only one that finds the socialist label is just tired, tired, tired? People who wave labels around are always an indicator to me that they are a) intellectually lazy, b) love the sound of their own voices, or c) a black or white thinker, proud to stand in judgment and unwilling to see the endless shades of gray in human needs. And that's on both ends of the political spectrum and everything in between. We are running out of time for this sort of personality type, imho. Too many complex issues to solve...

Congrats, redfox! I love mixin' it up in politics, so lots of different voices are heard.

ApatheticNoMore

11-19-13, 11:52am

And gosh, am I the only one that finds the socialist label is just tired, tired, tired? People who wave labels around are always an indicator to me that they are a) intellectually lazy, b) love the sound of their own voices, or c) a black or white thinker, proud to stand in judgment and unwilling to see the endless shades of gray in human needs.

it's a political party not a label being waved around. I suspected it was either that or a self-identification. Not a smear in this case, that yes if someone calls say Obama a socialist of course it's and smear plus absurd, but if someone calls the Socialist party candidate a socialist, it's about like calling the Republican party candidate a Republican or calling the Green party candidate a Green.

creaker

11-19-13, 12:56pm

I always thought a good starting point has government providing things I can't provide for myself. I can't defend the nation or build/maintain a national highway system. I'm not in a position to establish international trade policy or inspect all the food that is headed to my grocery store. You get the idea. Once you pare it down to a relatively short list of things citizens can't do for themselves you have a logical starting point for a government. From there we need to decide if we are going to be a compassionate and generous society. If the answer is yes we then need to set up a system of safety nets that will support people who, for whatever reason, are at a disadvantage being able to provide for themselves. Some would call that socialist simply because there are provisions to take care of someone. Others would say it is a brutal example of laissez-faire capitalism run amok because it doesn't provide all things for all people. I figure that if both ends of the spectrum are bitching like crazy you're probably pretty close to a workable system.

Added: the Forbes article is kind of silly. I wish all our economists would have a chance to study under people with several different viewpoints. Strength from diversity can apply to a lot more than an ecosystem.

So once you have the government providing those things for you, it's still socialism, isn't it? And that "short list" is some really huge stuff.

rose

11-19-13, 1:13pm

As a counter to the Forbes article, here's a link the the Counterpunch article. It talks about what she stands for. Kshama Sawant took no corporate money during her campaign. She will take a salary that is the average worker's wage in Seattle, not the $120,000 City Council wage. She's been very active in the Occupy movement. She has been an outspoken supporter of the fast-food workers strikes. She is from the Socialist Alternative party, an international party. She speaks out on things that other political candidates won't talk about. She supports a living wage , economic equality and affordable housing. One of the main things she will be working on is the $15 minimum wage. During her campaign, she pushed and had the mayoral candidates giving some support to that. And even Conlin, her opponent. She supports a millionaire/billionaire tax. Seattle has a lot of wealthy people and Washington state has one of the most regressive tax systems in the country. Conlin was owned by the same wealth that owns most politicians in the republican or democratic party. The article points to where his support comes from. Second article down. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/18/the-improbable-victory-of-kshama-sawant/

Gregg

11-19-13, 1:44pm

So once you have the government providing those things for you, it's still socialism, isn't it? And that "short list" is some really huge stuff.

I guess that brings up two separate points. 1) There is, at least in most modern conversations, no real definition for "socialism". If government works as a formal community organizer to help guarantee fair distribution of the benefits that community wishes to bestow then it is, IMO, a good thing. Some consider that socialist, some don't. At that point its only a label. I don't care as long as people with true needs can find help and our remaining tax dollars are not used in ways that I consider deplorable (war, etc.).

2) The fact that the things on the short list are huge is exactly the point. If we can do it for ourselves, individually or in groups smaller than an entire nation, then we should accept that responsibility and avoid placing too much authority with any centralized entity. The really huge things that benefit everyone in the country should be centralized. A standing army for the USA is a much bigger global deterrent than just the Nebraska militia would be. But the list of things like that is not really very long, and a lot of what goes on it should be more an issue of oversight than of implementation. The list of duties that has now passed to Washington is nearly infinite. That is a big disconnect IMO.

bae

11-19-13, 1:48pm

So once you have the government providing those things for you, it's still socialism, isn't it?

Umm, no. Unless you want to water down the meaning of the word so much that it loses any utility.

This is socialism, a small bit of the 20-60 million people the Soviets "re-educated":

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Katy%C5%84%2C_ekshumacja_ofiar.jpg

This is not socialism:

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/7426/route66.jpg

Claiming that all functions of government are "socialism" is silly.

creaker

11-19-13, 2:06pm

Umm, no. Unless you want to water down the meaning of the word so much that it loses any utility.

This is socialism, a small bit of the 20-60 million people the Soviets "re-educated":

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Katy%C5%84%2C_ekshumacja_ofiar.jpg

This is not socialism:

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/7426/route66.jpg

Claiming that all functions of government are "socialism" is silly.

Some are - primarily the ones that could be accomplished in the private sector but have been put under the government - but apparently any real discussion on this is not possible.

bae

11-19-13, 2:10pm

Some are - primarily the ones that could be accomplished in the private sector but have been put under the government -

Military could be in the private sector, and has in the past. Libraries, police, fire services, roads, the whole nine yards.

That doesn't make those things "socialism", except in the most useless sense.

creaker

11-19-13, 2:39pm

Military could be in the private sector, and has in the past. Libraries, police, fire services, roads, the whole nine yards.

That doesn't make those things "socialism", except in the most useless sense.

Does that make capitalism exploiting and savaging native cultures, using police military to violently put down labor uprisings? Awful, awful things have been done in the name capitalism - does that make that capitalism? I did mean socialism as the economic definition of the word.

If you don't label it socialism, what label do you use for these functions that could run in private sector as businesses but are run by the government instead? Maybe I''m just not using the right labels. Lots of folks call it "socialism" when they believe things that should not be run by the government are run by the government.

Gregg

11-19-13, 3:00pm

Lots of folks call it "socialism" when they believe things that should not be run by the government are run by the government.

Very true. Among others its a tool of professional politicians who make it a point to spoon feed sound bites to their lower information constituents. No volunteer ever picked up his pitchfork without a good rallying cry. And the shorter the better. (What was it bae, a "thought terminating cliche"?) The cry of "SOCIALISM" seems to be the beginning and the end of conversation for a lot of people even if no one is really sure what it means.

ApatheticNoMore

11-19-13, 3:34pm

Does that make capitalism exploiting and savaging native cultures, using police military to violently put down labor uprisings? Awful, awful things have been done in the name capitalism - does that make that capitalism?

I don't think exploiting native cultures was done in the name of capitalism. Tribes killing other tribes and stealing their land probably predates capitalism. If one wants to make the case something follows from captialism (and not what? feudalism? you probably do have to have something you're contrasting against), very well, make it, draw the connections, but it goes wrong when it assumes we already know it. Maybe we don't.

Violently putting down labor uprisings actually WAS done for the benefit of capital and it fits one definition: capital controlling the state. So I can live with that.

By the way I suspect it is correct that the current economic system, whatever one wants to call it, if it doesn't already, will have the biggest unnecessary death toll of all (more than Hitler, more than Stalin) just from it's sheer inability to deal with environmental issues among all it's other problems.

I did mean socialism as the economic definition of the word.

which is what? worker ownership? I think "worker ownership" is a decent definition of socialism. It may or may not mean government ownership. Much of what is called "socialism" these days is really just "social democrat". That's not actually even anti-captialist, most of the businesses may be capitalist! It just wants a serious safety net.

Alan

11-21-13, 12:26pm

.....The cry of "SOCIALISM" seems to be the beginning and the end of conversation for a lot of people even if no one is really sure what it means.
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/seattle-city-councilmember-elect-shares-radical-id/nbxbC/

Seattle City Councilmember-elect Kshama Sawant told Boeing machinists her idea of a radical option, should their jobs be moved out of state
“The workers should take over the factories, and shut down Boeing’s profit-making machine,” Sawant announced to a cheering crowd of union supporters in Seattle’s Westlake Park Monday night.

..........
Sawant is calling for machinists to literally take-possession of the Everett airplane-building factory, if Boeing moves out. She calls that "democratic ownership."
“The only response we can have if Boeing executives do not agree to keep the plant here is for the machinists to say the machines are here, the workers are here, we will do the job, we don't need the executives. The executives don’t do the work, the machinists do,” she said.
In this case, I'm pretty sure we all understand the meaning of the word.

JaneV2.0

11-21-13, 12:58pm

ApatheticNoMore

11-21-13, 1:01pm

In this case, I'm pretty sure we all understand the meaning of the word.

I would cheer that (and btw whether or not it is meant to be taken literally, that type of radicalism is what the entire labor movement was built on, not all politeness). Of course they'd have better luck taking over an economically struggling company (workers have in other countries, when the factory was shut down, they reopened it. The end result is the chance of having a functioning factory that actually makes something locally rather than a post-manufacturing ghost town which is all neo-liberalism seems to have planned).

Of course there's still the problem that Boeing's main market is as a merchant of death, because think what you will of commercial airplanes and the like, it's the war machine I mean. If it was a merchant of death with worker ownership well that would be an interesting combo to put it mildly! But nontheless a merchant of death, worker ownership for the causes of war and imperialism, eek! So ideally they'd switch into consumer goods but if that's even particularly possible I don't know, probably all specialized machinery, swords not so easily turned in plowshares. Now Boeing can properly be characterized as fascist (or at least corporatist if you don't like the term - it's about as free-market as the army), then wow hard to say ....

Gregg

11-21-13, 1:05pm

If that were to happen there would be a lot of words that would pop into my mind before socialism. Let's just say that it isn't Boeing that I would label as an "economic terrorist".

I like it that we have a society that gives a platform to all kinds of ideas. I like it that this woman presents alternate economic theories. Without the fringes there wouldn't be a proverbial middle for the 99% of normal, reasonable people that make this country great.

creaker

11-21-13, 1:45pm

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/seattle-city-councilmember-elect-shares-radical-id/nbxbC/

In this case, I'm pretty sure we all understand the meaning of the word.

"Taking possession" via the government isn't limited to socialism: http://triblive.com/news/westmoreland/5096400-74/sunoco-pipeline-property#axzz2lIrAPRbS

ApatheticNoMore

11-21-13, 2:55pm

"Taking possession" via the government isn't limited to socialism

and the example given wasn't even by the government (I mean she very directly called for workers taking over the factories not the government nationalizing them - how can one even get "taking possession" via the government from that). The government would most likely come to the defense of Boeing if such was actually attempted (I don't have a crystal ball, but there's enough reason to believe so), with swat teams galore. It would be ugly, such is confronting the corporate state head-on.

http://triblive.com/news/westmoreland/5096400-74/sunoco-pipeline-property#axzz2lIrAPRbS[/url]

Surprise, surprise eminent domain. While many can see some legitimate uses of eminent domain in theory, that it's often used to benefit large corporations at the expense of small businesses and individuals is nothing new under the sun.

bae

11-21-13, 3:01pm

The government would most likely come to the defense of Boeing if such was actually attempted.

I should certainly hope so, if a bunch of looters tried to take Boeing's property by force.

I'd also be quite supportive of Boeing lining up machineguns and cutting down the trespassing, thieving socialist scum like ripe wheat, if the government abandoned its responsibility.

creaker

11-21-13, 3:40pm

and the example given wasn't even by the government (I mean she very directly called for workers taking over the factories not the government nationalizing them - how can one even get "taking possession" via the government from that). The government would most likely come to the defense of Boeing if such was actually attempted (I don't have a crystal ball, but there's enough reason to believe so), with swat teams galore. It would be ugly, such is confronting the corporate state head-on.

I was going one step beyond - "taking possession" like that (or even in the other case of Sunoco taking people's properties) really requires at least passive assent by the government, if not outright participation.

ApatheticNoMore

11-21-13, 4:09pm

I was going one step beyond - "taking possession" like that (or even in the other case of Sunoco taking people's properties) really requires at least passive assent by the government, if not outright participation.

And Beoing keeping posession also requires the government generally. The cops and possibly the military would be called in, don't you think?

Alan

11-21-13, 5:19pm

And Beoing keeping posession also requires the government generally. The cops and possibly the military would be called in, don't you think?Actually, government intervention is not generally required to maintain possession of your own property, it's just cleaner.

I'm left scratching my head about how people could celebrate any politician who advocates such things. But maybe that's just me.

bae

11-21-13, 5:22pm

I'm left scratching my head about how people could ....

I'm puzzled why people are surprised at how fast businesses are moving out of the State of Washington.

creaker

11-21-13, 7:57pm

And Beoing keeping posession also requires the government generally. The cops and possibly the military would be called in, don't you think?

Historically, that is what generally happened.

Lainey

11-21-13, 10:13pm

Boeing just signed 95 million dollars in contracts. I heard on the news that their labor costs are four percent of their overhead. Would it really kill them to share some of the profits with the people who make the planes? As usual, it's the race to the bottom (dollar), and the only people who count are the shareholders.

Actually the contract figure reported in the news was $25.2 Billion at the Dubai Air Show. and yes, agree that that should be plenty of money to go around for everyone.

But in the meantime here in AZ, one city was pressured in giving Apple $10 Million in grants and tax concessions in exchange for Apple opening a plant there. A plant which, btw, Apple paid $100 Million in CASH for. Yet another example of how corporate welfare/socialism for the wealthy.

iris lilies

11-21-13, 10:23pm

Gregg

11-22-13, 1:10pm

But in the meantime here in AZ, one city was pressured in giving Apple $10 Million in grants and tax concessions in exchange for Apple opening a plant there. A plant which, btw, Apple paid $100 Million in CASH for. Yet another example of how corporate welfare/socialism for the wealthy.

By what measure was the city forced to make concessions to Apple? Most deals like that that I've heard of simply involve one side saying, "we'll give you this if you give us that". Either side has the ability to say "no, that's not a good deal for us, thanks anyway". If Apple is going ahead with the plant I'm assuming both sides got what they wanted from the negotiation. As far as the form of payment there are two points. First, from an investment standpoint, cash sucks. If you have it its far wiser to put it to work than to sit on it so Apple's strategy sounds prudent. Second, why does paying cash make you evil? I paid cash for my house. Am I evil?

Lainey

11-22-13, 9:57pm

Apple paying $100 million cash for the plant is proving the point that it did not need the $10M in grants and concessions. That $10M is taxpayer money that will now not be available to spend on city services.

We've had the discussion before that it's unfortunately commonplace that for-profit corporations, flush with cash, still demand these taxpayer monies. I think it's extortion. However in the public hearings for this deal, the room was filled with people demanding that it be passed because of the jobs that Apple was dangling in front of them. Would Apple have done the deal without the $10M? Who knows? It only took 2 meetings to cave in to public pressure to do it.

I only wish that the first time this stunt was tried that whichever city or state was asked to fork over tax dollars would have said not only No, but put the word H**l in front of it. Now, everyone is so afraid that these greedy corps. will go elsewhere that they all feel compelled to say Yes, like it or not. And taxpayers lose, again.

Alan

11-22-13, 10:10pm

I see the Apple deal a little differently. It seems to me that many localities would love to have Apple bring jobs, payroll taxes, opportunity, etc., to their area and are willing to add enticements to make it happen. If Apple can set up shop anywhere they like, wouldn't it make sense to settle on the community that valued it the most?

And, for the community, isn't it better to add those enticements to any industry in order to enjoy the long term effects they will provide? If they're smart, they'll realize that their $10M investment will bring in many multiples of that over time that wasn't there otherwise. It's good business.

I'm a free market kinda guy so I see this situation as a win/win for all involved.

bae

11-22-13, 10:14pm

Extortion? I don't think that word means what you think it means....

JaneV2.0

11-22-13, 10:22pm

Actually the contract figure reported in the news was $25.2 Billion at the Dubai Air Show. and yes, agree that that should be plenty of money to go around for everyone.
...

Yes, but that was one of at least two major deals.

Gregg

11-23-13, 12:22am

That $10M is taxpayer money that will now not be available to spend on city services.

Where that $10M would have come from if Apple were out of the equation?

To cut to the chase I will offer this... It would have never existed in any way, shape or form without this deal so the city in question didn't actually give up a penny. Not one cent. I WISH someone would come up to me and say, "I will spend $100M in your town before we ever even open the doors then I will move in X,000 highly paid employees who will support your economy/schools/parks/etc. if you will agree to forgo $10M in revenue that you would never have anyway if I can't get this deal done". How do you say no brainer? If the hamlet in AZ doesn't want them, we'll take them. The voters up here aren't crazy.

The increases in sales tax, property tax, wheel tax, utility revenue and every other tax/revenue category on the city's books are ALSO dollars that would never have materialized without the new Apple plant. Not only that, but the ancillary economic activity that such a facility will generate will create more new jobs and give more entrepreneurs a chance to strike out on their own and also pay all those taxes and fees. I'm not big fan of Apple (H**l, I have an Android!), but there is no way this town is a loser or a victim of "extortion" because of the deal they made. But hey, what do I know? Maybe politicians 'caving in' to the will of their constituents is really a bad thing. I wish the $*#&ers I elected would try it so I know for sure.

ETA: Of course the scenario with the Apple plant assumes the goal is growth. By negotiating and reaching a deal the AZ town obviously has it's sights set on growth. There is plenty of room to argue that perpetual growth is unsustainable, unwise, unwanted, whatever, but that is a completely different thread.

Lainey

11-23-13, 8:37am

Lainey

11-23-13, 9:12am

. .I'm a free market kinda guy so I see this situation as a win/win for all involved.

Free market, by definition, does not require taxpayer subsidies. Free market means your business stands, or falls, on its own.

creaker

11-23-13, 10:07am

Free market, by definition, does not require taxpayer subsidies. Free market means your business stands, or falls, on its own.

This scenario really can be a robbing Peter to pay Paul kind of thing, if that $10M has to be offset by others paying to make up the difference. How private is private industry if it's able to socialize a big chunk of it's costs?

Gregg

11-23-13, 10:34am

The "free market" is Apple or any other for-profit corp. going to a bank and using the bank's money to manage its business cash needs. Demanding taxpayer cash for any part of your business - no matter how many jobs it may or may not create - is NOT what taxes are for.
I have mentioned before that my father spent decades working for a chemical company in the NE. It was a major employer, and provided jobs with medical and dental health insurance, paid vacation, and pensions. It paid property taxes and payroll taxes which supported police, firefighters, schools, roads, and other community infrastructure. The company never once went to citizens and said, Hey, our payroll is pretty substantial so you need to pony up some cash or else we'll leave!

The corporation supported the community just as its workers supported the corporation - NOT the other way around.

1. Apple doesn't need the bank. The bank needs Apple. Not convenient, but true nonetheless.

2. Apple didn't "demand taxpayer cash". Is there ANY point in those negotiations where the taxpayers wrote a check to Apple? No, there isn't. Mesa, the city in question, decided it was wise for them to forgo a smaller revenue stream in order to generate many streams that added up to much more than the first. Those civic leaders were good enough with math to realize that, for them, bigger was better. They were also smart enough to realize that if the plant was built somewhere else they would have no revenue stream at all.

3. There were eight different governmental entities from Mesa that needed to approve the deal or it would have died. All of them did. None of them, as far as I saw, voiced any objections to Apple's 'strong arm' tactics.

4. Mesa courted Apple - NOT the other way around. Might be helpful to remember that.

5. Apple purchased and will renovate a former solar panel manufacturing plant (that never made a panel). It is ~ 1,000,000 square feet of building(s) that are currently sitting vacant, becoming an eyesore and costing the city money. Just to add to the cool factor the plan is to power it with 100% renewable energy.

6. The plant will employ ~ 1,300 people during construction. The official unemployment rate in AZ in August was 8.3%. By now we all know that the real unemployment rate is often close to double the reported rate. 1,300 Relatively high paying construction jobs is a huge deal for a community of 450,000 people in a tough economy.

7. The plant will employ ~ 700 workers upon completion. The news blip I saw said their pay will average around $50,000. That's $35,000,000 per year for the local economy from JUST the salaries, not to mention vendors, services and the entire ripple effect from housing sales (and property taxes), car sales (and wheel taxes), and on and on. That is also a huge deal.

Civic leaders being mindful of the citizens needs and wishes while taking steps to insure future prosperity is a trend I would be happy to support in my town. Apparently the citizens of Mesa feel the same way as the reports and blogs from Mesa that come up with a Google search are overwhelmingly positive. The whole point of negotiation is that everyone ends up with something they want or need. I'd say both sides did an excellent job in this one.

Gregg

11-23-13, 10:54am

This scenario really can be a robbing Peter to pay Paul kind of thing, if that $10M has to be offset by others paying to make up the difference. How private is private industry if it's able to socialize a big chunk of it's costs?

Again there is this assumption that the $10M was going to be there either way. Its a false assumption. Mesa isn't paying Apple $10M so it is not being 'robbed' from anywhere. The $10M is what would have been due in taxes on the facility if someone would have come in and purchased it with no negotiation whatsoever. That would never have happened no matter who the buyer was. People who spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop state of the art facilities tend to be a little more savvy than that. It is also money that never, repeat NEVER, would have gone into the Mesa coffers as long as that plant sat vacant.

For anyone who didn't know, the deal was that the city of Mesa, AZ would re-zone an abandoned manufacturing plant from standard industrial zoning to a foreign trade zone. That is a federal program that offers tax incentives in return for companies locating new manufacturing facilities, and new manufacturing jobs, in the US. If the jobs go off-shore there is no revenue and there are no domestic jobs. The program is a way to level the field and make it more attractive to base facilities in the US than in China (for example). It can be called a subsidy if that trips your trigger, but at least it is one that directly leads to the creation of jobs. Solid middle class jobs, btw. We need that right now.

Lainey

11-23-13, 11:57am

You've painted a rosy scenario.
Would your answer be different if the name of the company was Blackberry instead of Apple? Wasn't there vehement declarations on this very forum that "government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers"?

Check out the Goldwater Institute's article, "In the Economic Horse Race, Government is a Terrible Gambler."
http://goldwaterinstitute.org/blog/economic-horserace-government-terrible-gambler

creaker

11-23-13, 12:11pm

Again there is this assumption that the $10M was going to be there either way. Its a false assumption. Mesa isn't paying Apple $10M so it is not being 'robbed' from anywhere. The $10M is what would have been due in taxes on the facility if someone would have come in and purchased it with no negotiation whatsoever. That would never have happened no matter who the buyer was. People who spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop state of the art facilities tend to be a little more savvy than that. It is also money that never, repeat NEVER, would have gone into the Mesa coffers as long as that plant sat vacant.

For anyone who didn't know, the deal was that the city of Mesa, AZ would re-zone an abandoned manufacturing plant from standard industrial zoning to a foreign trade zone. That is a federal program that offers tax incentives in return for companies locating new manufacturing facilities, and new manufacturing jobs, in the US. If the jobs go off-shore there is no revenue and there are no domestic jobs. The program is a way to level the field and make it more attractive to base facilities in the US than in China (for example). It can be called a subsidy if that trips your trigger, but at least it is one that directly leads to the creation of jobs. Solid middle class jobs, btw. We need that right now.

I was just trying to say as long as there is a gain, that's a good thing. But if the costs that need to be absorbed by the town and other taxpayers (extra police, road maintenance, infrastructure upgrade costs, whatever) exceed any gains created by having the plant, it's not as good a thing. I've heard of situations of when the good deals ran out, the employers pulled up stakes and left because they could not outsource as much of their costs anymore.

ApatheticNoMore

11-23-13, 1:08pm

Yea one does think that if we're going to be throwing out $10M here and there can't we do better than support the same old industries that are killing us? Picking winners and losers? It's more reinforcing existing winners (no start up has access to that kind of govt. cash). It's a hard and brittle structure of reinforced oligopoly (hard to compete with an established business if all the established businesses are getting $10M grants here and there). And that's pretty much the economy we have: brittle, static, oligopolistic.

bae

11-23-13, 2:07pm

I am quite fascinated by different theories of economics and how businesses operate...

Especially when those theories are offered up by people who couldn't run a lemonade stand.

ApatheticNoMore

11-23-13, 2:37pm

I would rather not pay taxes for that, then again I don't much pay local taxes anyway, and have no say in what they are spent for anyway but I'd rather not be taxed for that if I had my way about it (I mean for goodness sakes my taxes are supporting a company that employes Chinese slave labor! The conditions of their factories are beyond deplorable and inhuman. And that's the FIRST thing that comes to mind when I think about Apple's business and what it's all about).

I don't know that I have any interest in running a lemonade stand though I've heard it makes one a real jerk (the sourness of the lemons perhaps, it seeps into the bloodstream and crosses the blood brain barrier, that's my theory. Actually I know better theories but they're not as funny). You might not get it but I'm not TRYING to run a lemonade stand. Just because work sucks it doesn't follow that being an entrepreneur wouldn't. In fact I've generally been of the opinion it would probably suck even more, and I prefer less suckiness to more suckiness. I'm funny that way! It's not that I want desperately to run a lemonade stand and keep failing miserably it's that I have NO INTEREST in doing so, I don't see what's in it for me (although what if I was, not everyone has every single talent out there, I would also fail at being a professional basketball player - so what?). And I have to do so in order to have some opinion about how my taxes are spent? Do I also get no opinion on whether a sports stadium gets built with them because I'm not a pro basketball player?

We don't all aspire to be lemonade stand owners or have any great respect for them (in my book they are only owed the respect that any human being is owed by virtue of being human - no more, no less). Although to the extent that they are running slave labor factories perhaps not even that, because that's pretty vile.

I also couldn't mine for coal or pick fruit in the central valley if my life depended on it. Oh right maybe I could and maybe I couldn't, and I'd try to if my life depended on it, but mostly those things suck! I don't want to trade my job for being a coal miner or a fruit picker even if I complain about my job. And that is generally my evaluation of entrepreneurship (sure it doesn't suck as much as being a coal miner, but I don't see it as being better than my job). Those who fantasize about entrepreneurship mostly only see the good side and don't see the bad side I think.

creaker

11-23-13, 4:39pm

I am quite fascinated by different theories of economics and how businesses operate...

Especially when those theories are offered up by people who couldn't run a lemonade stand.

Sometimes theories and other statements are offered up by people because they are looking for instructive feedback.

There may be some folks out there who just intuitively know how to run a lemonade stand, the rest of us have to learn.

Lainey

11-23-13, 11:49pm

Gregg

11-24-13, 10:40am

I was just trying to say as long as there is a gain, that's a good thing. But if the costs that need to be absorbed by the town and other taxpayers (extra police, road maintenance, infrastructure upgrade costs, whatever) exceed any gains created by having the plant, it's not as good a thing. I've heard of situations of when the good deals ran out, the employers pulled up stakes and left because they could not outsource as much of their costs anymore.

I suppose the first thing to get clear on is that no system is perfect. Every thing worth doing involves some risk. Could Apple fail or otherwise just pack up and leave and stick the city with a big bill? Kind of. Remember, they are taking over a vacant facility. The city is already on the hook for all the services it must provide for that development so if Apple just changed their mind Mesa would just be right back where they are now. There are similar risks to Apple if the city is unable to perform its end of the bargain.

In this case both sides take on some risk in the hope of receiving benefits far into the future. Spreading the risk out is what negotiations are all about. To do that successfully you also have to spread out the anticipated rewards. If you don't do that the negotiation will fail. From what I can see I think both sides of this negotiation did an excellent job of working together to produce the maximum benefit for each while minimizing the downsides.

There is an obvious benefit to Apple in that they will save money with the re-zoning of the facility. There are other benefits to locating in Mesa, AZ as well. It offers an available workforce, affordable housing in the area, a pipeline of potential workers from the university, several regional healthcare options & Sky Harbor airport are both nearby, a vibrant recreational/social/cultural scene, etc. All things that should help Apple find and retain qualified applicants for its job openings. We've already covered the benefits to Mesa, but in a nut shell they will significantly increase the tax base allowing the city to do all the things a city does for its citizens (whether those citizens work for Apple or not).

As far as additional costs to the city, yes there will be some. But remember, this facility is already built and the original owners are bankrupt. The infrastructure is done. The cops have to patrol a gigantic vacant structure that I would guess is attractive to gangs, drug dealers, hookers, etc. The firemen are probably on high alert because of the possibility of vandalism. Taxes can accrue all they want, but if the owners are in bankruptcy court nothing is going to get paid. When the new owners move in they will probably have to upgrade the infrastructure, but that will come almost entirely from the owner's pocket, not the city's. There will be people there 24/7, the place will have lights and security and sensors. IOW, there will be a far lower need for the presence of police and firemen. The city will certainly have to spend more on road maintenance because of traffic heading into a full plant than it does for cop cars going to an empty plant, but don't forget every one of those cars will have a license plate (taxes) and will buy gas (more taxes), etc.

Gregg

11-24-13, 10:47am

Would your answer be different if the name of the company was Blackberry instead of Apple?

Can't speak for Mesa, but if it were me then absolutely yes it would be different. Blackberry is in a position where it will probably fail or at best be absorbed into a larger concern with the core business fading to black. Everyone on Wall Street already knows that. Most everyone else does, too. If I were a city official I would be extremely reluctant to expose my town to that kind of risk. Apple, OTOH, is financially stable, has a tremendous market share and is poised to do well for many, many years to come. That equates to a much lower risk if I'm a city official negotiating with them.

Wasn't there vehement declarations on this very forum that "government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers"?

In the scenario described above it's not favoritism, its economic reality. As a city official I would have a fiduciary duty to acknowledge that.

creaker

11-24-13, 11:26am

I suppose the first thing to get clear on is that no system is perfect. Every thing worth doing involves some risk. Could Apple fail or otherwise just pack up and leave and stick the city with a big bill? Kind of. Remember, they are taking over a vacant facility. The city is already on the hook for all the services it must provide for that development so if Apple just changed their mind Mesa would just be right back where they are now. There are similar risks to Apple if the city is unable to perform its end of the bargain.

In this case both sides take on some risk in the hope of receiving benefits far into the future. Spreading the risk out is what negotiations are all about. To do that successfully you also have to spread out the anticipated rewards. If you don't do that the negotiation will fail. From what I can see I think both sides of this negotiation did an excellent job of working together to produce the maximum benefit for each while minimizing the downsides.

There is an obvious benefit to Apple in that they will save money with the re-zoning of the facility. There are other benefits to locating in Mesa, AZ as well. It offers an available workforce, affordable housing in the area, a pipeline of potential workers from the university, several regional healthcare options & Sky Harbor airport are both nearby, a vibrant recreational/social/cultural scene, etc. All things that should help Apple find and retain qualified applicants for its job openings. We've already covered the benefits to Mesa, but in a nut shell they will significantly increase the tax base allowing the city to do all the things a city does for its citizens (whether those citizens work for Apple or not).

As far as additional costs to the city, yes there will be some. But remember, this facility is already built and the original owners are bankrupt. The infrastructure is done. The cops have to patrol a gigantic vacant structure that I would guess is attractive to gangs, drug dealers, hookers, etc. The firemen are probably on high alert because of the possibility of vandalism. Taxes can accrue all they want, but if the owners are in bankruptcy court nothing is going to get paid. When the new owners move in they will probably have to upgrade the infrastructure, but that will come almost entirely from the owner's pocket, not the city's. There will be people there 24/7, the place will have lights and security and sensors. IOW, there will be a far lower need for the presence of police and firemen. The city will certainly have to spend more on road maintenance because of traffic heading into a full plant than it does for cop cars going to an empty plant, but don't forget every one of those cars will have a license plate (taxes) and will buy gas (more taxes), etc.

It's complicated. Good cost benefit analysis is always warranted, some cities have made deals that have not worked out well for them. And maybe it's just not mentioned, but I never hear of cities asking surrounding communities to share some of the burden on these kind of deals - I would expect many of the folks who end up being employed there won't live in Mesa or spend their wages there.

Gregg

11-24-13, 11:34am

It's complicated. Good cost benefit analysis is always warranted, some cities have made deals that have not worked out well for them. And maybe it's just not mentioned, but I never hear of cities asking surrounding communities to share some of the burden on these kind of deals - I would expect many of the folks who end up being employed there won't live in Mesa or spend their wages there.

Again I can't speak for Mesa, but it is fairly common for multiple entities to be involved. Cities, counties, even state level and beyond. The Foreign Trade zoning for this plant is a Federal designation. There were a total of eight different entities that needed to sign off to make the Apple deal happen so there was obviously a lot of communication between the people who would be effected by the development.

Lainey

11-24-13, 2:12pm

The new capitalism: privatize the profits, socialize the risk.

Gregg

11-25-13, 9:11am

The new capitalism: privatize the profits, socialize the risk.

If you don't believe there is risk involved in spending hundreds of millions of dollars to open a new facility to produce a product that you hope people will buy then I've done all I can do. Capitalism, new or old, offers the possibility of rewards to those who are willing to take risks to get them. That's why you are able to read this on a computer that isn't the size of a box car or why you are able to jump in your car to go see a feature film or why you are able to treat whatever malady you may come down with or...

ApatheticNoMore

11-25-13, 1:19pm

Yes they may be spending a lot the only point is that they should spend what they spend and get what they get without governments having to spend money on them as well (that the cost benefit calculation shouldn't involve government). With a company that size the risk they are taking anymore is pretty small but yea they could go the way of blackberry. The greater the uncertainty ACTUALLY was (ie trying to revamp blackberry - it uh happened to Apple. Or some unknown startup) the less likely they would be to get any government help anyway I figure. Well that's assuming they are playing it safe with the taxpayer money. Unless corruption? Well yes of course if companies have bought off the local officials then all bets are off.

bae

11-25-13, 2:13pm

Yes they may be spending a lot the only point is that they should spend what they spend and get what they get without governments having to spend money on them as well (that the cost benefit calculation shouldn't involve government).

You understand, yes, that the government wasn't writing the company a check for $$$, but was instead offering to lower the cost the government was charging them to operate within its jurisdiction?

That is to say, the *cost* of complying with government regulations and fees *was* part of the company's calculations. Asking the company to ignore those costs is a bit silly. I think it is quite reasonable for a company to say "hey, we'll build this facility in your community, and bring you all these jobs, if you make conditions favorable for us, otherwise we're building it in Alabama."

The state of Washington is becoming increasingly inhospitable to businesses and producers, large and small. Soon we'll have wonderful regulations and tax laws here, but no producers, distributors, or retailers of goods.

ApatheticNoMore

11-25-13, 2:36pm

creaker

11-25-13, 2:47pm

But if it only does that for some businesses and not for others (say those already operating in the area maybe or those with less money to bring in at least initially), it's favoritism, and granting favors to certain companies and not others would seem to raise no end of problems.

And yes the competition among localities is problematic in itself and will tend to be reinforcing in a bad way.

Well, if they cut great tax deals for everyone, businesses and residents alike, and lower everyone's cost of being in Mesa, wouldn't that be even better? More money to spend and create jobs all around. Why not get it down to $0 in taxes for everyone?

Lainey

11-25-13, 11:08pm

Well, if they cut great tax deals for everyone, businesses and residents alike, and lower everyone's cost of being in Mesa, wouldn't that be even better? More money to spend and create jobs all around. Why not get it down to $0 in taxes for everyone?

$0 is not enough - we have to provide years of tax breaks, concessions, etc. And then, as I know from the multi-national corporation I work for, it's not like taxpayers only need to do that when the company first gets set up. Even many years later, having learned how easy the extortion game is, CEOs will threaten to move the company to another state. And so more tax breaks, concessions, and yes outright payments get made.

But the real irony is to check out how the First Solar building became available in the first place. Anyone want to guess how many millions of tax dollars went to First Solar, and how many thousands of jobs First Solar promised? And yea, verily, those jobs did not materialize. Just like the many other examples in the article I linked to, all across the country.

It's Charlie Brown - Lucy - football trick again and again.

Gregg

11-25-13, 11:20pm

You understand, yes, that the government wasn't writing the company a check for $$$, but was instead offering to lower the cost the government was charging them to operate within its jurisdiction?

It is a very difficult concept to accept if one starts from the standpoint that all corporations are inherently evil and that their interest and those of their employes, or the towns in which they're based, can never be in alignment.

Lainey

11-25-13, 11:28pm

Gregg,
I'd be happy just to see corporations act like they used to. Like the one my father worked for. Where they actually got started by going to a bank and borrowing money and then offering stock for purchase. Where there was no demands from all levels of government for unending tax breaks. Where their success or failure - a true free market - was their own. Where they understood they were part of community, and their employees were living, breathing human beings. Where the bottom line was not the only line.

Is that possible? Who knows.

Gregg

11-25-13, 11:28pm

Just like the many other examples in the article I linked to, all across the country.

Just curious if there are ANY examples of companies and towns entering into a mutually beneficial arrangement that didn't end up taking food from baby's mouths? Just ONE that didn't end in disaster for the good citizens of Terabithia?

ETA: I bet there are plenty of examples of responsible and even ethical corporate behavior. Most corporations who set up shop somewhere are completely cognizant of the investment they have made. If they destroy the town their investment becomes worthless. They know that. Lainey, your Dad's company likely was not just a magnanimous benefactor. They did what they did because it was ultimately good for their bottom line. And I'm guessing that if they hadn't made a profit their approach would have changed.

Mesa, AZ is going to score higher on all those 'hottest new place to be' lists because Apple is there. There is no reason to think Apple won't be a model corporate citizen. Is there?

bae

11-25-13, 11:44pm

Is that possible? Who knows.

I started two S&P 500 companies that way. And we didn't start by going to a bank.

As to a "true free market", there simply isn't one available anymore, in today's regulatory environment.

Lainey

11-27-13, 11:01am

. .. Most corporations who set up shop somewhere are completely cognizant of the investment they have made. If they destroy the town their investment becomes worthless. They know that. Lainey, your Dad's company likely was not just a magnanimous benefactor. They did what they did because it was ultimately good for their bottom line. ..

It's not what they did, it's what they didn't do: they did not demand that the local taxpayers build infrastructure/give tax breaks/pay them cash in exchange for their having their business in their community. And amazingly, everyone made money: their top executives, their workers, and their shareholders.

Lainey

11-27-13, 11:17am

. .. There is no reason to think Apple won't be a model corporate citizen. Is there?

I guess we'll see. In the meantime, here's some info on Apple's corporate behavior from an Alternet article:

"Apple was planning on increasing the number of stores open on Thanksgiving this year, but CEO Tim Cook made a big show of expressing his goodwill by insisting that only some of his employees should be miserable for the holidays: those working in stores on the Las Vegas Strip, Hawaii’s Waikiki Beach and New York’s Fifth Avenue.

Cook’s largesse is duly noted.

But so is the fact that Apple’s employees are pretty miserable to begin with. According to Glassdoor.com—sort of like Yelp for America’s workforce where employees leave reviews of their experience on the job—working for Apple is no picnic. In terms of satisfaction, Apple ranks #34, far behind tech companies like Facebook (#1), Google (#6) and Linked-In (#14). It also ranks below Shell Oil US (#18), Mastercard (#29) and Bain & Company (#4). Apple employees complain of long hours, difficulty in balancing life and work, and — surprise! — “retail hours involving holiday hours.”

Apple’s per-employee revenue is an off-the-freaking charts $2.13 million, yet the average salary of an Apple store “Genius” is $38,937, which, in locations like New York, is barely subsistence level. Apple is sitting on a tremendous amount of cash right now, but is it going to increase the pay and benefits of the workers who make its success possible? Or maybe invest in the development of new products? Perish the thought! No, it appears Apple is likely to do a massive stock buyback (read: stock manipulation) and enrich executives to the tune of $150 billion (if Carl Ichan has his way). Stock buybacks are a noxious form of redistribution of profits away from workers and an innovation-killer, and should be banned.

Let’s not forget that Apple is facing a class-action suit for conspiring with other tech firms to screw over employees with do-not-hire arrangements. Or that Apple iPhone workers in China work in virtual slavery. Or that Tim Cook sent an incredibly creepy video to employees warning them to read up on “business conduct” guidelines. Et cetera."

Gregg

11-27-13, 1:49pm

Its all about the slant. A couple things jump off the page right away...

1. Traditionally a company will pay for infrastructure upgrades on their property (from the facility to the street). The municipality will pay for required upgrades as needed to their systems from there. Look at something basic like a sewer system. The company will build everything it needs to comply to the city's codes all the way out to the point it's system connects to the city's sewer system. If the city system is inadequate it is the municipality's responsibility to upgrade from that point on. The city will finance it with a bond issue and it will be paid back through the usage fees from the new customer(s). There is nothing to negotiate because that is simply how its done. There is no doubt in my mind that's what your Dad's company did and it is what Apple just agreed to do.

2. Apple ranks #34 in terms of job satisfaction. Not good if there are only 35 companies in the running. Pretty fine if there are 1,000. Why do you suppose glassdoor.com doesn't tell us? Why do you suppose they don't share how that determination of rank was made? Its also curious that Apple's retail employees "complain of long hours, difficulty in balancing life and work, and — surprise! — retail hours involving holiday hours" when (apparently) no employees of any other company anywhere else have similar complaints. Oh wait, they didn't share that information with us, either. My wife had those same complaints for 20 years working for the company that we owned.

3. Revenue per employee is a big number meant to wow the audience, but with no context it is a meaningless number. Revenue doesn't mean squat in business. I could have a revenue of a billion dollars per employee, but if my expenses are a billion and one dollars I am losing money. We know from annual reports that Apple is a profitable company, but the numbers as presented in that article are only useful if you want to slant a story using business lingo for the purpose of leading on low information readers (in a business sense).

...the average salary of an Apple store “Genius” is $38,937, which, in locations like New York, is barely subsistence level.

4. Again, a cute trick using a figure that is totally meaningless with no context. It does not say that the average salary in NYC is $38K, does it? The author didn't say that on purpose. The average salary in the NYC stores might be $250,000, we just don't know, do we? And $38K in a place like Las Vegas is, I'm guessing, WAY above the average retail employee salary and can get you a pretty decent lifestyle.

I'm all for debating the pros and cons of how our society works, but it does absolutely no good if we're going to ignore the real details and skip straight to the emotionally charged, good vs. evil arguments intentionally fostered by unscrupulous sources trying to present a story devoid of facts and out of context only to advance their own position. If that's all we have then our debate won't do much good.

Lainey

11-27-13, 10:53pm

If only sewer system upgrades were the only thing they'd asked for. But, in a similar note, look at what happened to nearby city of Glendale AZ when they too were dazzled with economic promises:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-31/arizona-stadium-proving-trojan-horse-for-taxpayers-muni-credit.html

It's just amazing to me that the same people who rant against government and mock them for their incompetence, then turn around and praise them for having fantastic financial skills in "enticing" these for-profit companies.

Anyway, there's an end to it, and we'll have to disagree. Mark me as a Libertarian on this issue, Gregg. And let's mark the calendar for a few years down the road to see how this Mesa deal, and other giveaways around the country, are faring.

iris lilies

11-29-13, 10:03pm

...
The state of Washington is becoming increasingly inhospitable to businesses and producers, large and small. Soon we'll have wonderful regulations and tax laws here, but no producers, distributors, or retailers of goods.

My state is now actively courting Boeing because we know how to build airplanes here, and with less goobermet interference than in the state of Wash.

redfox

12-29-13, 2:00am

Our Socialist Council member...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/us/a-rare-elected-voice-for-socialism-pledges-to-be-heard-in-seattle.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp&adxnnlx=1388294386-51XtwhkQDcOqFYmc4gdd0w&pagewanted=all

redfox

1-28-14, 12:51am

iris lilies

1-28-14, 1:07am

An update on Councilmember Sawant - fulfilling a campaign promise to take only what the average worker makes in Seattle for her salary, and donating the rest. She's making national news.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/27/22472667-seattles-socialist-councilwoman-to-accept-less-than-half-of-117k-salary

Holy Mother Jesus, you guys pay your aldermen more than $100,000!!!????

Last time I checked ours made around $28,000. So that makes my alderwoman 2X more virtuous than yours, Na nah NAH nah nah. Plus, mine is a good egg (though not socialist!) is hardworking, well respected because she's been around for 25 years and has not thrown her hat into the Mayoral race. We are lucky to have her represent our neighborhood and now, it seems, at this bargain price.