Quote:
Originally Posted by notanlines
Greenie, I see your side of the issue. $225,000 over ten years per job created is a lot of public money. Let me take the opposing side for just a minute. (Yes, I have done that more than once) When a tourist dollar comes to Memphis it is turned over between 2.5 and 3.5 times trickling down before it's life comes to an end. Tourists are very, very important to our city. Yes, I do realize that tourism promotes minimum wage jobs. By the same token we spend an extraordinary amount of public money to further expand the finances of billionaires across this country by building massive sporting facilities and these businesses promote what in employment? Yes, minimum wage jobs. The 13,000 individuals employed by this company will be buying new homes, school clothes, vacations to visit Elvis' mansion in Memphis (a little humor) and new vehicles. And I haven't even mentioned the 30,000 or so associated jobs created from the trickle down effect. In my opinion Wisconsinites have landed a gem, not a rock. Many, many cities in this country and other countries would jump at the same chance.
|
"It would take the state up to 25 years to recoup its investment in the company, even when accounting for the economic ripple effect of the project, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau."
"could employ up to 13,000 workers" at what wage? We the tax payer will still support their low income health care, low income housing, low income food (WIC) above and beyond the subsidized job creation.
I completely understand your thoughts, they are very well made points. My issue is there are to many "ifs" with the deal. How well did it work out with the government subsidizing solar companies? Don't Tread on Me..... Anyway that is enough political for this thread before I get a slap on the wrist.
