>> What's funny is she (and many other critics) specifically called out that all it would take is a single bad quarters for all those HQ jobs to evaporate and they were right.
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.
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.