So Samsung gets $220,000,000+ in property tax rebates (Austin, Cedar Park: unemployed, school)

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

I agree. It is a short term fix. I've seen it. There is a very large population that is desperate and they go where the work is. I've heard the term "displaced workers". They're about to lose everything. They take the job and don't complain because the mantra of the workplace is, "well, we can always ship this job overseas at any given moment." The company assures the workers they will stay...and ultimately they do not.

It's a crime to want a living wage any longer. Then, when they do ship the job overseas it's with the gossip that the "American worker is just lazy." (more propaganda that many people believe)

Big companies will offer lower wages because they can. They get big tax breaks because they can. It's no more than a bribe.

It's a short term fix and they'll say, "buh, bye" when they don't get their tax breaks any longer. The people that took the jobs will then be back on the roller coaster. There is no job security, no way to keep the kids in the same school, no way to put down roots any longer for a very, very large population of people.

There is also a very large population that wants their cake and eat it too...the "cheap labor" gang. They scream, "but hey look at all the money we save." There is no thought to the large group of people that barely survive on what they want to pay them. (modern day slaves) THEN, when that family has to get food stamps to supplement the slave wages the same group of people cry, "moochers". Of course there can be no discussion of raising their wage because it turns into a hate fest of the "union". "It's the unions fault" for the collapse of the country. More propaganda that the union worker is just another moocher. All part of the grander scheme to lower wages. When did we start thinking laborers should not make a decent wage when it is the laborers that most often put their lives on the line every single day in environments most of us would never want to be?
Yes, I will agree there are bad eggs everywhere but it is NOT the majority. The majority of workers in this country are honest, hard-working folk that simply want to live a life with a home, kids, health insurance and a little free time to go watch the kids play football.

I suppose it could be worse. The big company could be coming here while the gettin is good and then leave a complete environmental disaster behind when they go. So, I suppose we should count our blessings.

Didn't Samsung eliminate 500 jobs last year????


I will watch and see what Samsung does in the future...the "proof will be in the puddin."

Some very real flaws in your post. If it were so easy for companies to leave when they lose tax breaks, why do so many companies stay in California, where everything they do could be done cheaper elsewhere?

It costs real money to pick up and move. We benefit the more "sticky" a company becomes. The more they are dependent on their community, their employees, and the flow of workers.

We should never become wholly dependent on one industry, like Detroit. I'm not worried about that in Austin.

[oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

Some very real flaws in your post.

Of course. I'm sure they'll all be pointed out.

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by JayBrown80

Well, no. They are creating parts, at least that is what I got from the article. In your example with Borders you mentioned that Borders was competing with local buisnesses. That is true. They sale books, and can sale them cheaper than a mom and pop book store, in part because of tax incentives. But in that example Borders is selling an item to a small local population. Samsung isn't. They are creating parts and items that get shipped around the country. Their location doesn't matter, b/c regardless of location, their customers remain the same. That is not the same situation as the example you give. Samsung can't drive local buisnesses out of work because they are not competing for a local customer base.

To give an example, if Amazon.com opened a warehouse in Austin, they would not be competing with Walmart. Because although they sale similar things, people drive to Walmart to shop, they do not drive to the Amazon warehouse to get items. They order it online. So on a national level the two retailers are competing. But on a local level, it's apples and oranges. The Amazon warehouse does not have a local shop that offers items directly to the public. Neither does Samsung. And even if Samsung does have stores here and there, we are not talking about Samsung stores, we are talking about a factory.



So it's not exactly tax breaks you have a problem with? It's when they are applied to some buisnesses, and not others? It's not the tax break per se, it's the way they are doled out?

They don't compete in terms of just local customers per se, but they are competitors and unless Samsung grows the pie, then any competitive advantage ultimately will hurt the likes of Freescale and other direct competitors. The problem I have is when the government plays a hand in deciding who has the advantage, and tax breaks to one and not all, is the government giving a competitive advantage to one over the other. If Samsung or any other silicone company built a better widget and that gives them the advantage and a company headquartered in Austin suffers, so be it.

Moderator cut: off topic

[hoffdano]

Samsung and Freescale are both semiconductor designers and manufacturers. That doesn't mean though that they are really competitors.

I don't know exactly what each of them do in Austin (or elsewhere) but Freescale focuses on microcontrollers (small specialty processors) and Samsung is a leader in memory. Very different segments of the industry.

In today's scenario - as far as I know Freescale was not considering an expansion. Samsung was. So Austin wasn't helping Samsung at Freescale's loss. I would guess that if Freescale wanted to expand, and had a legitimate offer from somewhere else - Austin would offer something.

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

Samsung and Freescale are both semiconductor designers and manufacturers. That doesn't mean though that they are really competitors.

I don't know exactly what each of them do in Austin (or elsewhere) but Freescale focuses on microcontrollers (small specialty processors) and Samsung is a leader in memory. Very different segments of the industry.

In today's scenario - as far as I know Freescale was not considering an expansion. Samsung was. So Austin wasn't helping Samsung at Freescale's loss. I would guess that if Freescale wanted to expand, and had a legitimate offer from somewhere else - Austin would offer something.

I don't know enough about either to say they are/aren't or never will be, but my point remains the same, even if you are talking about big companies with global markets, for a local government to give incentives to one and not another does affect competitive edge, maybe in a minute way, but it does and I don't think government has any business in favoring one competitor over another.

[JayBrown80]

Moderator cut: orphaned

I can understand the point you are trying to make. I am not being argumentative. I just don't see this as being a bad thing for Austin. It seems that this is offering really big benefits for our community, and people are thumbing their noses at it for philisophical reasons. (for lack of a better phrase). I personally don't have the same view on the roles of government as you do, so I am not automatically turned off by this idea on face value.

Ultimately, if every other city offers the incentives, and Austin doesn't, we will be in a very sad position. I am not sure what you think the alternative should be? Should Austin not offer incentives on principle?

We do agree on one thing though, "time will tell."

[JayBrown80]

Originally Posted by Jennibc

(but we'll check back on it in 2030. )

Sounds like a plan.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by JayBrown80

I disagree. Samsung invested over 3 billion dollars in facilites and equipment in Austin. That's one hell of a big "coupon". I don't see a situation in the future that would make it cost effective for them to abandon Austin and move facilities. Even if another city attempted to lure Samsung away from Austin, and Samsung having no loyalties (according to your example) were willing to do that, that city would have to offer a pretty significant incentive to get them to abandon 3 billion in investments.

Some of the posts against tax incentives keep on speaking on a philisophical level about this issue. But none of the examples provided actually are comprable to the situation raised by the OP. Samsung is not competing with local buisnesses, it is not taking money from Austinites, and it is not a fly by night operation that will be gone in three years if the Austin City Council doesn't continue to "bribe" them to stay in Austin.

You can be philisophically against tax incentives, but I would like to know what is "bad" about this situation. Every angle I view it from seems like a big win for Austin. There's philosophy, and then there's reality. The reality of this seems like a really good thing. And the only thing I have heard in argument against it is either non comparable analogies, or a philisophical argument on why ALL tax incentives are bad. And isn't calling ALL tax incentives bad a generalization? And what do we often say about generalizations?

Of the 3B most of it will not go to austin companies. Most of it is fab equipment (some will go to applied materials) who are based all over. A fab has a pretty long lifetime so you may get the fab for 10-20 years but you only have to look at AMD who built their new fabs in germany and spansion who built their new fabs in japan and sematech who put their new fab in albany.

Focusing on tax incentives is the wrong way to attract businesses long term. Just like a company will use incentives to get the first few customers it makes sense for a city to do the same. However long term it is simply not a viable strategy. So when austin was first trying to establish itself as a tech mecca they did this, it made sense and it worked.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

Samsung and Freescale are both semiconductor designers and manufacturers. That doesn't mean though that they are really competitors.

I don't know exactly what each of them do in Austin (or elsewhere) but Freescale focuses on microcontrollers (small specialty processors) and Samsung is a leader in memory. Very different segments of the industry.

In today's scenario - as far as I know Freescale was not considering an expansion. Samsung was. So Austin wasn't helping Samsung at Freescale's loss. I would guess that if Freescale wanted to expand, and had a legitimate offer from somewhere else - Austin would offer something.

Spansion and samsung are direct competitors.

[Bo]

Some posts above were deleted. As it says in the Terms of Service:

Stay on topic. Attempts to hi-jack threads by switching topics or going off topic will be deleted and infractions issued. This is not a chat room - when people hi-jack threads by posting messages that are of interest to only few people, the threads often stop being useful discussions of initial topics.

There are plenty of interesting aspects to this topic that are also on topic for a local forum that discusses Austin. Feel free to discuss those.