They did game the system though. Feels like they negotiated tax benefits with 50k employees in mind, and kept the same benefits while only giving locations 25k each.
If that's what happened, that's poor negotiation by the cities. If they made an offer based on employee counts, they could have required employee targets in return for the benefits being offered.
And if Amazon refuses to make firm employee count guarantees in return for the benefits being offered, then that's a pretty strong signal that you shouldn't rely on their promises.
The agreements do come with requirements around number of jobs created. Where Amazon played the system is in understanding how these deals get done.
If you have your politicians pitching the public on this huge 50k jobs deal, then they’re going to accept fewer jobs in the end rather than lose out altogether. Once a city commits itself to being in the Amazon race, losing is a huge political liability. Cities lose all leverage.
But paying a company $10,000 in benefits per employee for 1,000 jobs may not be as valuable to the community than paying $10,000 per employee for 20,000 jobs.
If that's what happened, that's poor negotiation by the cities. If they made an offer based on employee counts, they could have required employee targets in return for the benefits being offered.
And if Amazon refuses to make firm employee count guarantees in return for the benefits being offered, then that's a pretty strong signal that you shouldn't rely on their promises.