Geico, Bass Pro & welfare
Over at the freebuffalo message board, I'm questioning the rationale behind that group's opposition to Bass Pro. I received a couple of replys from the man himself; namely, that he is opposed to all corporate welfare, and that he knows, but can't duplicate it just yet, that Bass Pro is getting money in its pocket, otherwise there would have been no reason for them to sign the MOU. Ok - "corporate welfare" is a term that is used because it has a negative connotation, and without knowing the details, people would probably be inclined to disagree with whatever is being thusly labeled. My reply: As for "corporate welfare", where does one draw the line? 1. New York has one of the least hospitable business climates; 2. New York's business climate isn't going to change in the short term; 3. New York needs to attract and keep private enterprise; 4. Programs have been set up by New York to do just that by providing incentives to minimize the hostility of the state's business climate. For instance - Geico is the recipient of "corporate welfare" in that it was given incentives to come to Amherst. Yet Geico will employ 2500 people (or more) at jobs averaging $34,000/year. That's a significant get, and whatever incentives were provided to get Geico in the short term, will pay off in spades in the long term. 2500 brand new white-collar $30,000+/year jobs in this region is huge, and will have an exponentially bigger positive economic impact when those jobs come on line and those checks get cut to employees. How come Bass Pro is this organization's target, but not Geico?