The possibility that JPMorgan Chase would build a two-towered, $6.5 billion headquarters on the Far West Side of Manhattan streaked across the skyline in recent weeks, only to die quietly on Tuesday.
Jamie Dimon, chairman of Chase, called Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Tuesday to say that the country’s largest bank had decided to stay put on the East Side.
In the course of negotiations, the bank suggested that thousands of midlevel jobs could leave the city if the deal foundered. The mayor, in turn, publicly scoffed at the idea of handing over $1 billion in tax breaks and cash to Chase, on top of an existing $600 million in property tax breaks.
“This is an outcome that validates our approach, and our belief that these deals often come down to factors that have nothing to do with taxpayer subsidies,” Alicia Glen, deputy mayor for economic development, said in a statement on Tuesday. “We’re glad that JPMorgan has decided to maintain its buildings and its work force right where they are for the foreseeable future.”
Critics of corporate subsidies worried that the city might be returning to an era of retention deals, which had largely disappeared under Mr. de Blasio’s predecessor, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. The Committee for Better Banks, which includes labor unions and some liberal groups, was about to issue a report denouncing subsidies for Chase when the deal collapsed.
“New York has had an amazing run of job growth over the past decade,” said Jonathan Bowles, director of the nonprofit Center for an Urban Future. “I don’t see the need to turn back the clock and start another wave of big companies clamoring for tax breaks.”
When I started Normative Narratives 2 years ago, one of the first issues I wrote about was the (mis)use of tax dollars to attract private sector jobs. This “race to the bottom“, alongside unlivable minimum wages, make up the two most glaring forms of corporate welfare in America.
At a time of widening inequality (during which economic growth has gone almost exclusively to the wealthiest), marked by record corporate profits / cash holdings / tax minimization, and calls by those on the political right to slash the social safety net in the name of “fiscal responsibility”, corporate welfare is tantamount to taking from the poor to give to the rich.
Tax dollars should be spent on projects that make areas naturally more attractive to employers (a more skilled citizenry, better infrastructure, etc.). Since these projects are mutually beneficial, private money / expertise should supplement public efforts (public-private partnerships), which in turn would build sustainable partnerships between corporations and municipalities (the opposite of “races to the bottom”).
Blindly throwing money at corporations because they promise to create jobs, without legally binding commitments and closely scrutinized CB analyses, is not a growth strategy.
Corporate interests always claim the sky is about to fall; look at an almighty “job creator” the wrong way and they’ll close up shop and skip town. In reality, there are costs and uncertainties involved in moving, two things businesses don’t like. Case in point; JP Morgan threatened to move if it did not get what it wanted, only to stay put.
Good job by the De Blasio administration in standing up to JP Morgan. The net result is the same number of jobs (perhaps some short term construction jobs were foregone), and $1 billion more in NYC’s coffers to address the many deserving issues affecting the city. Hopefully this show of political will can serve as an example for municipalities around the country.
Proponents of such subsidies would probably argue that NYC bargains from a unique position of power, which is true. However, other municipalities have their own “natural” comparative advantages (such as lower real estate costs, lower costs of living, economies of agglomeration, etc). If such a “draw” to an area does not exist, all the more reason to invest in creating one!
Generally speaking, large corporations decide they need to expand operations in order to meet demand, then shop around for the best deal (not the other way around). In other words, most subsidized jobs would exist with or without subsidies.
Ultimately, there needs to be better coordination at the federal level (including greater redistribution of tax dollars from high employment to low employment areas) to ensure municipalities are not bidding against each other for jobs that would be created anyway.
There are no shortcuts to sustainable economic development, but fiscal mismanagement, such as foregoing investing in making a market “naturally” attractive in order to subsidize jobs, can stall / reverse the process. Racing to the bottom provides cover for current administrations (and jobs for a select few), while ultimately leaving an area worse off in the long run (like putting a very expensive band-aid on a broken bone).
The De Blasio administration and JP Morgan had a staring contest, and JP Morgan blinked. If you happen to find yourself in NYC any time soon, look up–the sky isn’t falling.