@💲Mckeone💲 i might point out, The first article seems to combine tax breaks and forms of payouts into one, when they really should be separate as they are 2 vastly different methods of incentives, and i suspect one is much more costly and ineffective than the other. Also the last 2 articles admit that they bring jobs into a state. They point out that it is costly to other states and the nation as a whole, making them "ineffective", but the duty of a governor or mayor is not to generate new jobs for the nation as a whole, but for the local community. To that end, jobs moved into the state from another state are still "new jobs" when looking at from the prospective of the state. It would be like saying the Fed giving tax breaks to foreign companies to set up shop here is detrimental to the global government because it takes the jobs from another country, then generates less tax revenue because of the tax breaks. Would a US citizen care if the countries of the world make less money because we managed to get a business to move jobs from china to here? They are being disingenuous because they see one state gaining jobs but making less tax per job and say its costly because another state has lost money. That is not ineffective or costly to the state who now has a new revenue stream. A states duty is to its citizens, not that of the US. That is the job of the fed.
