New York State Spent Millions On Program For Startups That Created 76 Jobs 238
Nerval's Lobster writes Last year, the New York state government launched Start-Up NY, a program designed to boost employment by creating tax-free zones for technology and manufacturing firms that partner with academic institutions. Things didn't go quite as planned. In theory, those tax-free zones on university campuses would give companies access to the best young talent and cutting-edge research, but only a few firms are actually taking the bait: According to a report from the state's Department of Economic Development, the program only created 76 jobs last year, despite spending millions of dollars on advertising and other costs. If that wasn't eyebrow-raising enough, the companies involved in the program have only invested a collective $1.7 million so far. The low numbers didn't stop some state officials from defending the initiative. "Given the program was only up and running for basically one quarter of a year," Andrew Kennedy, a senior economic development aide to Governor Cuomo, told Capital New York, "I think 80 jobs is a good number that we can stand behind."
Too early for criticism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a second -- this program has only been running for one quarter of a year?
76 jobs doesn't sound that bad, on such a short time frame.
Sounds like a pre-mature judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a pre-mature judgement.
Or maybe prejudgemental?
Re:Too early for criticism. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the sample period, but the program itself has had to have been running for well over a year or two by now, considering that the advertisements for it on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc have been running for at least that long.
Re:Too early for criticism. (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, I used to live in that area and I remember reading about this program over a year ago. I remember because I looked into it, but it seemed like they wanted your company to locate in out-of-the-way places.
This program just seems like another silly east-coast attempt to try to replicate the success of Silicon Valley without at all understanding why SV was successful in the first place. They did this years ago in Virginia, where I went to college: they set up something called "Virginia's Technology Corridor" in the southwest part of the state, put up a bunch of signs out in the sticks ("You are now entering Virginia's Technology Corridor!!!" with some shitty trailer home in the background), and then wondered why no companies bothered to locate there even though Virginia Tech was in the region. They eventually gave up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too early for criticism. (Score:5, Funny)
Verily, you are mistaken. I doth not advertise, forsooth.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Too early for criticism. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's trying to bring business back to NY and make NY more business friendly
Wouldn't it be better to do things that help all business, like lower taxes and improve infrastructure, rather than spending tax dollars on subsidies and advertising? This sort of spending is just a race to the bottom, as other states ramp up their own subsides. Saying it is justified because of the 80 jobs is silly, because many, if not all, of those jobs would have likely been created with or without the subsidies. Maybe they could send a few million to convince an economist to move to NY, and explain the Broken Window Fallacy [wikipedia.org] to the politicians.
Re:Too early for criticism. (Score:4, Informative)
Is lowering business taxes not also a race to the bottom?
(Totally agree with you on infrastructure, though).
Re: (Score:2)
Is lowering business taxes not also a race to the bottom?
No. As long as businesses feel they are getting something for the taxes, they are willing to pay them. Many cities tax hotels and restaurants, and spend the proceeds on convention centers and tourism promotion. Business taxes can also be spent on universities, better airports, etc. and that will likely generate more business than it discourages.
Businesses don't just automatically locate to where taxes are lowest. That is only one of their considerations. Proof: Somalia has no official tax on businesse
Re:Too early for criticism. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it's two things, really.
1) Yeah, they want to get a tech nucleus thing going (which does actually work in some places, if done right) and are going about it in a really awkward fashion
2) They realize that the absurdly high taxes in New York are driving businesses away, and so they're giving a temporary tax break to out of town corporations to move in. The trouble is, the turkeys can see the farmer with the shotgun at the end of the line, and aren't buying it. Who would want to grow a business when you know you'll be taxed heavily after becoming successful? You might as well live here in the People's Republic of California where the weather is nicer.
Re:Too early for criticism. (Score:4)
It's not just the weather; all the tech talent you need is located in California, so it's not that hard to find employees. Enticing them to move to upstate NY isn't so easy. This is the thing all these states don't understand: you can't get companies to just move to some bumfuck place in the sticks, because they need employees, and employees usually don't want to move to someplace which doesn't have a critical mass of employers, because if their job doesn't work out or ends (which it will, tech employment is always short these days), then they're stuck having to pay $$$$ to relocate for a new job. In a tech hub city, you just go find another job at a company a few miles from your old one.
Re:Too early for criticism. (Score:5, Informative)
Where do you see that they only spent $1.7m? They spent $53m. The 1.7m number was the contribution form the companies involved. Would you like to redo your calculation there?
Re: Too early for criticism. (Score:2)
This whole article is dumbn. At 21K a job, the program is doing SPECTACULAR seeing how threse jobs likely pay at least 75K, they will pay more in taxes than the damn job costs IN THE FIRST YEAR ALONE.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed - if it's only been running 1/4 of a year, that's hardly soon enough to judge.
The main article is 4 paragraphs. 3 of those were smashed together into the slashdot "summary". How is that a summary of an article if it contains more than 75% of the article?
In addition, as someone else pointed out below, a few million divided by 76 jobs is about 26k/year. That's not bad by recruiting standards.
To top it off, they say they have "only invested a collective $1.7 million so far". Some of that has to be going
Re:Too early for criticism. (Score:4, Insightful)
It is 53 million, not 1.7m. The other poster got his number mixed up. The "only invested a collective $1.7 million so far" part was what the companies invested, not the state.
Re:Too early for criticism. (Score:5, Informative)
exactly
this topic is political posturing against Cuomo. not that Cuomo doesn't do fucked up things. and he does deserve criticism. but not on this topic
cutting taxes for ten years to grow start ups is a great idea
do we point at pregnant women's bellies and give them our sympathies for their stillborn?
do we point at elementary school kids and decry that they've become meth heads?
to say this judgment is preliminary is beyond obvious. it's a weak lame shallow farcical smear attack on Cuomo
believe me, Cuomo has done some ugly corrupt shit, like protect Silver (unsuccessfully) by shutting down the Moreland Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
there's plenty of good shots to take against Cuomo
but if this lame way too early attack on a clearly great idea is the best Cuomo's opponents can do, it shows his opponents to be pathetic and weak and so Cuomo is doing pretty good
Seems to early to evaluate (Score:3)
Yes, it seems way to early to evaluate the program. This is the very first report; basically it's saying "the program just started". Clicking through the links leads to this one: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/a... [crainsnewyork.com]
with more numbers in the summary:
The state agency responsible for economic development across New York says companies last year created 76 of the nearly 2,100 new jobs promised over five years in return for tax breaks under the Cuomo administration's Start-Up NY program.
The first annual report from the Department of Economic Development says 30 companies began operating in 2014 among 54 initially approved for the program.
According to the report, they made $1.7 million of some $91 million investments promised over five years as part of Start-Up NY. The program has established 356 tax-free zones at 62 colleges and universities that act as sponsors.
The agency says another 26 businesses have been approved so far this year, while 12 have withdrawn applications.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
didja look at the time period the report covers?
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get the idea that it had been running for just a quarter of a year?
The program was being developed in 2013 and by January 2014, they had already begun running ads. [youtube.com]
That makes the program more than a year and a quarter old.
Re: (Score:2)
> "Where did you get the idea that it had been running for just a quarter of a year?"
From the quote in the summary of the economic adviser defending it:
"The low numbers didn't stop some state officials from defending the initiative. "Given the program was only up and running for basically one quarter of a year," Andrew Kennedy, a senior economic development aide to Governor Cuomo, told Capital New York, "I think 80 jobs is a good number that we can stand behind.""
Re: (Score:2)
I thought he had simply mis-spoken or was mis-quoted given that the commercials have already run for more than a year.
If the quote is accurate, then it must mean the new tax rules began in 2015.
Still, it's one year of hype leading to a launch that virtually no one showed up for.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't start handing out tax breaks until companies start participating. So regardless of when TV Ads began, until companies participate is when to can measure success or failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that. With coarse assumption on the salaries for those 76, the program has easily a social return/benefit of 200%.
I'll just quote the quote...
"I think 80 jobs is a good number that we can stand behind."
"ONLY" 76? Holy COW! (Score:2)
Wait a second -- this program has only been running for one quarter of a year? 76 jobs doesn't sound that bad, on such a short time frame.
Damn right!
It takes a substantial time to set up a company. (The startup I just helped start up took over five months before I was actually "employed" (and over 6 before the payroll was in place to pay me as an employee with a W2 rather than a consultant with a 1099).)
Three months and they ALREADY have 76 new jobs? It sounds like there are some bats exiting hell!
Come
Re: (Score:3)
Woah wait a second.
You're saying that creating Tax Free zones helps create jobs? So why doesn't New York lower taxes for the companies that still reside there, that are threatening to leave to Texas or other lower taxed states?
This is like Cable companies screwing existing customers and favoring customers that are new. I guess it works.
Re: (Score:2)
Government will basically claim ANYTHING improves the economy except the one thing everyone wants: lower taxes across the board.
They'll claim that welfare and UC improve the economy by giving poor people more buying power.
They'll claim tax breaks for crony corporations (auto manufacturers, green energy) give them incentive to hire.
But apparently, this doesn't work if we let everyone keep more of their money. They'll just bury it in the backyard.
Re: (Score:2)
But apparently, this doesn't work if we let everyone keep more of their money. They'll just bury it in the backyard.
Worse yet, they might save for retirement, making them less dependent upon the government in their "golden" years.
Re: (Score:2)
They're just like apartment complex management companies: they're banking that you're too lazy to pack up and move, so they continue jacking up your rent year after year, while giving new renters a big discount.
Re: (Score:2)
The simple numbers aren't too bad either - 1.7 million spread among 80 workers gives you about $20k a piece, so this is clearly cheaper than a job-creation initiative where you simply pay salaries directly. On top of that, this being NY, those are probably decently high salaries, so once you account for the extra taxes brought in, you probably aren't too far off from break-even. Especially after you give the program some more time to work.
Sounds like an attempt to smear a program that is actually working de
Re: (Score:3)
Keep up please. The 1.7M is what the companies have spent.
The state spent 53M.
Re:Too early for criticism. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
http://nypost.com/2015/01/12/t... [nypost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Key to success is to level the playfield for commercial activities (all contenders pay more or less identical tax, no monopolies) and spend money on activities that are not commercially viable yet valuable.
In short, you'll end up with effectively bureaucrats hopping from one program to another writing pretty money requests and/or companies squishing creativity.
For some constructive criticism, if anyone knows of a place succesful as mentioned above, plea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
would also need to count indirectly created jobs or jobs saved because of the investment
... then they would need to subtract the jobs that were not created, because the government spent $53M on advertising and subsidies, that could have otherwise been invested in something more productive, like education or better infrastructure.
No, the program didn't fail (Score:5, Insightful)
See, this is what you are supposed to think, but here is how the truth of the matter reads:
"Last year, the New York state government launched Start-Up NY, a program that allows state politicians to give tax money to their buddies while having the appearance that they care about jobs and the general public."
Re: No, the program didn't fail (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA, as quoted in the story post:
Did you try actually reading it all before posting?
Re: (Score:3)
The more I look into state politics here in NY, especially when it comes to Cuomo, the more I understand that Vermonter's comment isn't tinfoil hattery, but day-to-day politics here.
This is, after all, the state where state senators approved a budget "with a heavy heart" while saying that it was horrible so that our governor could have a fifth on-time budget in a row. And this is the state where said budget tore apart the educational system but gave tax breaks if you want to buy a yacht.
In short: Want to b
$53 million for 76 jobs (Score:2)
You could just pay those 76 people $600,000 a year for doing nothing and you'd have enough left over that you could use to hire another 12 at the same rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Even better. Some of that will come back to Cuomo et al in the form of campaign contributions. Which is the only money that really matters in the whole discussion.
I tried Start-Up NY (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
from my experience the administrative staff are not executing the Governor's program as intended.
Unless it's actually working *exactly* as intended.
This is nothing. Think lik multi trillion dollars (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton had one projected surplus that went away when .com imploded. That included the SS trust fund accounting tricks so it wasn't even an honest projection.
Aside from being completely wrong, you have a point (on your head).
Not one quarter but six quarters since Oct 22,2013 (Score:3)
Simple google search will reveal that "October 22, 2013 was the official day the program has started by CUOMO".
Typical distortion and deception from the governmental officers.
The problem with NY is that they are offering as a perk something which is offered by other states for free, without even asking, such as low taxes and pro-business government.
Re: (Score:2)
"The problem with NY is that they are offering as a perk something which is offered by other states for free, without even asking, such as low taxes and pro-business government."
Here's a very interesting question for the business owners...what exactly is a pro-business government? What regulations exist in one state, that don't exist in another, and overly burden a business's ability to operate? I know the tax code in many states is a huge pain in the butt, but all you have to do is hire one tax lawyer/acco
Re: (Score:2)
Try the run you expenses through the corp trick. We'll send you a cake with a file in it when you go to federal prison.
You ought to check your facts. You are taxed on a company car. Try and have the corp pay for your house and you will go directly to jail.
To promote job growth, people need money (Score:2)
We're a society that depends heavily on the service sector. Over 3/4 of the GDP comes from services. And over 3/4 of the people depend in one way or another on them for their job.
Services are awesome when it comes to generation of GDP. Because it's pretty hard to store them. They have to be used when produced. More, they usually have to be consumed. And only by consumption, value is generated. Yes, consumption. Not production. That's hard for the supply side preachers to wrap their head around, but tell me,
Re: (Score:2)
I would've called Ford a lot, but Marxist? I kinda doubt it.
"It is not the employer who pays the wages. Employers only handle the money. It is the customer who pays the wages."
-- Henry Ford
Just once (Score:2)
Just once, I'd like to see a politician stand up in front of the cameras and say "We fucked up. We fucked up royally. We blew millions and didn't get a fraction of the benefits for society we'd hoped for. I'm going to take responsibility for that mistake and fire myself."
It's a start, but won't solve all of NY's problems (Score:2)
I live here, and have seen the ads for this program. One of the problems facing New York, both the metro area and upstate, is the loss of old-line employers, both in manufacturing and services:
- Upstate NY had huge numbers of manufacturing jobs as recently as 20 years ago. Most of the actual jobs have either been automated or the companies themselves have moved to other states or countries. Steel mills and auto plants in Buffalo, Kodak in Rochester, Carrier in Syracuse, Corning Glass in Corning are just exa
Corporate welfare (Score:2)
Tax breaks as an economic development program. There is a similar giant program in Chicago called TIF. No one believes it actually creates jobs or anything. It's just a way for the mayor to reward his supporters and other rich people.
Well Of Course (Wrong Location) (Score:2)
Re:How would you promote job growth (Score:4, Insightful)
You could modify the tax code such that wealthy people and corporations have to pay their fair share of taxes.
What exactly... is "their fair share"?
I keep hearing people say that without defining what that really is.
Did you know the wealthy already pay most of the taxes? How much more would *you* like them to pay?
Re:How would you promote job growth (Score:5, Insightful)
Their fair share is obviously whatever things cost and I don't feel like paying for myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Their fair share is obviously whatever things cost and I don't feel like paying for myself.
That is one of the most honest answers I've ever read... cudos to you... :)
Re:How would you promote job growth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
People with EARNED INCOME pay the highest tax rates.
While that is true, they pay far more in total dollars than you do.
If you were to try and tax their portfolio income at a higher rate, they'd just come up with ways around that, or run their businesses differently.
You could raise the capital gains tax to 40% if you like, but you wouldn't like the result in the economy and it wouldn't raise as much money as you think. Some of it would get moved offshore, some of it would be put into different investments to avoid the tax, and some of it would simply "disapp
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they pay more in total dollars. However, I suspect that nonetheless also benefit more, economically, per dollar of taxes. For instance, I'd like to see these huge companies try to make their current profits without pax Americana, and that shit ain't cheap at all. On the other hand, the very poor also owe their very lives to the state, so you could logically make the cold-hearted argument for regressive taxation. On the other other hand, we probably only have social welfare because it's more expedi
Re: (Score:2)
So the question becomes, do you believe in a flat tax rate?
Everyone pays the same percentage, 20% without deductions?
Re: (Score:2)
SO a super regressive tax plan that would bankrupt most poor and lower middle class? No thank you. while I may benefit from the program it would be hard to argue the morality of it.
Re: (Score:2)
The easiest flat rate plan that also doesn't hurt the poor or middle class would be simply to have an adequate personal exemption limit. For example, the first $20k any person makes is entirely tax free and then you pay 20% on ALL income after that.
Politicians don't like flat taxes though because it cuts out a very large part of their funding; special interest groups looking for favorable tax breaks for their members. No tax breaks = less money spent on bribing (excuse me, lobbying) pols to pass legislati
Re: (Score:2)
So then all you have to do is funnel all your expenses through your business and not get a paycheck of greater than 20k per year.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"their fair share" is nebulous on purpose, because if they actually specified, then it could be argued against. By keeping it undefined, there is no argument that can be made. The people making that argument win by default, because you can't argue against it.
If I were in a debate, and someone used "their fair share" as an argument, I would ask them what they define it as. If they refused, I would simple toss out the argument as meaningless emotionalism. It would basically say it is like arguing "You should
Re: (Score:2)
> "their fair share" is nebulous on purpose, because if they actually specified, then it could be argued against. By
> keeping it undefined, there is no argument that can be made. The people making that argument win by default,
> because you can't argue against it.
Its worst than that, you can't argue against it because it is absolutely correct in its nebulosity.
By saying their "Fair Share" they can invoke not just anything but...whatever YOU think. If you think $1 is fair, then that is what they just
Re: (Score:2)
There are mathematical formula that can calculate fair share. It is generally tough before even college algebra, I used to tutor it. In short it relies on the value generated by the item being gained. It would be hard to argue that the rich do not gain more value form the US taxes than the poor or middle class do, therefore a scaled tax rate is fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a pretty comprehensive study from 2008 that shows the benefits and services received per one dollar in taxes paid (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/11/how-wealth-is-spread-distribution-of-government-benefits-services-taxes-by-income-quintile-in-us [heritage.org]).
It shows the first quintile in income receiving $6.82 in benefits and services received per one dollar in taxes paid and $0.31 for those in the top quintile.
The conclusion of the study states, "Economic redistribution can occur as a result of
Re: (Score:2)
When you look at benefits as a portion of their income yes, but that is not the only benefit one has. Without Roads everywhere buisness like Amazon would not be able to survive, however a road in Iowa is not very beneficial to a person in Florida, therefore the tax money spent on that road is vastly more beneficial to Amazon than it is to any Floridians.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon contracts out their delivery services. But let's assume you mean UPS, USPS or even if Amazon were itself making the deliveries.
Don't those trucks pay registration fees, tolls and fuel taxes already? Aren't those taxes and fees designed to maintain the roads?
Are you suggesting that there's some other tax Amazon should be paying in addition to the fees they already pay?
This concept that corporations somehow benefit from the roads more than the consumers who purchase their products and individual driver
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's hard to argue the rich don't get more from US taxes at all. The rich tend not to have to rely on social services as much and often bypass government funded services for private ones (schools, security, medical, etc..).
They definitely benefit more from tax BREAKS but not necessarily the taxes themselves. Tax breaks are just a byproduct of a the very scaled tax system you deem fair because in a system where everyone is treated differently, everyone believes they should be paying less in ta
Re:How would you promote job growth (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy. The cost of maintaining a country is based on the GDP. If the calculated budget is $100, and you hold 12% of the GDP, your fair share is $12. If someone else holds .01% of the GDP, they owe $.01.
Fair share is not every citizen pays the same. This is no a socialist economy where everyone contributes the same to get the same benefits. Some people hold far more than others, so their fair share is much higher. They also reap far more of the benefits of those taxes. A man that owns 10,000 trucks in a trucking company gets a hell of a lot more benefit than the guy that rides the bus across town to his job at McDonald's.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so would you support a flat 20% tax rate on all income across the board with no deductions?
Re: (Score:2)
90% of tax law complexity is defining 'income'.
It, more or less, has to be that complicated. Unless you want to tax business on gross.
Re: (Score:2)
I sure would. I would love to only pay 20% on my income tax, especially if it meant I didn't have to spend money on software to do my taxes for me every year because the tax code keeps changing.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost no one would, and you know that.
But one, and only one, personal existence deduction would solve all of the flat tax issues.
That deduction is at the line between poor, and... less poor. Then everything after that is a flat tax. That way the poor pay no or trivial tax, and the rich get no or trivial deductions.
But you didn't mean the question sincerely in the first place did you?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you're saying what you think you're saying. You are mixing GDP-based and asset-based valuation in the same comment.
The GDP is, oversimplified, a measure of all the income in the country. So basing the rate on GDP is pretty close to the same as basing it on income. (It's not identical, though, as I'm sure some people with more time on their hands will be happy to point out.) So taxing percentage of GDP at a flat rate would be similar to taxing income at a flat rate, which would be the oppos
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. The cost of maintaining a country is based on the GDP
WTF? The cost of maintaining a country is based on the government budget, not GDP. GDP is a measure of economic output. If citizens have good saving habits and the government doesn't run deficits then the cost of maintaining the country can be a small fraction of GDP. For bad savers and runaway spending governments, the cost can be much higher than GDP.
And in your example, trucks are charged a highway tax all their own to help pay their share.
It's sad you work at McD's but stop hating on more economically
Re: (Score:2)
You're arguing for a flat tax.
Republicans prefer a flat tax, Democrats prefer a fat tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since they're not paying a fair wage to many of their employees, I'd say it would be whatever taxes they need to pay to fund the social net that picks up the slack for those low wages. Big corps like Walmart and McDonalds that give you brochures on how to apply for government assistance being an example of companies that don't pay a fair wage and don't pay their fair share.
Why you're posting as AC, I don't know. It is a fair point, if the pay of a job is such that the employees can get government assistance, then really tax dollars are subsidizing those cheap wages.
Re: (Score:2)
Tax dollars are subsidizing those low skill workers. Raise the minimum wage and they are out of jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears automation/AI and offshoring are cutting into US jobs and there is no known "new field" that can replace those jobs in the volume needed. The actual need for STEM is either flat or not growing near enough to offset the losses in other fields (despite what the pro-visa lobbyists claim).
"Mass STEM-related entrepreneurship" sounds good on paper, but probably won't fly in practice. As somebody who tried 3 startup businesses can attest, most startups fail*, and the few successful ones eventually auto
Re: (Score:2)
I was out of work for two years (2009-2010), underemployed for six months (working 20 hours PER MONTH), and filed for Chapter Seven bankruptcy in 2011. During those years, recruiters told me I was "unemployable" for tech jobs and hiring managers told me I was "overqualified" for minimum wage jobs. Yet I got another tech job after my bankruptcy despite these repeated assertions. What the difference between my old tech job in 2009 and the new tech job in 2011? Nothing. The jobs were the same. The reason I got
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. H1b visas exist because companies want low paid captive workers. No other reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. H1b visas exist because companies want low paid captive workers.
Actually, if the workers are captive they can be very flexible about the low paid part.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like about 20k per job. Probably 100k paying jobs...
Really? How do you figure $100k paying jobs? You're assuming that every company that uproots and moves to NY, or which launches there, is going to be paying their lobby receptionist, clerical help, etc., six figures? What if they manufacture something. Is every assembly line worker going to be making six figures?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wishful thinking to make it worthwhile to believe in fairytales. Like, when Liberals excuse HRC for using private email, hiding said email, then deleting said email, then wiping the server clean. No, she wasn't hiding anything ... not at all. Besides Bush did it too!
Re: (Score:2)
Burger flippers may only make 100K per employee - but then that is a minimum wage job that pulls down 20K a year, plus fees/expenses/overhead etc. no wonder they can't make it at 15 dollars an hour.
If you think your salary is the most important part of the equation - you are mistaken, COGS, buildings, benefits are a significant c
Re: (Score:2)
"Looks like about 20k per job. Probably 100k paying jobs..."
20k per quarter per employee is going to come out to around $40-$50k salaries. Not horrible, but considering their target is college graduates, it's not exactly something special.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone can't see the difference between a single payout ad campaign and an annual salary that continues year after year.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, I wish I had mod points for that one, in spite of my usual policy of not upmodding ACs when I do have said points.
To the point: Between housing costs, transportation (not to mention the murder of fuel and/or commute times/costs), *and* the high taxes that NY usually carries?
No effing thank you. I'll move to Silly Valley first, and only then if death were the only other option.
Re: (Score:2)
“Legislators say, `Look, New York is a center of world commerce. Businesses have to be here. It doesn’t matter how high we tax them.’ I hear that a lot. But when you apply that same logic to upstate, the impact is devastating.”
and that's why the Startup-NY is a failure. despite tax incentives employees have to live somewhere and they would be taxed disproportionately vs. the company then when the incentives expire the company gets slapped. That's not a startup friendly environment, not by a long shot.
Re: (Score:2)