This has been going on for a long time. Jim Hightower used to write about the number of jobs tax subsidies actually bought a community & the cost. Corporations would pit municipalities against each other & some would stupidly give huge incentives for very few jobs.

Public land sold cheap for hotels or housing developments. Big tax breaks for companies to move to a state. The amount of money can be large, and if used to fund local businesses with roots in the states and cities, would do a lot more to generate jobs. The problem is serious in the south, where schools are often underfunded, so locales can't attract companies because they have a large educated population with advanced skills, like Silicon Valley, Seattle, Portland, Boston-Cambridge, Research Triangle in North Carolina.

to move from their already large location on the south end of town to a brand new bigger one one on the north end of town. Boom! All the little businesses on the south end of town started failing. Walmart limited who the town could lease their old space to, so the council had to scramble to find a new tenant. It took almost two years for the south end of town to recover. And we lost my favorite True Value hardware store, too.

It's actually WI governor Walker's baby.

The cost is much much higher than per job salaries. This is true whether the subsidy is handed out by Dems or Repubs.

The idea is that it has a cascade effect, i.e. those jobs leads to other jobs or other economic activity. Opinions vary are how true it is.

The same argument was made against subsidizing and saving the auto industry. I don't have the figures in front of me, but back then the sides were switched and the conservatives were quoting very high numbers per job created/saved.

Oh yeah, anyone paying attention.