You're correct. If anything they should blame poor negotiation skills on the part of the county. What entitles Apple to a better deal for a total of 35 jobs? They were silly to accept such terms unless I'm missing details that were omitted in the article.
It should be noted you almost certainly are missing details - the news article wasn't all that informative. A few reasons why they might be getting a better deal for a total of 35 jobs:
- Many of those jobs may very well be skilled, especially if they're paying above average wages for the area.
- The annual $150,000 is better than $0. Yes, its less than they would make if Apple paid the full property taxes, but there's no guarantee that Apple would locate the data center there in the first place. A good deal means they lock in some amount of income, versus potentially losing the site entirely.
- Those are 35
direct jobs. They may be hoping that the indirect footprint from the Apple center creates more. Infrastructure workers to provide the data center with its power supply, the families of those Apple workers, etc.
- It will boost construction in the short term. Perhaps they're hoping it will keep the construction industry in the area going until the economy is in better shape and large scale building resumes.
- Perhaps they're hoping that a big name company like Apple can "showcase" the county as a place to do business. After all, if one big name data center can get employees, clean power and a friendly government climate, why couldn't two? Microsoft is in the same state. DLR doesn't have any sites in the Pacific Northwest, etc. Areas will often give very steep discounts to a major business hoping that their name, infrastructure, and a bit of cash will help create something like North Carolina's Research Triangle.
Given the success of that, I can't say that I blame them, although it's hard.
- They decided $150,000 a year and 35 decent jobs is better than $0 a year and 0 jobs.
----------
A horrible deal. Somehow with the current cash assets of known magnitude, corporations should be required to pay a premium. Anywhere. 35 janitorial positions? Looks like even the cleaning staff will be mostly imported from elsewhere.
Why should corporations be required to "pay a premium"? You are aware that that's not how our market system works at all, right? And where are you getting the notion that Apple is paying 150% the average wage for janitorial positions - many of these are likely tech-focused jobs.
It's not a horrible deal. Apple isn't obligated to locate a data center here. A struggling county gets an assured $150,000 a year, 35+ jobs (and 35+ well payed employees spending into the local economy) and the ability to showcase itself as a clean data center friendly site.
Apple gets a tax break.
Seriously, everyone wins.