The corporations and companies moving into these buildings, now as green and safe as possible and feasible with current means and technology, would be offered tax abatements to help them establish their financial strength and give them opportunity to grow. In exchange for these abatements the companies would be required to hire local, legal, and union; a second set of incentives could be offered if the companies promote from within and offer to pay for continuing education and/or professional development; and more yet if they keep their corporate headquarters and do the majority of their banking domestically. Since the major argument over the existence of strong union presence, pensions and negotiations is that they are unaffordable, the tax abatements would allow for the companies to meet their bottom line and move into the black while also taking care of their workers (without whom they’d have no business). These abatements would be reviewed in cycles—and midway through the companies would have their payrolls audited to make sure they meet to established requirements in their hiring practices. If the companies fail the audit they’d have a series of deadlines to meet by the end of their abatement to show growth in their union ranks, and their local hiring.
The logic here is that the more local workers are hired, the more people will move into the area looking for jobs, and with the tax abatements in place the companies will be encouraged not only to negotiate happily with unions but also to grow their businesses to hire more workers in a model that perpetuates growth, and redevelops the city. There could be a variety of programs that would decrease the amount these companies pay in taxes for adding to the communities as well: donations to public schools and universities, development of parks and artist spaces, grants to libraries, and so forth—besides being sound monetarily, these efforts would probably do well for the companies’ local image and reception. After all, who can argue against a green company, hiring local union workers, building parks and schools in the community getting a tax break? The corporations would then, in essence, become valuable members of the community—the fact that these acts aren’t borne of altruism is negligible because the acts of individuals aren’t necessarily so either.
Effectively, the aisles have been bridged. The corporations have been dealt with in a way that encourages their economic growth without weighing down on the workers. Yes, the federal government may lose on some tax revenue, but the services this money would be funneled to may have less of a load to carry with the additional revenue gained by citizens having jobs and money to spend—along with the requisite and inescapable taxes on wages. Sorry, I haven’t solved that one yet. Even more unfortunately, you won’t hear about this plan during the election cycle or after. Compromise is the devil, and a scenario that doesn’t prove to be a victory over the opposition rather than a victory over an adverse scenario doesn’t have quite the same appeal in the Game of Thrones.
There may be obstacles in passing a plan of this sort, and it would be wise to avoid displacing people that already reside nearby the areas where lands were being repurposed, this could lead to the revitalization of urban and suburban America that have been hurt by the decline of manufacturing jobs. I am inclined to believe that with good oversight and proper regulation this kind of plan could be expanded to many cities and towns across the country and effectively bring back or create a great deal labor job swhile rebuilding many communities at the same time. Perhaps there are factors I don’t see because I’m not an economist or an industrialist, but it occurs to me that this plan meets many of the median criterion of the left and the right, and approaches something sorely missing in our government—realistic compromise.