Parsing the Democrats’ statement on potential Tesla Incentives

A group of Democrat legislators posted an open letter on incentives for the proposed Tesla “gigafactory.” In their letter, the legislators laid out some concerns and ideas related to incentives that may or may not be provided by the State of New Mexico to bring the factory here. The letter mentioned Rio Grande Foundation and our previously stated position on the proposed incentives which we’ve discussed here and here.

First, it is great to see a group of people with whom we generally don’t agree on economic development issues citing us as an authority on important economic development issues. Also, it is worth noting that “corporate welfare” and business subsidies are an area in which the left and right can agree, so, there are many good points made in the letter, however, there are also several points made in the letter that need to be addressed.

1) No unlimited subsidies for Tesla: It’s hard to disagree with this one although it is worth clarifying that tax exemptions are much different than outright subsidies. Schott Solar received actual payments totaling $16 million from New Mexico taxpayers. The film industry receives outright payments (made by other New Mexico taxpayers) of 25 or even 30 cents on the dollar and these folks have been some of the biggest cheerleaders for this policy (despite opposition from prominent left-wing economists).

In summary, RGF has supported tax breaks as an economic development tool for Tesla, but we don’t support the “investment” of taxpayer dollars.

2) Leverage the universities and Labs: Another worthwhile albeit somewhat obvious point. To the extent that research going on at New Mexico’s Labs can be of use to Tesla and that locating in the same geographical area as those institutions can be helpful to Tesla, this point makes eminent sense.

3) Disclosure of Costs and Benefits: Another worthy point. New Mexico needs to do a better job on behalf of its policymakers of understanding the real-world economic impact of tax incentives and subsidies. Getting objective research is not always easy, but it is worth pursuing.

4) Money-back guarantees (strong clawbacks): Sounds good in theory, but not realistic. Despite all of the hype, Tesla is an extremely speculative business. There’s no way they’ll put themselves on the hook for reimbursements to the State in the case of a failure. Negotiating aggressive clawbacks will likely kill a deal. New Mexico policymakers need to structure incentives in such a way as to not be “out” millions of dollars if Tesla were to fail.

5) Job quality standards: I have no doubt that a vast majority of Tesla employees (even on the assembly line and in the absence of unions) will earn very good salaries and will thus not be a burden on our Medicaid and social welfare systems. The bigger issue is the Democrats’ demands for in-state hiring quotas. This is another deal-killer. Tesla is going to want the best workers possible in its plant and isn’t going to want to deal with unnecessary and artificial in-state hiring rules.

Policymakers should know that if Tesla moves here, they will hire lots of New Mexicans to work in its facility. To hire 6,500 workers, there is no doubt that some of those people will have to come from elsewhere. The good news is that whether Tesla ever pays a dime in corporate taxes, those well-paid workers will pay taxes and generate economic activity in our economy.

One additional point not mentioned in the Democrats’ piece, but mentioned elsewhere is that New Mexico has plenty of water. Nearly 80% is used for agriculture, much of which is not economically-viable. Some of the water rights for flooding fields to grow hay, alfalfa, and corn in places where such crops are not a wise use of water can and must be eliminated whether Tesla comes here or not.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

9 Replies to “Parsing the Democrats’ statement on potential Tesla Incentives”

  1. No one thinks we should pay to Tesla 25-30% of their expenditures in the state. However, we eagerly do that for movie and TV production. It might be useful to consider why these industries are treated so differently and whether there are other industries which might qualify for treatment similar to movies and TV. If so, we probably could recruit them to NM. Do we believe the economics of movies and TV are unique, or do we just especially appreciate their ultimate product?

    1. Well, that eager “we” doesn’t include ME, but I get your point. Of course, we oppose subsidizing ANY industry to the tune of 25-30% of their expenditures. To answer your question, I don’t think the willingness to be so generous to film has anything to do with economics. It’s glamour, excitement, recognition, having exposure for the place one lives. The economics are terrible no matter how you look at it.

  2. Super topic for dialog. Just talked with a salesman with a local Buick dealer today. He said NM dealers would do everything/anything to keep Tesla (competition) out of NM. One good month of boycotting dealer purchases would solve that problem. It’s like teacher unions, if they’re not competitive, then get the *el* out of the way.

  3. I agree that in-state hiring quotas are a non-starter in New Mexico. Intel missed its hiring quota because it was unable to find qualified applicants. As along as New Mexico schools continue to turn out fork-lift operators, the best way to upgrade the state’s work force is for companies to attract skilled workers from outside the state. (If enough smart people move here, perhaps they will demand better schools for their kids.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.