Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
I agree with you and your hypothetical, which is why i said it wasn't necessarily correct.
I think the Garth Brooks concert scenario is a one- time thing and really dont think they will be doing that again, so its tough to hang your hat on.
The funny thing about your anecdote is the money being pumped into the economy is mostly going to foreign owned Fairmont, Ruth's Chris, Melting Pot.. hell im sure the gas and snacks were all foreign-owned. So outside of some low paying retail/service jobs, who is really seeing that benefit? (not to mention the fact that all those places mentioned were there before the arena). Does John Smith, power engineer living in Edmonton see that benefit? because he paid for the damn thing.
Even without that, im sure on average, the amount of actual tourism dollars from out-of-towners like you has a negligible effect on the City - or atleast not enough to justify the hundreds of millions in initial capital costs, and most likely an operating loss for the city in the future.
Again, im not saying there isnt a benefit (although all economic studies are unanimous that the benefit is negligible), Im saying the economic benefit argument is way overrated.
|
This is such small, misguided thinking.
John Smith, power engineer, is tied to the economy. If the entire economy is booming, he benefits. If the entire economy is struggling, he struggles. Sure there are outliers, but by in large, everything is connected.
The economy isn't some weirdly isolated system that excludes certain people in certain jobs. Look at the collapse in the oil and gas business, then go talk to the waitresses/waiters/cooks/people in the service and support industries downtown and tell me what they say. For one, you'll find less of them, and the ones that are still employed aren't making as much as they used to.
This "foreign owned" therefore not beneficial to locals is such a load of crap. The "foreign owned" companies still employ locals and contribute to the overall economy.