[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Rising tide lifts all boats, eh? think again.

Calgary would be in a much better place spending 200 million cutting city business taxes, or perhaps subsidizing certain industries to attract sustainable and high paid jobs.

The oil boom and bust argument cannot be compared to the Flames and Oilers revenue. that is asinine.

Again, the foreign ownership argument has to do with the multiplier effect, which most studies purport to be near 1:1 for a new arena. money in money out.

Of course all jobs are good, but there are better jobs than some - retail/hospitality is some of the lowest paying jobs in the economy. Many are minimum wage which, arguably, is not enough to sustain those people in those positions!

Also, with substitution, its unlikely any of these jobs would even be lost if the flames left. we would just spend our money on different things. Regardless of how many on here claim they would spend it elsewhere, your hypotheticals and anecdotes do not meet the actual data.

The rabble rabble economy argument for a new stadium is selling false hope to get millions in subsidies - its a piss poor argument that needs to stop being used on here.

Emotional benefit, community benefit arguments? sure! those are the real arguments that need to be made.

But until someone can actually show me an independent study that shows the economic argument is a viable argument, shut up.

1:1 eh?

http://www.afl.org/canadian_workers_...n_done_by_tfws