I don't really have a dog in the hunt over the Outlet Mall, which to me seems like a mixed bag on the development front, but I think proponents are white-washing two issues.

First, it is worth noting that, generally speaking, big box retail doesn't create new purchasing as much as it moves people's purchasing from local independents (and, these days, other big box retail). You only need so many socks and jeans and shoes. (Some people, I understand, "need" more shoes than others.) So the net effect of big box development is generally to move buying patterns. As a result, more of the dollars spent leave the local economy -- big boxes don't use local banks (as much), don't employ local accountants, don't often use local advertising agencies, etc.

Second, small business rarely is subsidized at the same level of large developers and chains in order to "bring jobs" to the marketplace -- something that supposed market conservatives should admit is an unfair competitive advantage for larger entities. $24 million is about $15k per job created, if 1600 is the real number. (Again, this isn't Wal-Mart we're talking about, so it's an open question as to whether the wages offered will depress the market or raise wages generally; I suppose either is possible.) But if you gave me $15k to create a job at the JFP, I'd be happy to oblige -- of course, nobody ever seems to present that option.

The truth is that creating 1600 jobs in Pearl will probably, ultimately, move those jobs from somewhere else, because the demand for the goods in Pearl will not be conjured up from thin air; that demand will be taken from other businesses. The best spin you can put on it is that these businesses (a.) might employ some marginally higher number of people because they're corporate and relatively inefficient and/or (b.) the jobs they're taking are being taken from Alabamans, and we hate those people. :)

I guess, for me, it comes down to this... why is it the government's role to mitigate a developer's risk on a venture like this, when it's clearly likely to harm other businesses in the region? And, is this fair if the same subsidies aren't made available to others?

Hey Jan, when it comes to the JFP, you're ALWAYS dealing with an impossible deadline. :) Thanks for pulling it off!

I let @carolinarebels comment through not to discuss or refute it so much as to display it as an example of the cogency one seems too often forced to suffer when this topic arises. (As a reminder, in case you just joined us, the article is about removing the Confederate battle flag from the Mississippi state flag in 2013 or thereabouts. As a general rule, you're also reminded to disagree agreeably. :)

As I noted above, the secession *ordinances* and *declarations" are two different things. The *ordinances* were really one text ratified by each seceding state; the declarations were public reasons offered by four of them.

@Levi Donna did not "lie." (She didn't even say exactly what you're saying she said.) You're confusing the Ordinances of Succession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_…) and the Declarations of Succession (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reason…). All of the ordinances were legalese for ratification; the Declarations are four states' reasons for succession and rather overwhelming about slavery... if not straight-up white supremacy.

Blockquote

@Catch224you I cut your comment short because it wasn't clear whether you were quoting something and where the quote began and ended; a quick Google showed this same comment in many, many places around the Web, so I wanted to steer clear of reproducing an article whole.

I applaud you for at least being somewhat on topic. :) I think the fundamental flaw in equating the US flag and the Confederate flag is that the Confederacy was clearly formed for the distinct purpose of maintaining slavery within its borders, to the extent that slavery was written into its Constitution and into the articles of secession of the Southern states that wrote them.

Likewise, the length of time that the Confederate flag "flew" is irrelevant when you're discussing the Confederate battle flag that is part of the Mississippi flag, because the Confederate battle flag that is part of the Mississippi flag doesn't just represents the Confederacy, it also represents the Mississippi that has existing since that time.

The Confederate battle flag has flown over Mississippi, in this sense, for over 100 years, or, one might argue (if inclined to do so) over roughly 70 years of the Jim Crow-era Mississippi that it was meant to inaugurate, plus about 30 more during which it should have been put out to pasture.

Maybe it's time to move on? For the sake of "heritage" introduce a former flag -- the Bonnie Blue or Magnolia -- and then put this one in a fancy museum. (We're building two right now in downtown Jackson; both could use an example of the flag to explain its history.)

@2010sequoia I must say, I'm profoundly glad to hear that you're no longer an educator.

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/ballot/

@Bill, up-thread someone posted a ridiculous screed about how Donna should "go back where she came from" under the pseudonym "First Lady of the Confederacy."

Clearly some folks are still living in the past, or at least like pretending they are. ;)

And, for the record, I spent my entire childhood and most of my college career in Texas (at both levels they specifically taught "Texas History") and this thread may be the first time I've read the Texas Declaration of Secession. If I had read it before, I didn't remember the part Donna quotes above, so it's a good reminder.

Contextualizing the battle flag -- which is currently in the Mississippi flag, not just something from the past -- makes a lot of sense to me... because clearly some of our educations (in and out of the state of Mississippi) skipped over some of the toughest parts of the truth.

A little learning can't hurt -- but if it bothers you... do what the old song says... look away! :)

It occurs to me that the unions (or, more specifically, the threat of unionization) probably do something that y'all aren't really taking into consideration -- they keep these corporations on their toes, minding their "Ps and Qs."

I toured the Nissan plant recently and came away duly impressed with all of the employee services, health and wellness, etc., as well as the care with which corporate management discusses folks on the line and how they try to create a congenial atmosphere. I came away from that experience wondering what a union might do to help it, and I'm personally not sure it would.

(I speak, by the way, as someone who was technically a member of the UAW for a number of years by virtue of the fact that I belonged to the Writer's Union. It was one of the few ways for a freelance writer to get reasonable access to healthcare insurance -- something Obamacare will likely fix, ironically.)

So before we toss unions under the "necessary 100 years ago" bus, we've got to at least ponder the notion that they probably still play a role today. It may not be the role that the union itself WANTS to play (I'm sure they'd prefer dues) but it does force once to ponder the question -- if the union wasn't on their doorstep, would all of these companies act in exactly the same way that they do toward employees? Or, would they be motivated to do less for their employees in order to maximize shareholder value, given that their employees wouldn't have the option of organizing in response?