From James Freeman in the WSJ:
Peter Kauffmann, a former spokesman for Hillary Clinton and longtime Queens resident, noted that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was elected with fewer votes than Amazon was promising in jobs.
“I don’t think anyone knows right now what the political consequences of that will be,” he said in a Thursday interview. “Traditionally, if you define yourself by opposing good jobs for your district, it’s not good for you electorally. I’m not sure one primary election, no matter how earth-shattering, changes that dynamic.”
So what has AOC said to the 25,000 people NOT getting a job at Amazon? Should they feel better because the paltry wages and benefits (sarcasm) don’t meet the new standards of AOC? She was a bartender right? A job she freely took. Wouldn’t a job at Amazon be better than being a bartender? But somehow, now that she was elected to Congress by fewer votes than the jobs being offered by Amazon, a bartender job is better than that being offered by Amazon?
And it’s not just 25,000 people not getting a job; those jobs would have created more jobs. I don’t know what the multiplier effect would be, but assuming 3 (in the good ‘ol days of the auto industry, it was 5-7), that’s 75,000 more people not getting a job. 100,000 jobs total. Most cities in America would gladly take those 100,000 jobs.
To those 100,000 people, stupid hurts.
The sound you hear from AOC on this is? Crickets.