Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 747 posts

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#381

Post by wfo »

s4vi0r wrote: post #371
prklmn wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that would be too incendiary a hedge. They have much more to lose than gain.

I think you're overestimating the trumples. He has an abysmal approval rating, and the types of people who tend appprove of him (e.g. rural poor) aren't exactly big spenders/prime consumers or whatever. Trump will raise a stink about it, but I'd be very surprised if anyone normal/reasonable felt Amazon opening hq2 in Canada to be like a personal attack against America or something.

Just an aside, Trump supporters are NOT poor or the working class, this is a myth. The poor are non-voters and if they vote it's mostly Democrat by and large. Trump voters for the most part were middle class suburbanites or exburbanites.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#382

Post by bogomipz »

fancyfacebook wrote: post #352
ashelmire wrote: post #340

Part of me would love to have a big tech / infrastructure company like Amazon in Philly. But I take serious issue with the idea of the city paying millions or billions to bring them here, promising years of tax breaks (a free ride), and the tightening of an already very tight real estate and rental market. I don't think my fellow Philadelphians should have to pay to bring a company here that's just going to hire peop…

Creating jobs that don't exist for people who currently aren't residents (or don't yet exist) is the very definition of economic progress. If you don't want that then you just want nothing but the status the status quo unchanged forever. You can't have it both ways.

The OP has clearly stated that their concerns are corporate welfare going to a company that most certainly doesn't need a handout and a further disruption to an existing housing problem.

And you have decided to reframe their concerns as being "against progress"?

Also please point me to this formal definition of "economic progress" you are stating.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#384

Post by wfo »

gist wrote: post #318
gumby wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nice to see Toronto on the list, though game theory suggest My bet is on Toronto because they can pick up all the staff they need worldwide without the problems of trying to get US visas.

> without the problems of trying to get US visas This assumes that politicians eager to get Amazon are not able to speed up and fix that process which they certainly would be motivated to do. [1] [1] This is not 'your shitty startup with 10 employees'. It's Amazon and the brass ring.

With far-right racist and anti-immigrant sentiment rising and taking power in the US, as a brown immigrant even if you can get a visa wouldn't you be concerned about moving your life here?

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#385

Post by JAFTEM »

Rotor wrote: post #281

Los Angeles (i.e. Hollywood) could be a strategic move given Amazon's massive push in original series and programming via Amazon Studios. Also, shares a coast with Seattle.

They would also have a monopoly on CS grads in the LA area ([0] among the highest number of grads in the country) which is experiencing a serious brain drain of talent to the Bay Area, NYC, and Seattle.

[0] https://www.ocregister.com/2017/07/24/is-southern-california...

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#386

Post by femto113 »

My money is on one of Nashville, Indianapolis or Columbus with Pittsburgh as a dark horse.

Amazon is going to be looking to build a major campus (say 5-10 big buildings) right in the center of town (as they've done here in Seattle) and that's just not feasible in expensive cities like LA, Boston, NYC, Chicago or DC. Denver is too far west, Miami, Atlanta and Raleigh too far southeast. Newark and Philadelphia don't have a sufficiently developed tech scene and as satellites of NYC have a price premium. There's no way Seattle and Dallas are going to form a family, Austin looks great on paper but I doubt they're hungry enough to offer sufficient incentives. Don't know why Montgomery County or Northern Virginia are even on this list.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#387

Post by JAFTEM »

kenhwang wrote: post #285
aaronarduino wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for Los Angeles, that is.

I can't imagine Los Angeles being a serious contender. - Land is expensive and not particularly abundant. Mid-Wilshire is relatively cheap has great proximity to everything (airport, downtown, west LA, Hollywood) if Amazon is willing to invest in the gentrification of the area. - Labor cost is within 10% of Bay/Seattle/NYC - Mass transit is currently effectively non-existent. - One of the highest taxed cities in the…

They would have a monopoly on LA universities since the LA area is experiencing a serious brain drain of talent to the Bay Area, Seattle, and NYC.

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/07/24/is-southern-california...

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#389

Post by dawnerd »

justin66 wrote: post #143
itsdrewmiller wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely the same thing that kept Portland off - they want more distance between HQs.

Or the fact that their employees would need to sell their organs in order to afford single-bedroom apartments. But I'm curious, have they actually publicly stated that they want a lot of geographical distance between the old and new HQ? It's an assumption that informs a lot of what's being said here.

Seattle is more expensive though, so if anything they might just get their Seattle employees wanting to move south to still be in the PNW.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#390

Post by lolsal »

tallanvor wrote: post #317
lolsal wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rampant: flourishing or spreading unchecked. I have lived in the south for 33 years (in particular, one of these states mentioned) - if you think that racism is flourishing or spreading unchecked you are misinformed. It exists, but it's dying. Please stop spreading hyperbole like this.

Racism is still alive in the south, though, even if it's not as bad as people from more liberal areas think. However, I can certainly tell you that as a gay man, I do not expect that I will feel comfortable living in any southern state during my lifetime. I lasted 3 years in Raleigh before I had to get out (and that was long before the bathroom bill).

This is really unfortunate. I worry it will take even longer for prejudice and intolerance to die in the south with this sort of attitude.

I do try to understand your perspective - it's not your problem since you don't live in the south, so you aren't worried about it. For someone like me that grew up in the south and have seen the effort and changes in the last three decades, it hurts to see objectively false blanket statements about racism and other prejudices be repeated. It also hurts to see someone write off a region for good when so much has changed in the last 30 years.

Yes intolerance still exists and if you're concerned about your safety it's only reasonable that you avoid it (I would).

For full disclosure, I am a minority in Texas.

Post reply on HN