Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2 • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#581

Post by angryasian » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:02 PM UTC

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.

Theres several reasons why LA is a good choice. As you mentioned Hollywood and Amazon's push into original content. Amazon is also pushing heavily into gaming, and So Cal is one the best areas for this. Amazon's biggest fulfillment centers is in So Cal. Access to ports along the coast. LA is dumping billions into public infrastructure with the Olympics and measure M. LA has a lot of good schools in the area, USC, UCLA, Cal tech. LA is very forward in terms of govt policy, look at Elon's Boring Company as an example. If Amazon ever wants to get serious about Drone delivery I imagine LA would be perfect for this. On top of the other reasons of its proximity to Seattle and Asia.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#582

Post by saalweachter » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:05 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #150

saalweachter wrote: post #62

I wonder if New York is just New York City, or New York Metropolitan region. I guess including Newark makes the latter unlikely, but with IBM shuttering a chunk of its operations here, the Hudson Valley is full of empty IBM office parks and desperate local governments, while close to infrastructure.

It's pretty far from a decent airport. HPN and SWF have flights to only a few destinations and the only mass transit that services them are buses. Poughkeepsie to EWR is no less than 2.5 hours on public transportation and 1.5 hours by car. About the same for JFK. Newburgh and Fishkill are even worse.

Yeah, I'm real curious how much that factors into things.

I think the "no mass transit" problem isn't really a real problem; most American cities don't have mass transit that is good enough for people visiting from another office to use. I've tried visiting Mountain View with and without renting a car, and it's technically possible, but I gave up on not. Buses are perfectly cromulent forms of mass transit, but tend to be too scary for visitors to use (buses can go anywhere, and it is very confusing/stressful to try to figure out if you are at the right stop and if the bus that just stopped is the right bus, when you are unfamiliar with the system).

I can see the objection to not being a hub airport from both ends. As a normal traveler, SWF is great: easy to get to, park, and navigate, not too expensive, and pretty much anywhere I'm going is one connection away.

From the perspective of a company, yeah, I can see it being a bigger negative. The VPs may not personally want to take non-direct flights, the costs might be more noticeable, and if your destinations are also second-tier airports, you're now talking probably two connections. Especially for what's supposed to be their #2 office, a hub airport may just be a hard constraint.

The upper Hudson Valley probably is too far from New York to really mooch off of its infrastructure, but the lower Hudson Valley (Peekskill, Croton Harmon) probably isn't; however, not coincidentally, you've got a lot more empty office parks in the upper HV cities you mentioned.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#583

Post by Bajeezus » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:05 PM UTC

sol_remmy wrote: post #313

akhilcacharya wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in Raleigh and go to NC State. I'm very skeptical that RDU is a better location than Newark (NJIT, Stephens, Rutgers, Columbia, NYU) or Atlanta (GTech, UGA). The talent is here at UNC and Duke but airport and local public transit is the weakest point. With that said, I'd love for them to come here as long as they maintain salary parity.

Theres little-to-no traffic and land is cheap, public transit isn't needed. The population density is probably higher on average in New Jersey than in metro Raleigh..

"little-to-no traffic"

As someone who lives in Durham and frequently commutes to Chapel Hill and Raleigh, the existing infrastructure would NOT support a big increase in commuters. During morning and afternoon rush hours, the highways are just BARELY large enough to prevent total gridlock. If you add just 10000 more cars commuting to Raleigh from Durham or Chapel Hill, you have a traffic nightmare in the making.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#584

Post by OkGoDoIt » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:07 PM UTC

plehoux wrote: post #349

sol_remmy wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think my fellow Philadelphians should have to pay to bring a company here that's just going to hire people who are not currently residents, while increasing their expenses and utilizing the public services that their taxes have paid for, while receiving little to no tax revenue or services in return. If you applied these views at the federal level than you'd be anti-immigration. It amazes me how people can…

Immigrants pay taxes.

So do employees of companies: income tax and sales tax and property tax. Even if Amazon gets a fairly large tax break, but net effect is overwhelmingly positive. The main downside of increased local wealth is higher overall prices and gentrification, which isn’t an entirely bad thing as long as it’s at reasonable levels. So all these new residents come to Philly or wherever, drive up rent prices. That means the local Philadelphia landlords become wealthier. I hate high rent prices, but I feel like this is a net benefit to both local residents and newcomers who come for the job.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#585

Post by justin66 » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:09 PM UTC

dhimes wrote: post #489

williamsmj wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Atlanta, Raleigh and Dallas are all in states whose statewide electorate makes them a governor's veto away from passing "religious freedom" laws that would make hiring difficult. Maybe it would be good for Atlanta, but I don't think Amazon would risk it.

I thought "religious freedom" laws made it so the employer could legally refuse to hire, say, homosexuals. That probably won't pose a risk to Amazon, the hiring company. Are you thinking the second order effects would come into play, like spouses not being able to find work? Or am I wrong about the definition of rf laws?

I'm not the OP but I assume "laws that would make hiring difficult" include laws that would shock the conscience of the sort of people you would want to hire if you were Amazon, not to mention the existing employees. Bathroom laws, etc.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#586

Post by mulmen » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:10 PM UTC

lolsal wrote: post #390

tallanvor wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 blanke…

I am not from the south but I believe I understand your feeling and I certainly respect your desire to improve your homeland.

On the other hand as an American that is from the rural northwest I was shocked by the overt racism I witnessed in the south. I am sure improvements have been made but the south still has a long way to go.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#587

Post by OkGoDoIt » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:11 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #565

prklmn wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is valid, however no car factory built recently has garnered a fraction of the publicity/public interest that HQ2 has. What people don't know can't hurt them.

Nobody cares about HQ2 outside of certain tech circles. My point is people care more about where their cars are made, and they don't even really care about that.

I wouldn’t be so sure of that. My parents, who are both in their 60s and not the least bit affiliated with technology, are both aware of Amazon’s headquarters search and brought it up with me when I was visiting over the holidays.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#588

Post by bluetwo » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:13 PM UTC

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…

I would love to see Philly land it but let's be honest: They are going to put it in a better run city with less inherent corruption.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#589

Post by mark-r » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

ameister14 wrote: post #512

mark-r wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that government expenses go up with Amazon's arrival as well. If we assume the taxes paid by other businesses fairly represent their load, then Amazon will be a burden overall by avoiding those taxes. That growth from other businesses will be needing services as well, and the tax from that growth won't cover everybody.

That's balanced by the increase in tax base from 50,000 jobs and investment of billions in the local community.

No it's not balanced, that was my whole point. Yes there will be an increase in tax base, but it won't cover the increase in expenses. If it does then it implies that the current businesses are overtaxed.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#590

Post by prklmn » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

lloyd-christmas wrote: post #580

wfo wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First link on google on poor voters going Democratic: http://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trum... Every income group over $50k voted Trump. If you scroll down you see that rural voters did indeed go for Trump, but they are much smaller proportion of the population than city folk or, the largest group, suburbanites (who went for Trump solidly as well). I don't have a source handy for the poor being…

That article doesn't support your assertion. Those are overall exit polls, not polls of swing states. The swings states are the only meaningful measure of comparison as to "why he won". The middle class are doing very well in red states like Iowa and Nebraska, but they are just as irrelevant as a billionaire in manhattan or a welfare recipient in the bronx.

In Ohio, the state that has voted for every president to win since 1964, trump won across every level of education and every level of income except the MOST poor according to exit polls.

http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/ohio/pres...