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

591–600 of 747 posts

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#591

Post by scarmig »

appstateguy wrote: post #568
scarmig wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know plenty well about Southern politics, having worked as a staffer on multiple Southern campaigns. As an alternative, Amazon can choose states that don't currently discriminate against potential employees. Both of those states have positive trajectories (as well as Georgia!) But one bird in the hand is worth... Well, one bird in the bush.

And I live here and it's clear you're extremely ignorant on what the culture is actually like in the Raleigh-Durham region.

Question: do you even recognize that the bathroom law is offensive and discriminatory?

If you don't, we are simply not going to see eye to eye on this.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#592

Post by zeusk »

maxerickson wrote: post #537
mozumder wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your OP, but citizens get far more tax breaks than immigrants. Citizens don't have to pay foreigner rates for public Universities. That's a nice $50k-$100k savings for higher-education that citizens get that universities don't get, right there. What kind of breaks do immigrants get over citizens that are worth $50k-$100k? None.

Universities often base tuition on residency status that they determine. So a foreigner living in a state could get in state tuition. (and a citizen that only recently moved to a state might get out of state tuition)

That is incorrect. You need to be a permanent resident or citizen to be considered for in-state tuition.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#593

Post by graeme »

t1o5 wrote: post #373
graeme wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do any of those cities have good international flight options? I live in Montreal, the the options are very limited compared to Toronto. I expect Montreal would be completely ruled out because of the language laws, incidentally. Fine for a branch office, unacceptable for a second HQ. So, I'm not sure you're right about Toronto being a token candidate. I believe it's the best candidate in Canada. But, moving to Canada…

I second that about Montreal. The language laws are absurd. Getting a temporary work permit to work in Quebec is even weirder. The permanent residents of any other provinces cannot get health care in Quebec without Quebec's CSQ certificate which will take ages to get after you apply. The infrastructure is in ruins. Amazon will have a hard time getting skilled workers in Quebec than the rest of Canada.

To be clear, I'm optimistic about Quebec. It's growing rapidly, unemployment is low, and there's an increasing energy visible in the streets.

But, I think it would be crazy for an american, anglophone company to place a second HQ here. It would dramatically cut the talent pool.

Also, apologies for the triple comment on this thread. It seems each edit of my top comment added a comment.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#594

Post by southphillyman »

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.

This is false. This whole process has been huge news. It's front page on sites like Washington Post, Philly.com, and the IndyStar and I've just checked multiple non tech forums where it's one of the busiest topics today.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#595

Post by nyokodo »

vkou wrote: post #563
jzymbaluk wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention, those thousands of highly paid employees are going to be buying houses, renting apartments, buying cars, groceries, haircuts, etc

Which will drive up the cost of life for people who currently live in Philadelphia and won't work for Amazon. It will, however, vastly enrich their landlords.

That's the cost of being economically successful. That's because there is more competition for workers which drives up salaries, and for living spaces which drives up their cost. So even if you don't work for Amazon you're likely to benefit from the more competitive marketplace.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#596

Post by prklmn »

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.

If nobody cares about HQ2, then why is it all over the news? You're underestimating it's reach.

Even if people wouldn't normally care, they will care now because of the publicity and bidding process that has taken place. People in cities who do not win will be upset when they lose, and people everywhere, including places that were never in the running, will be upset if they put the office in Canada. You must not have heard of the "America first" line of thinking that got trump elected, in part.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#597

Post by neilc »

Retric wrote: post #562
nyokodo wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless Amazon is going to be paying $0 in tax or will be given tax credits in excess of any tax it will pay, neither of which I gather is the case, then how would this fail to deliver a net increase in tax revenue for the city? The 1000s of employees are not getting any tax breaks either so that'd also have to factor into the calculation. I don't think cities are acting against their own self interest in these negoti…

Amazon and those workers will still consume city services. City's don't make a profit on average, so while those workers may make above average wages it's unlikely to make up for the overall lost revenue. Picturing 1000's of workers is overblown. Amazon does employ a lot of people, but in a highly distributed fashion and their expansion is not going to be huge. On top of that these are all large city's where +/- a fe…

> Amazon and those workers will still consume city services. City's don't make a profit on average

I'd be very surprised if an Amazon worker making, say, $160k consumes more in government services than the sales/property/income taxes they are paying.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#598

Post by nyokodo »

Retric wrote: post #562
nyokodo wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless Amazon is going to be paying $0 in tax or will be given tax credits in excess of any tax it will pay, neither of which I gather is the case, then how would this fail to deliver a net increase in tax revenue for the city? The 1000s of employees are not getting any tax breaks either so that'd also have to factor into the calculation. I don't think cities are acting against their own self interest in these negoti…

Amazon and those workers will still consume city services. City's don't make a profit on average, so while those workers may make above average wages it's unlikely to make up for the overall lost revenue. Picturing 1000's of workers is overblown. Amazon does employ a lot of people, but in a highly distributed fashion and their expansion is not going to be huge. On top of that these are all large city's where +/- a fe…

If +/- a few thousand workers isn't a big deal then why is it being made a big deal by all these comments? Obviously it's going to make an impact. My point is that the corporation and workers and associated economic multipliers will be adding a net positive to city revenue. If it wasn't going to do that I doubt hundreds of cities would be competing for it.

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#599

Post by vkou »

nyokodo wrote: post #595
vkou wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which will drive up the cost of life for people who currently live in Philadelphia and won't work for Amazon. It will, however, vastly enrich their landlords.

That's the cost of being economically successful. That's because there is more competition for workers which drives up salaries, and for living spaces which drives up their cost. So even if you don't work for Amazon you're likely to benefit from the more competitive marketplace.

> That's the cost of being economically successful.

This is a cost disproportionately borne by low-income renters currently living in a city. If they have a choice, why should they pay it?

> That's because there is more competition for workers which drives up salaries, and for living spaces which drives up their cost.

Amazon workers will always outbid locals for housing. Unless 50,000 housing units will be built in the next few years (Contrary to the interests of property owners), this will reduce the quality of life for people not working for Amazon. They'll get to enjoy higher rents, longer commutes, and smaller disposable incomes.

People getting gentrified out where they live rarely benefit from the more competitive marketplace, or from coffee shops selling $14 avocado toast.

Adding jobs to an economically depressed area, with a surplus of housing benefits most people living in it. Adding jobs to an economically vibrant area, with a shortage of housing harms most people living in it. An Amazon office in Detroit would be great for the city. An Amazon office in San Francisco... Not so much.

Disclaimer: I don't live in Philadelphia, so I don't know where it is on the spectrii of 'economically vibrant' and 'housing shortage.'

Re: Amazon announces candidate cities for HQ2

#600

Post by gersh »

rayiner wrote: post #559
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…

The fact of the matter is that cities in the U.S., with respect to each other, are in a race to the bottom. There is nothing they can do about it: the Constitution mandates an unrestricted internal market with no barriers to the free flow of goods and capital between states. That means that companies will go wherever they can get the best deal, and there is no way for state and local governments to restrict that move…

That's oversimplistic. It is also depends on the quality of the city. Companies want to locate their best people in cities that are safe, have good airports, good schools, and reliable transportation where people want to live. This requires investment by the city, which must be paid for somehow.
Post reply on HN