Odds are in favor of Virginia (look up AWS and other data centers in that area). But it is still interesting to see how these cities are competing with each other and are throwing out tax payers money to lure in Amazon to moving in their backyard. I wonder if they would give similar incentives to small and upcoming businesses and startups.
Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?
51–60 of 286 posts
Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?
#52I completely disagree with the “race to the bottom” framing of the idea that cities shouldn’t compete to provide the best services for the commercial enterprises which reside there. At the 50-75 year timeframe we are talking about at least hundreds of billions of dollars of economic value, if not trillions. The clustering effect of becoming Silicon Valley 2 cannot be overstated. My personal opinion is cities should b…
> Just because Amazon happens to be for-profit, their presence in your city is an extraordinary asset
It's not though. You purposefully used examples of public or non-profit groups to make it sound like a benefit. But it's not. A more fair comparison would read:
It's like someone came to your town and I said, "I want to build a $20m McDonalds, Mobile Gas Station, WalMart and a Best Buy". I would hope your town says "good luck with that" and not "that's amazing, how should we corrupt the local market to make it easier for you to do that". Amazon is no different in any way except scale.
In a sane world, Amazon HQ2 would terrify cities, who will need to ensure they have extra taxes in place for Amazon, to ensure the city can handle the massive pollutions Amazon HQ2 will generate in the local housing markets, local economy, and local infrastructure.
> We’ve proven that this public/private partnership is basically the most effective growth engine we’ve got
Proven? Can you cite some examples? I've only seen "Public/private partnerships" used as a label to mask corruption and theft; as a way to socialize any losses but privatize any gains.
Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?
#53I completely disagree with the “race to the bottom” framing of the idea that cities shouldn’t compete to provide the best services for the commercial enterprises which reside there. At the 50-75 year timeframe we are talking about at least hundreds of billions of dollars of economic value, if not trillions. The clustering effect of becoming Silicon Valley 2 cannot be overstated. My personal opinion is cities should b…
Devils advocate:
It's possible that Amazon will be a drain on a region.
The cost of housing goes up for everyone.
The best and the brightest of the region get sucked back to HQ1
The startup ecosystem in the region gets drained to work at/for Amazon
Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?
#54I don't understand people who are conflating the search for HQ2 with Olympic bids and sports stadium bids. The Olympics are most likely a one time thing for a month, although in the future I could forsee it revolving around qualified sites, it takes a lot to convert facilities used for the Olympics into regular infrastucture (see Atlanta and LA). Stadiums I think overall have a better impact, as they can create or re…
Just a small counterpoint - the United Center in Chicago was supposed to revitalize the surrounding neighborhood, but in practice drove it down to the ground. Same deal with Yankee Stadium and Citi Field in New York.
Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?
#55I commend the position of Toronto's mayor John Tory who said (I am paraphrasing here): "no tax breaks, if you come - come based on our merits as a city alone". Toronto is not likely to get Amazon for various reason (political climate being probably more important than tax breaks)
To clarify, you mean the current US political climate?
In all honesty, unless Amazon was going to go to Mississauga or Markham or something like that, I'd rather not have them. We need more jobs in the burbs, not more pressures on the inadequate Toronto infrastructure.
Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't a prisoner's dilemma, the cities are allowed to talk to each other, and to gang up to punish those who break ranks.
What possible penalty could one city impose on another?
Any sort of collusion agreement can have a penalty clause, so presumably punitive damages.
And damages to reputation are also possible.
Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who will probably never work at Amazon, or in any way benefit from their presence, the issues of housing prices and infrastructure are important to me. I'm not willing to pay an effective Amazon-tax in both my rent and commute time for for the dubious honor of saying I live in the same city as HQ2.
I'm not a fan of cities dishing out perks, but what you said amounts to NIMBYism. I'm sympathetic to those concerns but housing prices aren't solved by keeping out newcomers or being against development. There can also be an indirect income boost that comes with an increased demand for labor, and it can help make the local economy more robust. I do think the concern about unforeseen infrastructure costs are warranted…
What is the problem with NYMBYism? Why is that a bad word?
Because a bunch of jerks in SV won't let more housing go in?
Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?
#58Odds are in favor of Virginia (look up AWS and other data centers in that area). But it is still interesting to see how these cities are competing with each other and are throwing out tax payers money to lure in Amazon to moving in their backyard. I wonder if they would give similar incentives to small and upcoming businesses and startups.
I'm not sure the data centers have an effect there. They don't have need for their non-datacenter employees traveling to visit the DCs (those are hyper locked down)
Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?
#59Large corporations often make deals with other large corporations, and they prosper. Workers used to do better when a larger percentage of them collectively bargained. But somehow, the possibility that citizens, who are represented by various local governments, would use those governments to cooperate with each other across the lines on the map sounds like science-fiction and is disparaged as far-fetched and unworkable in many of the comments here. What is it that Americans don't understand?
Do they understand that Seattle, home of HQ1, has home-grown homelessness that is rising?
Do they understand that Amazon will automate away any job outside the executive suite that it can?
Do they understand the power that Amazon will have over the lucky city that makes the investment?
Do they understand that 50 years is now the standard term for the tax breaks that Amazon will be offered?
Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?
#60Because the non-collusive city will come out ahead in this prisoner dilemma.
What is being suggested here is a cartel. Yes, if one city didn't agree to signing up for the non-aggression agreement at all, they may stand to win, but if everyone agrees on non-aggression, then whomever the eventual winner is wins the deal for much cheaper. Of course, in practice, defining what constitutes aggression and tax cuts would be quite difficult, but in theory players competing in a winner takes all market could still work.