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

Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 286 posts

Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?

#61

Post by dumbfounder »

maxsilver wrote: post #52
zaroth wrote: post #28

I 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 "…

Amazon workers are highly paid, thus bringing the average income up, and contributing to taxes, strengthening the housing market, and much more. That's interesting that you call it pollution. High paying tech jobs are pollution? That doesn't compute to me.

Companies that compete for talent will be pissed, but for lots of others it's a huge win. The only way I see it as a "bad" thing is if you are in a small city that wants to remain small.

It's absolutely nothing like building a McDonalds.

Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?

#62

Post by Angostura »

zaroth wrote: post #28

I 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…

> If someone came to your town and said, I want to build a $20m community arts center with a theater, coworking space, parks, gardens, and playground — would you want your town to say “good luck with that” or would you want them to say “that’s amazing what do you need from us to make that happen?!”

This sounds very similar to the Garden Bridge project in London. It was eventually canned because it was going to take huge amounts of public funds and provide not a lot of benefit.

Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?

#63

Post by gech »

zaroth wrote: post #28

I 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…

I wouldn't want my town to say, here's 400 million for your 20 million community arts center

Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?

#64

Post by matchbok »

lucas_membrane wrote: post #59

Large 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 unworkab…

Homelessness is not Amazon's problem.

Automation is good. Do you want us to ride horses to work?

Agreed.

Agreed.

Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?

#65

Post by peterwwillis »

zaroth wrote: post #28

I 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…

Nobody is arguing that.

They're arguing that the states are giving away money. Not that they aren't providing services.

And nobody thinks Amazon moving to their town will create a silicon valley 2. Plenty of cities host huge employers. They don't become magnets for that industry. They just get fat tax breaks.

Many cities actually get worse with these giant companies throwing their weight around. Under Armor is single handedly reshaping southeast Baltimore, which of course is not only upsetting neighborhoods but pushing people out, not to mention small businesses replaced by national chains.

Finally Amazon has hundreds of billions. They do not need a handout from a poor city.

Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?

#66

Post by burfog »

mynegation wrote: post #45

I 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)

Political climate is something that could go either way.

A city like Seattle would be comfortable for existing employees. It would do nothing to attract talent that dislikes that political climate.

Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?

#68

Post by Robotbeat »

apercu wrote: post #53
zaroth wrote: post #28

I 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

Cost of housing going up also increases the wealth of homeowners in the area. This is not purely bad.

Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?

#69

Post by chaostheory »

For reasons already pointed out by others, this isn't a pragmatic idea. i.e. Amazon could just restart their search, etc..

imo what's more realistic is that cities on the top 20 list that are geographically close enough, should band together and offer combined benefits e.g. New York & Newark; Montgomery County & N Virginia & DC

Re: Why Don’t the 20 Cities on Amazon's HQ2 Shortlist Collectively Bargain?

#70

Post by ABCLAW »

nordsieck wrote: post #2

Seems like a pretty dumb idea. Amazon is limiting its self to those 20 cities. It can always back out and choose another if it wants.

Nothing better than torpedoing your own RFP to get people chomping at the bit to give you more free stuff.
Post reply on HN