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

81–90 of 286 posts

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

#81

Post by badlucklottery »

Robotbeat wrote: post #68
apercu wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Their property taxes also go up as well so their actual financial situation might be worse unless their non-tech wages keep pace with the market or they just sell and leave.

But you can only sell a house once so it's the rising tide isn't really raising their boat like it is for the tech workers. It's more akin to winning a scratch ticket that also forces you to move and maybe get a new job.

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

#82

Post by mark-r »

jonknee wrote: post #41
nindalf wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make great points. There is a concern that not all of the incentives will be in terms of infrastructure improvements. Look at Wisconsin's deal with Foxconn - they're literally paying Foxconn money and giving them a license to pollute wetlands and waterways in exchange for 13,000 jobs.

And it will be amazing if there are actually 13,000 jobs. These things have a magical way of never materializing. The jobs turn out to be temp construction or count jobs created in the "economic impact" of having the company there. It's very rare for these deals to come out with the city on top or even equal.

This is my fear. The cities are offering up fantastic deals so that their politicians can get credit for those mythical benefits that never materialize. By the time the results can be evaluated that politician will be long gone. It's completely impossible to evaluate a proposal like this on the time scale of 50 years.

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

#83

Post by vvanders »

dumbfounder wrote: post #61
maxsilver wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> strengthening the housing market, and much more. That's interesting that you call it pollution.

Talk to anyone who grew up in Seattle or SF pre-tech boom and you might find a different perspective. I think it's worth considering that while it's great for us in tech it's not like it's a net-win for everyone else.

If you work in an industry outside of tech(or a part of tech that doesn't track payscales like the game industry) you may get pushed out of a city/metro just by nature of the impact tech has.

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

#84

Post by aeorgnoieang »

refurb wrote: post #78
peterwwillis wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They're arguing that the states are giving away money. What money are they giving away? If Amazon never comes, then there is no Amazon taxes and thus no tax breaks. Right now those towns are starting out at zero. If they are smart, they structure the incentives to make sure they are net positive. If they screw that up, well that's on them.

Why aren't cities and towns already doing this then? Every new business or new resident, of any size or wealth or income, is a potential new "net positive" contributor to their tax base.

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

#85

Post by bufordsharkley »

Robotbeat wrote: post #68
apercu wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When something is good for the landed and bad for the landless... it's generally bad.

Now, we could reform our policies so that the landless get a fair shot, but realistically, what are the chances of this happening?

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

#86

Post by twostoned »

wmeredith wrote: post #74
maxsilver wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "…

> "Public/private partnerships" used as a label to mask corruption and theft; as a way to take socialize any losses but privatize any gains I couldn't have said it better.

This is exactly what it is. Agreed.

I got a bit excited and should add more detail: we're in a time when taxes are being shifted more and more away from those who have (rich & corporations) to those who have not. A public/private partnership seems insane to people because it is. The private companies have all the resources and need to leverage further their wealth from the public sector. They can easily front this by themselves and still be printing money without a care in the world. Didn't the corporate tax rate in the USA just get reduced from 35% to 21%? Private top-tier income tax was something like 96% during WWII and now it's down to what, half of that? So not only do you blatantly and overtly go out of your way to avoid contributing to the public fund but then also get politicians to give you deals and project-specific loans out of that exact same reduced, exhausted public purse? OOkay. Then you tell us that we should be thanking you because you're providing jobs... what kind of jobs and to whom?

I'm always skeptical of these things to say the least. Then to claim that there's proof... umm.... are you referencing Atlas Shrugged?

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

#87

Post by aeorgnoieang »

keepper wrote: post #72
misterbowfinger wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The area around Shea stadium/Citi field was always an industrial area... Re-zoning hasn't happened. ( Shea Stadium was built in the 60s ) The area around Yankee Stadium has always been a vibrant community. Yankee stadium was built in the 1920's Not sure that you are a new yorker with those two statements... Shea stadium was never re-zoned, so re-vitalization was never its intended goal... Yankee stadium surrounding a…

The current Yankee Stadium was built less than a decade ago. The stadium that was built in the '20s is just a block away tho (and now a park).

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

#88

Post by s73ver_ »

dumbfounder wrote: post #61
maxsilver wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"Strengthening the housing market"

Other than code for "making everything much more unaffordable", what does this mean?

And yeah, it's pollution for those who don't have high paying tech jobs. There are more people living in those cities than Amazon employees; their interests and needs need to be taking into consideration as well.

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

#89

Post by zhjansbnas »

tbirrell wrote: post #37
40acres wrote: post #35

I 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…

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.

The whole point of cities is economic agglomeration. If you don’t want that, why live in a city at all?

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

#90

Post by ghaff »

apercu wrote: post #57
TheCowboy wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because it's a cheap, lazy insult to throw out at people who have different preferences than you do. It originally applied more to things like power plants that we collectively need but that basically no one wants to live next to. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with a city not wanting an Amazon HQ because of its impact on current residents when plenty of other places do.
Post reply on HN