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

101–110 of 286 posts

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

#101

Post by untog »

matchbok wrote: post #64
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.

> Homelessness is not Amazon's problem.

Not directly, no. But Amazon is based in a city that has a large homeless population. It is in the interest of their employees to see that population fall, therefore it also ought to be in Amazon's interest.

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

Of course it is. But I see this reaction a lot - that anyone asking questions about our automated future is some sort of regressive idiot who hates technology. Far from it. You can see and be in favour of the obvious benefits automation brings, while also questioning what society looks like when a lot of the jobs people currently have don't exist. That doesn't mean "stop automation", it just means "think about the effects of it while we do it, ideally before".

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

#102

Post by apercu »

ghaff wrote: post #90
apercu wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Because it's a cheap, lazy insult to throw out at people who have different preferences than you do.

Agreed.

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

#103

Post by 40acres »

s73ver_ wrote: post #96
matchbok wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homelessness is not Amazon's problem. Automation is good. Do you want us to ride horses to work? Agreed. Agreed.

"Homelessness is not Amazon's problem." But it is the problem of the city. They absolutely need to keep this in mind while negotiating with Amazon, who has a reputation for driving housing prices sky high, thus exacerbating the homelessness problem. "Automation is good. Do you want us to ride horses to work?" Automation is neutral, as it does cost people jobs, not all of whom can be retrained for something else. It a…

Amazon also provides high wage workers who are taxed on their income, and who generate economic activity which can also be taxed and used by municipalities to try to solve homelessness. On net I wonder what the benefit / determent of Amazon moving to a city would have on homelessness.

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

#104

Post by misterbowfinger »

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…

I grew up in New York. Just wanted to add a data point that stadiums don't always "uplift" communities. There's a lot that goes into it.

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

#105

Post by mikeash »

Because they’re all starry-eyed about the possibility and don’t care what it costs.

I live in the DC area. We’re on the list three times: DC itself, plus VA and MD suburbs. The prospect of cooperating on a bid was brought up, but they’re not willing to do it. They want to win and they want it all for themselves.

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

#106

Post by grasshopperpurp »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #22

Because it is a race to the bottom. Who can sacrifice the most tax dollars NOW for a hope at more down the line? This reminds me of how NFL operates at extracting huge concessions and expenses from cities for the privilege of having their team stay in town.

That's what I thought of, as well. It's always a terrible deal for the city.

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

#107

Post by s73ver_ »

conanbatt wrote: post #43
tbirrell wrote: post #37

Earlier 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.

Its reasonable that if you are individually not profiting from it, you should vote against, but most people will benefit (every single landlord, lots of businesses that will sell stuff, and all the people that would move and get a job there). If it were to be put up to a vote, the vote would be positive. If it were to be put up for an economic analysis, the economic analysis would be positive.

"but most people will benefit (every single landlord, lots of businesses that will sell stuff, and all the people that would move and get a job there)"

That's far, far from "most people". Landlords, for instance, would benefit, due to being able to charge higher rents. But everyone else in that town that rents would not benefit. And I dare say there are more renters than there are landlords.

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

#108

Post by joeax »

Kalium wrote: post #77
joeax wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Back in 2004 when I was working at Microsoft, I remember sitting in a bar in downtown Redmond and tossing back some local brew IPAs. This guy sitting next to me was an older dude and longtime fisherman. He was going on…

Amazon doesn't want to spend ten years trying to remake a city into something that might serve its needs. I can see why. It's a huge investment with a very uncertain return. But, let's turn it around. Why would Amazon want to go to San Antonio, instead of a city like Atlanta?

Take a city like San Antonio. Austin is 80 miles north. Amazon puts HQ2 in the northern suburbs and suddenly you have a major tech corridor along I-35 that will bring growth and investment along with it, bridging the two cities ala San Francisco-San Jose-Berkeley. You would have a similar effect with Milwaukee and Chicago. Sometimes a city becomes so outgrown and gentrified (like Seattle, hence the new HQ) it makes sense to set up shop nearby.

The next best thing is they set up HQ in southern Austin or northern Chicago (both shortlisted cities), and those cities benefit from residual investment.

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

#109

Post by tc »

Collective bargaining is probably the wrong metaphor. This is the principle-agent problem.

The citizens would be better off if the elected officials worked to make their city the best possible place to do business for all companies on an even playing field. The city would then attract plenty of good companies simply on its merits.

The elected officials instead benefit from granting favors, being able to brag about how they brought in a big name like Amazon, and getting Jeff Bezos on their personal speed dial.

This is also why collective bargaining will not happen here. The interests of the elected officials are not at all aligned. They're competing for a scarce resource, and they themselves largely do not bear the costs of trying to acquire it.

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

#110

Post by refurb »

s73ver_ wrote: post #99
refurb wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that on Amazon? If the city supports building more housing for incoming employees, then housing prices don't sky rocket and construction works make out like bandits. I'm trying to understand why when a company like Amazon decides to create jobs in a city, suddenly they are to blame for everything wrong (homelessness, high housing prices, etc). It's absurd.

Arguably they're trying to divert tax monies to be spent on themselves instead of the other problems the city faces, so it is on Amazon. And they're blamed because they are largely a cause of exacerbating those problems. It's not just a pure good for them to come. Like I said, they cause housing prices to skyrocket. That's on them, and the increased homelessness that would result would be on them, too.

Sorry to say, but if a city gives away so much to Amazon that it's a net negative, it's their own dam fault. Maybe they should take some negotiations or financial modeling classes.

Amazon doesn't control the zoning laws, the city does. If housing prices increase, it's the city's fault.

People act like Amazon is some all-powerful entity that can railroad an entity like a city council that has the power to change laws.

Post reply on HN