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

111–120 of 286 posts

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

#111

Post by Kalium »

busterarm wrote: post #94
Kalium wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They also don't want to do what the auto manufacturers did and make the host city completely dependent on them for the local economy. Shreveport suffered quite a bit after the GM plant closure and drop in oil prices -- being so aligned to one sector was not in Shreveport's best interests.

Funny story. By coincidence, San Antonio is really proud of its Toyota plant.

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

#112

Post by rflrob »

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 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.

I think the idea is that cities definitely should compete to provide the best services for the commercial enterprises, but that those service should not include breaks on taxes or land giveaways. If building a new transit station, boosting spending on public schools that the Amazon engineers would want, and restructuring building and zoning codes to increase the housing supply will make your city more attractive to Amazon, by all means go ahead, since those should redound to everyone, regardless of whether they work for Amazon. But Amazon seems rich enough to me that they would be just fine even without tax breaks on construction materials or payroll taxes.

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

#113

Post by HaloZero »

joeax wrote: post #47
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…

> 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…

I think some of it Amazon doesn't work outside a vacuum of other tech companies. It has to compete against San Francisco and other major tech hubs now so having a developed city is a selling point for Amazon HQ2.

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

#114

Post by doggydogs94 »

alkonaut wrote: post #26

Here's an idea: don't let states make targeted tax breaks to race to the bottom. That seems to work in the EU. Apple paid 1% in Ireland and simply had to pay up the difference to the normal tax rate.

Don’t let ... The only one that can do that is the US Supreme Court.

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

#115

Post by Kalium »

joeax wrote: post #108
Kalium wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I can definitely think of worse places than San Marcos. Though being outside Austin proper means giving up anything remotely resembling usable public transit. And in all honesty, Austin could be reasonably characterized as outgrown and gentrified already.

Plus, SA has already played this game. It got them Rackspace. Which, uh, could maybe be going better.

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

#116

Post by ImSkeptical »

40acres wrote: post #103
s73ver_ wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Another confounding factor is that the workforce tends to be left leaning. Left leaning population, plus new money for taxes means more social services for the homeless. More social services means homeless from less accommodating communities will move in.

I'd also be curious in a study on Amazon's effect on the homeless.

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

#118

Post by refurb »

twostoned wrote: post #86
wmeredith wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

we're in a time when taxes are being shifted more and more away from those who have (rich & corporations)

Actually the exact opposite is happening. The top quintile is pay a bigger share of taxes than before.[1] In 1960, the top quintile paid 56.5% of all federal tax revenue. In 2005 it was 69%.

Care to revise your position based on that?

[1]http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29861648/ns/politics-capitol_hill/... (table on right)

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

#119

Post by peterwwillis »

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.

> If they screw that up, well that's on them.

Giving the incentives is the screw up. Not how they implement it. Even though they often implement stupid policies and ignore the things they actually need to pay for. In many cases, states and local governments lose hundreds of millions, if not billions, trying to attract investment which doesn't pay off.

Kansas City lost 331 million in tax revenue due to horrible policies that incentivized moving jobs a mile across a river to a different state. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/05/04/476799218/epis... http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article183014956.html (video embedded, pls 2 watch)

Kentucky gave tens of millions in tax breaks to build a Noah's Ark theme park. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/us/noahs-ark-kentucky/index.ht...

New Jersey wants to give Amazon $7 Billion in tax breaks. It still has not invested money in fixing its broken public transit system. https://www.wsj.com/articles/newark-offers-7-billion-in-ince...

Post reply on HN