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

121–130 of 286 posts

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

#121

Post by Brendinooo »

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.

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

No, but it's not an uncommon opinion in these parts that riding to work on anything other than a bike is a flaw in our land use.

Regardless of whether or not you agree, both a bike and a car replaced a horse, but they had drastically different effects on society.

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

#122

Post by the_gastropod »

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.

Part of the problem here is the people negotiating don't really have much skin in the game. It's easy to negotiate with other people's money. There's virtually no recourse for their poor decisions. See: suburbia.

> At the 50-75 year timeframe we are talking about at least hundreds of billions of dollars of economic value, if not trillions

We're projecting what a theoretical second campus of a 23 year old company will be 50 and 75 years out? Please. Did we learn nothing from the nearly homogeneous business cities like Detroit and "coal country" today? Cities built around one industry or one company will fail.

> Of course city governments should be working hard to bring this kind of value creation and massive economic engine to their constituents

Amazon developed out of an existing city. Cities should invest their efforts to nurture their own businesses that one day may grow and provide jobs. Importing an existing business is a rather short-sighted proposition akin to a get rich quick scheme.

> Personally I think the cities that only have tax incentives to offer will not come out the winner. Amazon cares a lot more about the surrounding infrastructure and ecosystem than a short term $1 Billion.

Agreed. Amazon is going to go where they're going to go. Cities should stop clamoring over themselves to give bigger tax breaks to one of the biggest businesses on the planet.

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

#123

Post by tinymollusk »

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…

I think automation has clearly been a net good over the past 200 years. I agree that it does have a cost, and perhaps the compound interest (environmentally) will come due very soon. But it's hard for me to see that it's neutral, given how much better our standard of living is compared to pre-industrial revolution.

Perhaps you meant to say that automation also has negatives? In which case, I apologize if I sounded harsh here -- I find I have a strong emotional reaction to arguments about complex things that don't support nuance.

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

#124

Post by dylan604 »

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.

House prices going up is only a good thing when you are selling your house. Otherwise, it's just a larger tax payment the owner endures. I know several people that lost their house because values went up in the neighborhood, but their salaries did not increase to match the new monthly tax allotment requirements.

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

#125

Post by ChristianBundy »

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.

But this isn't how it works. Political leverage increases with income, and people who don't have to work to survive realized long ago that it's much more efficient to lobby for tax decreases than it is to "generate economic activity".

Our current top tax rate is ~40%, less than half of what it was under Eisenhower, and the owning class continues to push for tax breaks under the guise of trickle-down economics.

Please stop broadcasting propaganda on their behalf.

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

#127

Post by alkonaut »

doggydogs94 wrote: post #114
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.

Somehow it always ends up there, like that's a "legal no go". I.e. "that would have to go through the supreme court" or "that's the constitution". I realize it's hard to change some things (like how is Gerrymandering for political views allowed?) but is it that hard that it's meaningless to attempt? Doesn't that mean (in the case of the Gerrymandering example) that US democracy is fundamentally broken AND can't be repaired?

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

#129

Post by joeax »

Kalium wrote: post #115
joeax wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I had Dell in mind (being located north in Round Rock) in mind. I have friends in Austin and most enjoy living closer to downtown, and I guess commuting sucks there going north, so heading south seems like a logical choice to build a HQ.

Besides Rackspace they have a bunch of defense contractors and USAA, but little else I believe.

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

#130

Post by tinymollusk »

refurb wrote: post #118
twostoned wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

[that page may 404 if you have a bunch of anti-spyware on your browser. It worked when I popped open an incog window.]

How should I interpret that chart, considering things like wealth versus income? There's some sort of transition between those -- I would guess more wealth was held in non-taxed trusts or investments back then, compared to now? Does the estate tax change behavior?

I think the point is to look at how much of the government is paid for by the top quintile than the others, over time, compared to each group's wealth. Is that correct?

(I am not an economist, just have an amateur interest in complex systems.)

Post reply on HN