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

151–160 of 286 posts

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

#151

Post by melq »

jknoepfler wrote: post #143
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.

I certainly don't want you riding a car into a crowded downtown. I personally walked to work in downtown Seattle (to Amazon, ironically). I'd vote for any local candidate who pushed for an aggressive pedestrian-only zone in the city with a strategy for expanding mass transit access and park and rides. The technology for affordable mass transit is almost a century old; I think incremental, sustainable progress on that…

Seems to me that more of the blame for homelessness should be placed on the government than on Amazon. Not working at Amazon is hardly the reason for someone's homelessness.

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

#152

Post by nerfhammer »

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 there are tremendous social costs to intentionally causing housing shortages.

https://www.axios.com/the-great-stagnation-americans-stopped...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-...

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

#153

Post by Cyberdog »

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…

> It’s completely irrational anti-capitalistic knee jerking to whine that cities shouldn’t be working hard to support HQ2 in their backyard. We are watching capitalism at its finest here folks - and market efficiency driving negotiation and competition is creating significantly better outcomes than the “fuck Amazon they don’t need handouts” crowd would arrive at.

When the incentives cross the line from tax breaks to free stuff, it's capitalism, all right - crony capitalism. Not the type I and other libertarians care to see.

Never thought I'd see the day where I'd be nodding along to a Keith Ellison tweet.

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

#154

Post by Cyberdog »

Animats wrote: post #38

(suggested) competing cities form a non-aggression pact That's been suggested before at the state level. But it runs into a Constitutional limitation. Interstate compacts have to be approved by Congress. Article I, Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." US cities are legally parts of states, not standalone entities. Trying to get an an…

Does this apply to municipalities?

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

#155

Post by conanbatt »

s73ver_ wrote: post #107
conanbatt wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

http://www.businessinsider.com/homeownership-rate-state-map-...

Most people are landlords..

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

#156

Post by apercu »

nerfhammer wrote: post #152
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 there are tremendous social costs to intentionally causing housing shortages. https://www.axios.com/the-great-stagnation-americans-stopped... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-...

Right, but we're not talking about housing, we're talking about Amazon.

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

#157

Post by walshemj »

The main reason is the devolved nature of government in the USA in the UK Amazon would have its arm twisted by the government in a you scratch my back ill scratch yours.

For example BT had development centres in all 4 countries that make up the UK mainly for political reasons - and why the BBC forcibly moved people to Manchester as part of the negations over the BBC charter.

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

#158

Post by Johnny555 »

vvanders wrote: post #83
dumbfounder wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But on the flip side, I can't imagine that people living in Detroit were thrilled by the decades of urban decay there.

I think I'd rather live in a city that's so popular that infrastructure can't keep up than to live in a city where entire neighborhoods are empty and are razed due to neglect and criminal activities.

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

#159

Post by dbingham »

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 only good if the benefits of said automation are shared broadly among the populace. For the time being, that is not the case. Instead the benefits are held closely by only a tiny percentage of the population, who use said automation to collect enormous power and force an increasingly large number of people to live in increasingly precarious circumstances.

80% of corporate stock is owned by a mere 1% of the population. That 1% are the people who, right now, benefit from automation.

If we reach a world where corporations are replaced by worker cooperatives, or a 90% top marginal tax rate (and similar wealth tax) support a generous basic income -- then automation will be good. Right now it's an acute danger to the survival of most people.

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

#160

Post by walshemj »

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…

That's only if you ignore Boeing
Post reply on HN