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

221–230 of 286 posts

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

#221

Post by adamsea »

randomdata wrote: post #187
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…

> Workers used to do better when a larger percentage of them collectively bargained. What I find interesting is that the unionization rate in Canada today is more or less on-par with the peak unionization in the USA, and is one of the strongest unionized countries in the world. Yet, I constantly hear Canadian workers complain about how they are unfairly compensated compared to Americans, where unionization has practi…

It would be helpful, to really dig into this, if we could look at a survey or study, as opposed to hearsay.

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

#222

Post by adamsea »

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.

Is Amazon not composed of human beings who are citizens of various cities, states, and nation(s) in which there is homelessness?

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

#223

Post by untog »

BookmarkSaver wrote: post #211
DSingularity wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they refuse to answer the points we are raising by attacking us trying represent us as regressive idiots then attack them back. Make them feel like greedy pigs willing to let the world starve to make more money. Is there any doubt that if Amazon or any corporation would not hesitate to eliminate 90% of the jobs in this world if they had the means to do it cheaper with robotics/ai/cloud tech? They couldn't care les…

>Its beyond frustrating the amount of attacks you face for inquiring about the livelihoods and future of people whose jobs are replaced by AWS processes. That is because jobs aren't a hand-out. Somehow, we still have basically full employment 200 years after society started automating away jobs. You face ridicule for bitching about jobs lost to AWS for the same reason people now ridicule Luddites from 150 years ago.

Those same 200 years have seen an incredible concentration of wealth towards the richest in society at the detriment of the poorest - and it still continues today. It is not unreasonable to ask if there is a better way to accommodate change.

I'm reminded of the quote by Ronald Wright that is perhaps better suited to today's discussion about Switzerland vs the US, but still feels relevant (and, as an immigrant to the US, very true):

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

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

#224

Post by bomb199 »

deong wrote: post #203
throwaway1748 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but Amazon and the companies that spring up around HQ2 will enable many landless people to become landed. And if that happens to an extreme degree where it becomes unsustainable, maybe an HQ3 would be in order?

If you're already landless, Amazon coming in isn't going to help you become landed, outside of a handful of the earliest people to get in before the speculators hit. They'll create high paying jobs, but they'll create equally (or likely more) expensive houses. Anyone wanting to live in Nashville (just to pick one city from the list) who's capable of working for Amazon is also capable of working for someone in Nashvil…

Against local companies (like for in Seattle), it also creates an issue of competition for employment. In Seattle, every job I'm applying to is also being applied to by ex-Microsoft and ex-Amazon employees. It's a much harder competition to land jobs, but in the smaller markets you could find work much more easily.

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

#225

Post by adamsea »

BookmarkSaver wrote: post #211
DSingularity wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they refuse to answer the points we are raising by attacking us trying represent us as regressive idiots then attack them back. Make them feel like greedy pigs willing to let the world starve to make more money. Is there any doubt that if Amazon or any corporation would not hesitate to eliminate 90% of the jobs in this world if they had the means to do it cheaper with robotics/ai/cloud tech? They couldn't care les…

>Its beyond frustrating the amount of attacks you face for inquiring about the livelihoods and future of people whose jobs are replaced by AWS processes. That is because jobs aren't a hand-out. Somehow, we still have basically full employment 200 years after society started automating away jobs. You face ridicule for bitching about jobs lost to AWS for the same reason people now ridicule Luddites from 150 years ago.

> That is because jobs aren't a hand-out.

There is a vast difference between government policy intended to help its citizens (and thus, the nation as a whole) prosper and grow and adapt as the economy changes, and "hand-outs."

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

#226

Post by Chaebixi »

Johnny555 wrote: post #158
vvanders wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's not a binary choice. The sweet spot is in the middle.

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

#227

Post by throwaway5752 »

Because they don't have any leverage in this situation. I read the article, I don't see how this fundamental reality can be worked around. City Y has no disincentive to undercut City X until the NPV of HQ2 is equal to the cost of their incentive package. This is just a reverse auction process.

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

#228

Post by cirgue »

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…

> We’ve proven that this public/private partnership is basically the most effective growth engine we’ve got.

No one has proven this. There is plenty of evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion.

> It’s completely irrational anti-capitalistic knee jerking to whine that cities shouldn’t be working hard to support HQ2 in their backyard.

On the contrary, it is 100% rational for cities to want to get HQ2 and give away absolutely nothing, and possibly even get some concessions from Amazon itself.

They have to have another headquarters, and there are less than twenty cities that make any degree of sense for them to move to. I would bet that there are only two or three serious contenders, and the only way they're not going to go with whatever first choice they have currently would be a truly enormous handout. The whole bidding war going on here is, in my opinion, to try to get a sweeter deal from whoever they've already picked.

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

#229

Post by s73ver_ »

refurb wrote: post #110
s73ver_ wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, the city would be to blame. But so would Amazon. Amazon is run by people who know right from wrong, and are fully capable of taking responsibility for their actions.

Amazon absolutely shares some blame with all of those. You cannot condemn one entity for not having "personal responsibility" and ignore the responsibility the other entities have in contributing to the situation.

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

#230

Post by Johnny555 »

Chaebixi wrote: post #226
Johnny555 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a binary choice. The sweet spot is in the middle.

but sometimes it is a binary choice. Leaders can see their community dying after the former big industry left -- with lots of luck and years of a strong economy they may be able to attract some replacement industries that keep the town prosperous (but not not overly so).

Or they can hit the "Amazon lottery", bringing in billions of dollars of investment and 50,000 high paid jobs (plus all of the ancillary jobs to support these high paid workers).

So a community could very well face a binary choice.

Post reply on HN