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

271–280 of 286 posts

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

#271

Post by dbingham »

icebraining wrote: post #207
dbingham wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

10%, not 1%, unless you have more recent data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/02/...

Ahh, thank you. That is the stat I was referring to, I misremembered the number. I would edit it, but it won't seem to let me.

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

#272

Post by icebraining »

dbingham wrote: post #271
icebraining wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10%, not 1%, unless you have more recent data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/02/...

Ahh, thank you. That is the stat I was referring to, I misremembered the number. I would edit it, but it won't seem to let me.

Yeah, there's a short window of time for editions :)

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

#273

Post by randomdata »

adamsea wrote: post #221
randomdata wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Aside from opinion, the numbers from the government of Canada show that incomes were stagnant by the early 70s (which roughly corresponds with income stagnation seen in the US). This is again when unionization started to decline in the US, which could reasonably attributed to the decline of unionization. However, Canada saw strengthening unionization in the same period (peaking in the mid-80s). Based on what people claim unions accomplish, income stagnation is unexpected given how strong the unions were during that time.

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

#274

Post by prepend »

na85 wrote: post #263
prepend wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automating executive jobs would increase profit. Trust corporations to maximize shareholder equity, as they are legally obligated to do.

It wouldn't increase compensation for those executives whose jobs are being automated , and it's the executives who control the company.

This is a good point. But it would increase compensation for the remaining executive. Perhaps a middle manager could nix the decision for some time, but someone higher up would benefit.

I think it’s also faulty to think that automated executives means fired old executives. Most likely would be that executives are freed up from rote activities and would then do higher value activities.

Kind of like how Amazon Go didn’t fire a bunch of cashiers, but is a new venture.

Automation results in new jobs on the macro level because it removes the boring parts of jobs.

I think the end game would be to have all of Amazon automated except for Bezos. This is an extreme example and don’t think it would go to this level, but this seems to be Amazon’s model.

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

#275

Post by aeorgnoieang »

nugget wrote: post #237
aeorgnoieang wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am almost perfectly certain that they're not doing this because I was referring to all of the organizations, and individuals, that are not as big as Amazon. I'm claiming your argument is suspicious because it seems to only really apply to organizations of Amazon's size. Maybe you disagree, but it sure doesn't seem like any cities or towns are interested in luring an Amazons worth of businesses and tax-payers that a…

New York State offers to waive all state income taxes for something like 10 years if you move there and start a new business in one of their special economic zones. There are more of these programs out there than people realize. https://esd.ny.gov/startup-ny-program

That's a good counter-example, but still pretty far from 'accept any net-positive benefit' (however close to zero).

Moreover, there only seem to be three such zones in the entire state: parts of upper Manhattan, parts of the south of the Bronx, and some parts of Yonkers.

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

#276

Post by unethical_ban »

Kalium wrote: post #270
unethical_ban wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rackspace is one example of that business, but Amazon is not going anywhere. And there is STILL a lot of space all around San Antonio (far west, anything east) as well as New Braunfels and even (if Amazon spent the $$$ to get land) plenty of space within a mile or two of downtown for a large campus. I've thought for a while that commuter rail lines: Along the freeways: 35, 10, 281, 151 Between big retail spots: Downt…

San Antonio can't even build a street-level rail line for the densest areas without politics getting in the way and halting it. Until that changes, San Antonio is likely to be Our City Of Lots Of Potential for decades to come. Personally, I wouldn't move back without massive densification of the "urban" core. Right now the place is a massive suburb where getting by without a car is impossible.

I don't know the details of street rail - but I would say that if you wanted to, you could live anywhere between southtown and Alta Vista without a car, if you could also work there. And you can get across the city with Lyft and uber if you want to go elsewhere.

I won't argue with your qualms on local government.

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

#277

Post by tbirrell »

zhjansbnas wrote: post #89
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.

The whole point of cities is economic agglomeration. If you don’t want that, why live in a city at all?

Economic agglomeration is not bad, but if the city is unable to keep up with said agglomerating, then accelerating it is a bad idea. Austin is already behind the curve and can't keep up with the current influx of people and companies, adding Amazon to the mix will simply exacerbate the problem.

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

#278

Post by tbirrell »

TheCowboy wrote: post #42
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.

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…

That fair. However, Austin is already behind the curve and can't keep up with the current influx of people and companies, adding Amazon to the mix will simply exacerbate the problem. Thus my concern. Maybe it'll be a good thing 10 years down the road, but that'll be a tough 10 years and I'm not confident that Austin will even be able to get to that point.

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

#279

Post by DSingularity »

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.

Come on man. I’m not bitching about jobs lost. I’m bitching that as a society we are still petty. We cannot even rally to commit to support ideas like free education or healthcare or even maternal leave. And it’s people like you who choose to completely ignore the obvious point I’m trying to draw attention to — dominant attitude of profits over people — in order to misrepresent me as someone who is bitching over jobs lost to progress. I hope we lose all those jobs. The day we no longer have to have people flip burgers or bag groceries will be a great day. But if those businesses are taking in more wealth now, why not spread it around? Better schools and healthcare. Better opportunity. Why not?

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

#280

Post by Kalium »

unethical_ban wrote: post #276
Kalium wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Antonio can't even build a street-level rail line for the densest areas without politics getting in the way and halting it. Until that changes, San Antonio is likely to be Our City Of Lots Of Potential for decades to come. Personally, I wouldn't move back without massive densification of the "urban" core. Right now the place is a massive suburb where getting by without a car is impossible.

I don't know the details of street rail - but I would say that if you wanted to, you could live anywhere between southtown and Alta Vista without a car, if you could also work there. And you can get across the city with Lyft and uber if you want to go elsewhere. I won't argue with your qualms on local government.

I lived in Southtown. Right at South Alamo and Flores. I needed a car to be able to grocery shop and get to work. A 10-15 minute drive to the office was anywhere between a one-hour and two-hour bus ride.

In practical terms, it would have been workable if my office had been along the Riverwalk. Otherwise, not really. SA's public transit isn't usable for white-collar professionals in most cases.

Post reply on HN