Live data from Hacker News

'Not welcome here': Amazon faces growing resistance to its second home

theguardian.com

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: 'Not welcome here': Amazon faces growing resistance to its second home

#51
post #6

What's missing from most articles (this one included) is any kind of analysis of whether tax breaks make sense for the states in question. It bothers me how it's presented as the state giving $5B of its own cash away to Amazon, as if that money could go to the homeless instead. Presumably there are ways to estimate the economic effects of 50,000 jobs + tax breaks. Is there a reason they're not mentioned?

Because it doesn't fit the narrative that amazon is evil / rich people are evil / gentrification / government kick backs. I would seriously doubt that any city would be offering this if they didn't believe that it would be net positive for their area. Between increases in property values (thereby increased taxes), number of high-income earners, and new spending from these people, they are likely to benefit from this…

> I would seriously doubt that any city would be offering this if they didn't believe that it would be net positive for their area.

I would. What's good for a "city" is not necessarily good for the residents of that city. These are two totally different entities with their own wants and needs, that are not guaranteed to act in the others best interest. In fact, occasionally the incentives are so misaligned as to be polar opposites. For example :

> Between increases in property values (thereby increased taxes)

Increased property value is never just a "good" thing. It's an explicit tradeoff. More expensive property is "good" for the municipality government (their incomes rise), but generally bad for most actual humans (their expenses directly increase as a result of this, doubly so if they aren't wealthy enough to already own property).

> number of high-income earners, and new spending from these people,

Again, this is not a good thing, it's an explicit tradeoff. This is good for high-income earners (who can use each other to push their own careers forward), but is explicitly bad for everyone other resident, who can't.

If a bunch of "high earners" enter your market, and you yourself are not a high earner, your income remains mostly flat, but literally every cost you have has gone up significantly. (Housing, Transportation, Education, Medical, Daycare, etc). You are now competing against high-income people for almost everything, but with little-to-none of the money they have. You will loose, every time.

Re: 'Not welcome here': Amazon faces growing resistance to its second home

#52
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A. It's not about politics. B. There's no current requirement that posts on the front page be apolitical.

An article whose subject is literally about the political controversy around giving public tax money to private corporations, and quotes a variety of political action groups, not to mention city and state political leaders, doesn't qualify as "about politics"? The guidelines clearly state "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos o…

This is an article about how giant tech firms drive politics, and the guidelines state only that "most" articles about politics are not welcome. It is not a blanket ban and I think it's an interesting and relevant discussion to be having.

Re: 'Not welcome here': Amazon faces growing resistance to its second home

#53
post #34

I'm not sure that I would stick around Atlanta if Amazon puts its HQ here. The property values will skyrocket, and I haven't bought in here yet. The civic angle is interesting though, will pressure groups succeed in reining back the usual massive concessions that local governments usually grant corporate behemoths? Or will it be business as usual where the giant tosses a few shiny wampum beads to the locals while des…

Where does this fear come from? Atlanta is adding ~ 100k jobs every year, and HQ2 is projected to be ~ 5k per year for a decade. Developments adding a few thousand jobs are announced every other month. Anyone worried about rapid expansion and gentrification in Atlanta has been ignoring our reality for a long time.

I live in Midtown, paying NYC rents to live in a high rise. I was hopefully looking forward to a modest rent decrease once the half-dozen new buildings get done and start leasing. If Amazon moves in I worry I won't be able to rent here for less than $3k / month.

Re: 'Not welcome here': Amazon faces growing resistance to its second home

#54
post #31
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I won't be able to profit in the most obvious way possible, so I will leave." That doesn't make much sense to me.

I've repeatedly thought about moving to Atlanta, because I really like the city. I won't be able to afford to if Amazon moves there. Somebody who lives there who hasn't already bought themselves a sandbag-wall against ridiculous rent spikes would probably be wise to consider moving. (I don't want to own a car again; MARTA, being a good public transit option that is taken by people across the socioeconomic spectrum an…

Oh you definitely don't want to live here without a car. I live in perhaps the only neighborhood where it's even feasible, and I would never give up my car. Being at mercy to Marta and the buses and Uber isn't fun.

Re: 'Not welcome here': Amazon faces growing resistance to its second home

#55
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure it's an Anglo view. The State has a monopoly on force and regulation, allowing for the governing of degrees of Capitalism. Capitalism has no such control over the State.

Except look at this situation... Amazon clearly does.

Amazon is asking for a hand out, it does not have control. We could always nationalize Amazon if we decided to, the State never loses that control.

All it takes is political regime change.

Re: 'Not welcome here': Amazon faces growing resistance to its second home

#56
post #6

What's missing from most articles (this one included) is any kind of analysis of whether tax breaks make sense for the states in question. It bothers me how it's presented as the state giving $5B of its own cash away to Amazon, as if that money could go to the homeless instead. Presumably there are ways to estimate the economic effects of 50,000 jobs + tax breaks. Is there a reason they're not mentioned?

Correct, that piece is missing from the article. And the answer to that question is that a tax break is effectively a form of financing, so why not let Amazon (or other major corporations) be on the hook for the note? Even when that financing is paid by future tax revenues, every tax payer in the region will sign up involuntarily for a little piece of that debt. For smaller projects, this incentive mechanism makes se…

No, it's not financing. It's not a giveaway. It's a rebate.

Re: 'Not welcome here': Amazon faces growing resistance to its second home

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it doesn't fit the narrative that amazon is evil / rich people are evil / gentrification / government kick backs. I would seriously doubt that any city would be offering this if they didn't believe that it would be net positive for their area. Between increases in property values (thereby increased taxes), number of high-income earners, and new spending from these people, they are likely to benefit from this…

> I would seriously doubt that any city would be offering this if they didn't believe that it would be net positive for their area. I would. What's good for a "city" is not necessarily good for the residents of that city. These are two totally different entities with their own wants and needs, that are not guaranteed to act in the others best interest. In fact, occasionally the incentives are so misaligned as to be p…

If it's not beneficial for the residents of the city, then you can blame government once again.

Good job government, working against your citizens' best interest.

Re: 'Not welcome here': Amazon faces growing resistance to its second home

#59
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I won't be able to profit in the most obvious way possible, so I will leave." That doesn't make much sense to me.

That's not a fair summary of the problem. It's more accurately described as : "Everyone's costs will increase, and since I don't own property, my costs will increase even higher than most others peoples costs rise" It's totally rational to not want to take a paycut, and Amazon HQ2 will effectively be a massive pay cut to every non-Amazon person in whatever city Amazon uses for HQ2

3/5 people in Atlanta rent so his costs will increase no more than other folks (who rent). I get the affordability argument, but the Atlanta metro area is 5.79 million people. If you add 50k jobs and everyone is from out of the area, you get 5.84 million. Is that really going to double everyone's rent? Lots of people already in Atlanta will work for Amazon. Lots of people who move in will buy a house in the suburbs because they don't want to live downtown.

Re: 'Not welcome here': Amazon faces growing resistance to its second home

#60
post #6

What's missing from most articles (this one included) is any kind of analysis of whether tax breaks make sense for the states in question. It bothers me how it's presented as the state giving $5B of its own cash away to Amazon, as if that money could go to the homeless instead. Presumably there are ways to estimate the economic effects of 50,000 jobs + tax breaks. Is there a reason they're not mentioned?

Because it doesn't fit the narrative that amazon is evil / rich people are evil / gentrification / government kick backs. I would seriously doubt that any city would be offering this if they didn't believe that it would be net positive for their area. Between increases in property values (thereby increased taxes), number of high-income earners, and new spending from these people, they are likely to benefit from this…

Just because the property taxes rise to bring in more income does not create a direct benefit to the community. Often means the current occupants will be spending more on taxes versus savings or other economic endeavors.

Look how much the the original community of Silicon Valley have benefited with increased property taxes.

And there is no grantee Amazon will stay in the area once the government subsidies run out.

Post reply on HN