41–50 of 281 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, what you’re saying is that there’s not currently $3 billion saved that can now be invested in the schools, subways, etc.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. That is exactly correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. That is exactly correct.
I didn't downvote OP but assumed that OP's comment was meant to be a sarcastic response to something that AOC wrote about the matter. Sarcasm is rarely a constructive contribution.
There’s not an extra $3 billion lying around to invest in New York City for other purposes because Amazon canceled the deal.
I know in the technical sense, calling it Amazons rejection is accurate, but in reality this was a power play of a different kind from the people of the city. While I've not found a consistent stance among people I talked to almost everyone found it at least troubling how Amazon could wield this kind of power. The people who opposed it were vocal and diligent. I'd argue NYC rejected Amazon. More importantly, while ci…
> I'd argue NYC rejected Amazon. Over 60% of NYC residents who had an opinion supported Amazon. Over 70% of Long Island residents supported them. This is a victory for some well organised political activists but to cast it as a victory for NYC is a bit much. At the very least it makes NYC a less likely competitor to the Bay Area. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/02/am... > The Bay Area: NYC is n…
Its a bad idea to be dismissive of the rejection levels.
While support for Amazon was 57% overall in NYC, rejection of the financing ranged from 52-37%, support for NYC being more involved was at 79%.
Those are sizeable numbers, even more so if a percentage of those people felt like they had much to lose.
NYC doesn't need to compete with the Bay Area. That is a Bay Area obsession. NYC needs to compete with London, Paris, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, and other Alpha++/Alpha+ cities. Those cities are much more than tech hubs. NYC is doing just fine.
Agree with the article. The economists can argue all day about how the equation will work out to be a net profit to NYC regardless of subsidies, but that seems short-sighted. Every decision can not be reduced to a profit/loss question. One company should not have bargaining power over an entire city, and they certainly should not get special economic treatment over others. It points to and perpetuates an unhealthy po…
NY made the offer to Amazon. If citizens of NY don't want their government to be able to bargain with a business or organization on an individual level then they should take that power away from government.
After all the pageantry Amazon picks the #1 and #2 most obvious cities for HQ2. Which leads me (and many others) to believe that they would have expanded their NYC presence anyway. Amazon already has THOUSANDS of employees in the NYC area. It was inevitable. What rubs people the wrong way was that Amazon got a tax break it didn’t need. And even after this deal has “died”, Amazon will STILL continue to expand in NYC!…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't downvote OP but assumed that OP's comment was meant to be a sarcastic response to something that AOC wrote about the matter. Sarcasm is rarely a constructive contribution.
I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic, I was trying to be explicit by restating. There’s not an extra $3 billion lying around to invest in New York City for other purposes because Amazon canceled the deal.
https://twitter.com/akarl_smith/status/1096123735935987712?s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Over some years, Amazon was to pay some $X in taxes. But they were given a break to pay $3b less assuming some goals are met. The city receives $X - $3b. Now the city receives $0.
You're assuming $X was larger than $3 billion, which isn't a given. Look at sports stadium deals, hosting the Olympics, or Wisconsin's giveaway to Foxconn. The city/state budget is usually the loser in these deals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming $X was larger than $3 billion, which isn't a given. Look at sports stadium deals, hosting the Olympics, or Wisconsin's giveaway to Foxconn. The city/state budget is usually the loser in these deals.
Sports stadiums and the Olympics generate temporary jobs and generally do not have the same economic impact of 25k jobs paying 150k over ten years. Amazon's tax breaks were tied to headcount so it's hard to see how the city would be a loser in this case.
http://fortune.com/2019/02/14/amazon-doesnt-pay-federal-taxe...
After all the pageantry Amazon picks the #1 and #2 most obvious cities for HQ2. Which leads me (and many others) to believe that they would have expanded their NYC presence anyway. Amazon already has THOUSANDS of employees in the NYC area. It was inevitable. What rubs people the wrong way was that Amazon got a tax break it didn’t need. And even after this deal has “died”, Amazon will STILL continue to expand in NYC!…
And yet the elected officials of NY didn't think Amazon would choose NY without offering Amazon incentives to expand in NY. Why did they do that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too many debates I read online today assume that the city was going to hand Amazon a $3b check. Some sort of misunderstanding of how taxes/tax subsidies work.
Yes, but the whole thing has a Karmic feel to it. Amazon used a very public HQ process which turned the process into a public game show. Since they used public pressure on local politicians as a bargaining chip to get a deal done, it feels fitting that it backfired this way.