Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 281 posts

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#241

Post by tmugavero »

unethical_ban wrote: post #216
tmugavero wrote: post #204

New York didn't lose anything by not having Amazon here. New York is a city built on diversity, and ensuring resources are available to maintain that diversity is important to the citizens. It's a matter of giving one huge handout to the most valuable company in the world that will destroy a community and drive up wages (bad for small businesses) and housing costs (bad for Queens), versus giving $5M to 100 small busi…

Amazon and/or Austin would literally have to build in another part of the city and construct their own rail system to compete with how awful the traffic is. Also, I disagree that diversity is a priority over long term tax revenue and infrastructure improvements and economic success. Also, I didn't downvote you.

Austin's traffic is bad for sure. Dallas then perhaps, which at least has a rail going north (also bad traffic). That said, Queens absolutely values diversity. They mom and pop shops getting pushed out all over the city is creating a negative feedback loop. Some city officials and politicians may like the tax, but there are some that are also protective of the culture. It's a complex issue, but ultimately, New York is not an easy place to walk into. Lots of people to make happy on a deal this size.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#242

Post by Bartweiss »

leroy_masochist wrote: post #103

> The livability crisis that’s currently afflicting Seattle and San Francisco is evidence of how cities need to be careful what they wish for when it comes to the explosive growth of technology companies (and the attendant wealth that comes with it) in their metropolises. Let me get this straight, New Yorkers should view Seattle and SF as cautionary tales for what happens when high-paying jobs arrive in a metropolita…

> SF's issues aren't caused by swanky new jobs, they're caused by NIMBY politics.

A fun stat I just learned: Seattle's population density is 13 people per acre, but its parking density is 29 spaces per acre. Complaining about too many high earners and too much migration into a city seems like a pretty hostile place to start when there's still room to have two parking spaces for every human.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#243

Post by inoop »

unethical_ban wrote: post #216
tmugavero wrote: post #204

New York didn't lose anything by not having Amazon here. New York is a city built on diversity, and ensuring resources are available to maintain that diversity is important to the citizens. It's a matter of giving one huge handout to the most valuable company in the world that will destroy a community and drive up wages (bad for small businesses) and housing costs (bad for Queens), versus giving $5M to 100 small busi…

Amazon and/or Austin would literally have to build in another part of the city and construct their own rail system to compete with how awful the traffic is. Also, I disagree that diversity is a priority over long term tax revenue and infrastructure improvements and economic success. Also, I didn't downvote you.

> I disagree that diversity is a priority over long term tax revenue and infrastructure improvements and economic success

'Tech bros' are also diversity, and so are Trump supporters. You can't just pick and choose and create your own special brand of diversity that needs protection from groups and cultures you don't like.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#244

Post by Bartweiss »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #200
leroy_masochist wrote: post #103

> The livability crisis that’s currently afflicting Seattle and San Francisco is evidence of how cities need to be careful what they wish for when it comes to the explosive growth of technology companies (and the attendant wealth that comes with it) in their metropolises. Let me get this straight, New Yorkers should view Seattle and SF as cautionary tales for what happens when high-paying jobs arrive in a metropolita…

>NYC has easily 10x the number of high-earning jobs as SF, no matter how you define high-earning. Well it does have 10x the population so you'd expect around 10x the number of high paying jobs.

True enough, and the two cities actually have similar average salaries. But Amazon wasn't proposing to bring in 10x as many workers to NYC as Seattle; they were proposing a bit over half as many. In both wealth and space, one Amazon office is just a far smaller deal in NYC than Seattle.

The more controversial part is whether that just means "less effect", or can actually change the role played. I'm very much in the second camp. The conflict here is not so much over "good or bad" but timeframe; rising demand helps cities and raises the standard of living for residents, but demand shocks can destabilize people and produce housing shortages even under good policy. Seattle saw 18% population growth by migration in a decade, with Amazon staff becoming 6% of the population, and housing prices rose about 80% in seven years. That sort of disruptive change just isn't on the table in NYC.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#245

Post by tmugavero »

inoop wrote: post #227
tmugavero wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They want to get a multibillion dollar deal done in a global economic center, and a few phone calls to one guy was enough for them to stop pursuing it? Pretty weak if that's the case. Nobody I've spoken with here has anything positive to say about Amazon being here, and there's no way it hinged on one person.

"The company tried to reach out to Gianaris — but he rejected three invitations to meet, according to a source." source: https://nypost.com/2019/02/14/this-is-the-man-who-delivered-... > there's no way it hinged on one person. Well that's kinda what 'veto power' means ... > Nobody I've spoken with here has anything positive to say about Amazon being here That's funny, I live in NYC myself, and almost everyone I know…

Wait so all those people in the street with the protest signs were cheering FOR Amazon? Nope. Maybe the guy with veto power was put in place because he protects the city from BS like this? Possible. Our whole office is laughing at how Amazon approached this and couldn't get it done, so yeah maybe our bubbles don't overlap.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#246

Post by oh_sigh »

anth_anm wrote: post #211
untog wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see this a lot because conservatives have a hate-on for AOC, but she's not the congressperson for the area Amazon were building in. Queens has a lot of congressional districts. She also had very little to nothing to do with the decision, but again, you wouldn't know that from watching the conservative commentary.

She's dumb and doesn't understand that giving away 3 billion to a company is good and also tax credits aren't giveaways because reasons. I'm smart and don't understand districting.

Her district is like a mile away from the proposed Amazon office, she has the bully pulpit of the nation 1000x more than any other congressperson in the area does, she talked a lot about the Amazon plan, and celebrated helping destroy it. I don't think it's unreasonable to bring up her incorrect understanding of how tax credits work.

> "We were subsidizing those jobs. The city was paying for those jobs. So frankly, if we're willing to give away away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest $3 billion in our district ourselves if we want to. We could hire out more teachers, we can fix our subways, we can put a lot of people to work for that money if we wanted to."

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-react...

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#247

Post by oh_sigh »

eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #190
NickM wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the richest company in the world so why the heck do New Yorkers need to hand over their cash to bring them the Queens? Because Amazon can easily go elsewhere, and most places have lower taxes than NYC. Giving them a ~10% off coupon on an extremely high tax rate is not the same as handing them money. You can object to the deal on principle, sure, but you're ignoring the fundamental reality of the situation; if NY…

They can't easily go anywhere else, that's why they picked an established area with tons of talent already in the immediate area. Why didn't they choose some small city in the middle of America where salaries would be less, real estate would be cheaper, and taxes would be lower? Because there is very little technical talent already in those places. Amazon did this to themselves with their tone deaf "national search"…

> They can't easily go anywhere else

Clearly they can, if they this quickly pulled out of NY after the reception they received.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#248

Post by oh_sigh »

anth_anm wrote: post #218
NickM wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the richest company in the world so why the heck do New Yorkers need to hand over their cash to bring them the Queens? Because Amazon can easily go elsewhere, and most places have lower taxes than NYC. Giving them a ~10% off coupon on an extremely high tax rate is not the same as handing them money. You can object to the deal on principle, sure, but you're ignoring the fundamental reality of the situation; if NY…

> Giving them a ~10% off coupon on an extremely high tax rate is not the same as handing them money. Yes it is. How the hell is it not? and Amazon wants NYC for the size of it's talent pool and ease of recruiting. NYC has no reason to give them anything. > If you want to have high tax rates and not lose business to other states, it's a winning strategy to be open to compromise sometimes NYC is having so much trouble…

If I have a $1 off a big mac coupon, I need to pay McDonalds $5 for what would normally be a $6 big mac.

If McDonalds gives me $1, I don't need to buy a big mac and can go spend it at some other store.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#249

Post by NickM »

anth_anm wrote: post #218
NickM wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the richest company in the world so why the heck do New Yorkers need to hand over their cash to bring them the Queens? Because Amazon can easily go elsewhere, and most places have lower taxes than NYC. Giving them a ~10% off coupon on an extremely high tax rate is not the same as handing them money. You can object to the deal on principle, sure, but you're ignoring the fundamental reality of the situation; if NY…

> Giving them a ~10% off coupon on an extremely high tax rate is not the same as handing them money. Yes it is. How the hell is it not? and Amazon wants NYC for the size of it's talent pool and ease of recruiting. NYC has no reason to give them anything. > If you want to have high tax rates and not lose business to other states, it's a winning strategy to be open to compromise sometimes NYC is having so much trouble…

Yes it is. How the hell is it not?

If I give you $27 and you give me $3 back, then yes, technically you've handed me $3. Taking that out of context ignores the end result, which is that I've given you a net $24. You wouldn't be $3 richer if the transaction had never taken place, so acting all indignant that you paid me $3 when you came out way ahead seems pretty disingenuous to me.

Re: Did New York Lose Anything with Amazon’s Rejection? It’s Complicated

#250

Post by uerobert »

anth_anm wrote: post #211
untog wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see this a lot because conservatives have a hate-on for AOC, but she's not the congressperson for the area Amazon were building in. Queens has a lot of congressional districts. She also had very little to nothing to do with the decision, but again, you wouldn't know that from watching the conservative commentary.

She's dumb and doesn't understand that giving away 3 billion to a company is good and also tax credits aren't giveaways because reasons. I'm smart and don't understand districting.

She's dumb because she thinks NYC now has 3 billions stacked somewhere that can now be used for other things like, the subway system, schools, teacher salaries, firefighters, farting cows, the unwilling to work, etc.
Post reply on HN