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

271–280 of 281 posts

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

#271

Post by JetSpiegel »

cthalupa wrote: post #225
kerkeslager wrote: post #164

The question for me isn't the profit/loss equation, it's whether we should be giving subsidies to already highly-profitable companies. You can argue all you want about whether Amazon would bring in more money for NYC, but the fact is that they would bring in MORE net money if they didn't receive the subsidies. Yes, you can argue that Amazon wouldn't come to NYC then, but that's only because American cities have allow…

>Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. If he wants a new HQ he can buy the real estate at full price. Americans need to stand up to the frankly disgusting idea that we should be giving him money. I feel like all of the people saying that Amazon should pay full price because Bezos is rich are missing the point. His wealth is almost entirely in stock, which the valuation of is heavily dependent on how Amazon does…

> His wealth is almost entirely in stock, which the valuation of is heavily dependent on how Amazon does quarter to quarter.

Maybe, but it's "real" enough to borrow money at low interest. Or fund vanity projects like Blue Origin. There are physical rockets being built with fake wealth, so in practice that wealth is as good as cash.

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

#272

Post by JetSpiegel »

refurb wrote: post #202
kerkeslager wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Straight off the bat, you're giving a gigantic subsidy to the largest retailer of the world, whose CTO is the richest man in the world. That's coming out of taxes paid by normal people. If that's not obviously increasing wealth imbalance I don't know how to make it any clearer. The other companies who pay for those who work in NYC do so without creating a gigantic competition to see what city will give them the mo…

That's coming out of taxes paid by normal people. No it's not. If Amazon doesn't come the city/state collects zero tax.

And doesn't have to provide more services for the extra people.

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

#273

Post by danmaz74 »

kec wrote: post #132
nihonde wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people misunderstood that the $3B was a credit, not real cash being gifted to Amazon. But even among people who understand the nature of a tax credit, we felt that NYC should not forego revenue that another company would have to pay. In other words, the city has enough bargaining power to collect all the taxes that it would be owed. Amazon can flounce and run off to Virginia or Nashville or wherever, but NYC wil…

How can the Bay Area have less than 1/8th the GDP of NYC when Apple’s revenue alone (~300B) is over 1/3rd of NYC’s GDP (~800B per Wikipedia)?

Even without considering Tha accounting tricks, a lot of that revenue gets generated where production happens, by the distribution network, etc etc.

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

#274

Post by Tempest1981 »

ThomPete wrote: post #260
Tempest1981 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many long-time residents are renters, who get pushed out. Isn't New York over 50% renters? People see and fear gentrification. Granted, it can't be stopped, but it shouldn't be ignored.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that makes no sense. First of all the prices have gone up long before Amazon came in that's just how New York work them moving in will affect housing prices NOT renting prices. There is no way you can spin this in favor of the local politicians. They just cost many of their fellow neighbours 25K jobs many of them high paying which is important in New York.

I'm trying to explain the mindset and circumstances of people who relate to a "cautionary tale". I like to understand what makes people think the way they do, vs simply calling them batshit crazy.

If such people truly have enough power to quash the NYC deal (I'm not convinced they do), then isn't it worthwhile to figure out how to allay their fears? Do they have a shot at the new jobs? Do they have the necessary skills? Is training being offered? Will their schools become overcrowded? Is rent control adequate? Will their unit be upscaled or bulldozed?

Most humans are adverse to change, so the rate of change is also a factor.

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

#275

Post by ThomPete »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #274
ThomPete wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that makes no sense. First of all the prices have gone up long before Amazon came in that's just how New York work them moving in will affect housing prices NOT renting prices. There is no way you can spin this in favor of the local politicians. They just cost many of their fellow neighbours 25K jobs many of them high paying which is important in New York.

I'm trying to explain the mindset and circumstances of people who relate to a "cautionary tale". I like to understand what makes people think the way they do, vs simply calling them batshit crazy. If such people truly have enough power to quash the NYC deal (I'm not convinced they do), then isn't it worthwhile to figure out how to allay their fears? Do they have a shot at the new jobs? Do they have the necessary skil…

I understand their mindset and circumstances, I live here. It's the same mindset that you see everywhere in the world and I have lived a lot of different places. People don't' like things to change and sometimes they have the political power to ensure that doesn't happen and it turns into this or NIBYISM or neighborhood battles.

It's really that simple. You don't need to turn them into victims or anything like that to explain it.

There is nothing new about the rate of change with regards to Amazon. Had it been another company you wouldn't even have heard about it and it would have been installed. It's purely political opportunism.

All that is left is that these politicians cost new york 25K jobs. That's it.

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

#276

Post by kerkeslager »

refurb wrote: post #202
kerkeslager wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Straight off the bat, you're giving a gigantic subsidy to the largest retailer of the world, whose CTO is the richest man in the world. That's coming out of taxes paid by normal people. If that's not obviously increasing wealth imbalance I don't know how to make it any clearer. The other companies who pay for those who work in NYC do so without creating a gigantic competition to see what city will give them the mo…

That's coming out of taxes paid by normal people. No it's not. If Amazon doesn't come the city/state collects zero tax.

If you read my comment in context, you'd see that I'm stating problems with the (now hypothetical) situation where Amazon does come to NYC.

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

#277

Post by kerkeslager »

cthalupa wrote: post #225
kerkeslager wrote: post #164

The question for me isn't the profit/loss equation, it's whether we should be giving subsidies to already highly-profitable companies. You can argue all you want about whether Amazon would bring in more money for NYC, but the fact is that they would bring in MORE net money if they didn't receive the subsidies. Yes, you can argue that Amazon wouldn't come to NYC then, but that's only because American cities have allow…

>Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. If he wants a new HQ he can buy the real estate at full price. Americans need to stand up to the frankly disgusting idea that we should be giving him money. I feel like all of the people saying that Amazon should pay full price because Bezos is rich are missing the point. His wealth is almost entirely in stock, which the valuation of is heavily dependent on how Amazon does…

> so it's not like he can redirect that into buying real estate.

Yes he can. All he has to do is get Amazon to start buying real estate, and bam, he's a partial owner of real estate.

> The merits of any incentives should be based on the economic realities of the situation, plain and simple. Do the tax breaks result in a net positive for the city, based on generated tax revenue, new jobs, both from Amazon and those providing service to Amazon employees, from the new housing that must be built to support the population increase, etc.

Okay, let's ask this as a question then: does allowing companies to play cities against each other benefit NYC, or does it incentivize more companies to do the same thing, allowing companies to pay less taxes?

Why do you refuse to consider the possibility that if cities in the US all refused to pay incentives to Amazon, Amazon would choose a city to go to anyway, and not get tax cuts, and average citizens would benefit from the taxes Amazon pays?

I'll say what I've said over and over again here: lots of people on HN would rather incentivize nails than use a hammer. Incentives are one tool in a government's toolbox, and they aren't the solution to every problem.

> I don't know if they do. Maybe this would be an amazing deal for NYC. Maybe it would be a terrible deal. I'm not qualified to make a real judgment there. But the 'Bezos and Amazon are rich, why should we give them anything' is just more populist rhetoric, which we need to get out of our politics. It's toxic as hell.

I don't think it's populist rhetoric to demand that the richest companies in the world pay their fair share of taxes. I think blindly ignoring any possibilities that don't involve incentivizing the already-rich is a much more toxic problem, and the main reason we continue to have growing income inequality in the US.

If NYC pays Amazon a subsidy to attract them to NYC, that sets a dangerous precedent and means that every city will have to pay subsidies to big companies to attract them, and the end result is that companies pay less taxes and everyone else suffers the consequences. That's the effect Scott Anderson calls "Moloch"[1] and American cities need to present a united front against it.

[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

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

#278

Post by whack »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #126
whack wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the same reason you hand over your cash in order to buy stuff on amazon.com or run things on AWS. Not because Amazon deserves your money, but because it's in your own best interests to do so. Since you seem so opposed to tax breaks for big corporations, have you also lobbied for repealing the Excelsior and REAP programs? Or do you get upset only when these programs are applied to Amazon?

The idea of those incentives is to lessen the difficulties of expanding into your city and in return they are moving to your city. For a small company these might be large difficulties, for a company the size of amazon they are very small in comparison. Thus, the only reason it is "in your best interest" is a prisoner's dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma Any city has two options: A) hurt yourse…

Let's take this argument to its logical conclusion. NYC charges all residents an income tax to live in the city. Most other cities don't have such a tax, and this leads to the same prisoner's dilemma. Hence, every city should now be morally obligated to charge the same income tax that NYC does. Similarly for state income taxes as well.

If that sounds absurd, I certainly think it is. Local governments shouldn't be trying to "profit" by taxing its residents and companies. The whole purpose of local taxes is to best serve local residents and companies. If a city/state can better serve its people by lowering its taxes or by offering tax credits for specific programs, it should certainly do so, even if there's no competition involved. There is no prisoner's dilemma here.

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

#279

Post by mc32 »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #269
mc32 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fallout will be interesting to see: NY State govt is your regular Blue Democrat government, some of NYC, parts which were against this HQ2 deal, are very progressive. The progressives undermined the traditional Democrats. I bet we get to see echoes of this skirmish during the next cycle.

I think it's the opposite, this is an echo of the latest election cycle. Since Hillary was humilliated by Trump the centrist Democrats are losing most political battles, gradually.

Hillary didn’t lose because she was a centrist (Would Biden have lost?). She lost because she’s a bad candidate. She lost to Obama. She is a war hawk. Also lacked Bill's charisma.

People in the middle want the government to give them a fair shake, they don’t want handouts. They’re tired of being sold out by government and industry to overseas cheap labor.

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

#280

Post by jnordwick »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #270
jnordwick wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate the Guardian so much. Such a useless rag. The article assumes that these "costs" are giving a company a huge check, not tax deductions and the like.

Taxes are mandatory, so thst's a distinction without difference.

Not mandatory if they put those jobs elsewhere.
Post reply on HN