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

It Started With a Jolt: How New York Became a Tech Town

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 203 posts

Re: It Started With a Jolt: How New York Became a Tech Town

#81

Post by etblg »

nickelcitymario wrote: post #30

One of the biggest lessons I've taken from New York's approach is not to try and be the next Silicon Valley (as every community is trying to be). You can't beat the Valley at its own game. That's foolish. Instead, look to what industries your community has long been successful in, and develop the tech to disrupt those industries before the Valley does. NYC's example was to focus tech on advertising, finance, and medi…

I think the most critical flaw in Sudbury's plan, is that people would have to live in Sudbury (no offense)

It's a small, cold, somewhat-remote city known for mining, and particularly for having an incredibly tall smokestack visible everywhere in town. You can fund startups, but who is going to move from other places to Sudbury?

Re: It Started With a Jolt: How New York Became a Tech Town

#82

Post by TuringNYC »

joeyb1111 wrote: post #46
TuringNYC wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree that we didn't need to bend to their every whim. We could probably have given them no incentives or token incentives and still won the HQ2 deal. There was a time to do that -- when we were making the proposal, not after it was already agreed to by both sides. But that isn't the my argument -- my argument is that the entire rhetoric is nonsensical. My shock is the dual narrative on "tech pays too much --…

> Finally, that the exit of 25,000 high paying jobs could be seen as some sort of victory is also alarming. NYC has really never recovered from the 2008 crash when ~500,000 well paying finance jobs were compressed/reduced/automated. NYC needs those jobs and the ecosystem they would create. NYC unemployment is like 4%. I don't think it's in need.

There is employment (96%) and then there is good employment. I'd argue the Amazon HQ2 jobs were good employment -- good salaries, benefits, training, etc.

I understand that too low unemployment (<3%) is bad since it constricts movement and creates inflation. However, aren't high paying high benefit jobs always a good thing?

Re: It Started With a Jolt: How New York Became a Tech Town

#83

Post by jkaplowitz »

TuringNYC wrote: post #11

I realize the anti-Amazon movement was a limited (but loud) group of individuals, but if their level of influence has lasting power, NYC tech is in trouble. Consider NYTimes' own article on the amazon exit. Half the people angry at Amazon were commenting that Amazon wasn't going to pay living wages (thinking that corporate HQ2 jobs are fulfillment jobs.) The other half were angry that Amazon was going to pay too much…

I'm born, raised, lived most of my life (though not now), and still vote federally in NYC. As a NYer by almost any definition, I agree with AOC that this was a bad deal, and partly due to the influx of new people. Maybe not for her reasons.

Particularly, they picked a part of NYC where neither the housing market nor the neighborhood's transit infrastructure can handle that extreme rapid growth. The 7 and G trains would be overwhelmed, lots of residents would be priced out disruptively fast, etc.

They also don't need billions of dollars of subsidies from NY. They are among the most valuable companies in the world, already have an office in NYC, and will still be growing that.

By contrast, I have no problem with Google doubling it's NYC office from 7k employees to 14k, because it's in a different part of the city which can absorb that just fine in all regards. And no subsidies involved, as far as we the public have been made aware.

(Disclosure, I used to work at Google NYC for Google, but I really would be saying the same thing about the locations and growth plans if the company labels were swapped. I have no inside info on either company's real estate plans and don't work or speak for either now.)

You and I agree that the people who thought Amazon's NYC HQ would pay below living wage are misunderstanding - at least for directly employed workers. Not sure how their office contractors are treated, but I expect the answer would match whatever's true in Seattle.

Re: It Started With a Jolt: How New York Became a Tech Town

#84

Post by ng12 »

kharms wrote: post #42
TuringNYC wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree that we didn't need to bend to their every whim. We could probably have given them no incentives or token incentives and still won the HQ2 deal. There was a time to do that -- when we were making the proposal, not after it was already agreed to by both sides. But that isn't the my argument -- my argument is that the entire rhetoric is nonsensical. My shock is the dual narrative on "tech pays too much --…

>My shock is the dual narrative on "tech pays too much -- down with tech" "tech pays too little -- down with tech." What's shocking about this? If you're uneducated and barely scraping by in LIC and Amazon moves in you have two problems: their low end jobs don't pay enough to improve your quality of life while their high end jobs are unattainable and will drive you out of the neighborhood. While Amazon might have bee…

> If you're uneducated and barely scraping by in LIC

LIC is already a 10m commute to midtown and home to nothing but shiny glass towers.

Re: It Started With a Jolt: How New York Became a Tech Town

#85

Post by leereeves »

TuringNYC wrote: post #77
leereeves wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not limiting the number of high-paying tech jobs in the Bay Area has been terrible for blue collar workers who don't own any land. People have been driven from their (former) homes by higher paid tech workers. I think it's easy to understand why people in Queens would fight against a similar fate.

>> Not limiting the number of high-paying tech jobs in the Bay Area has been terrible for blue collar workers who don't own any land. I'd say limiting high-density housing is really what has brought down the Bay Area. In contrast, New York has mostly embraced high-density housing. Take a look at LIC: https://www.6sqft.com/queens-new-skyline-a-rundown-of-the-30... When you build upwards, the sky is the limit, literall…

I looked at the first seven of those; one was a hotel and the rest were all high-density luxury towers, not affordable housing for blue collar workers.

For example:

https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/us/the-forge

Re: It Started With a Jolt: How New York Became a Tech Town

#86

Post by TuringNYC »

michaelt wrote: post #71
TuringNYC wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree that we didn't need to bend to their every whim. We could probably have given them no incentives or token incentives and still won the HQ2 deal. There was a time to do that -- when we were making the proposal, not after it was already agreed to by both sides. But that isn't the my argument -- my argument is that the entire rhetoric is nonsensical. My shock is the dual narrative on "tech pays too much --…

My shock is the dual narrative on "tech pays too much -- down with tech" "tech pays too little -- down with tech." This reeks of false excuses If my office was 35 Fahrenheit in the mornings and 100 Fahrenheit in the afternoon, would I be justified in complaining it was both too hot and too cold?

I get the spirit of your argument...and probably there is a "right" temperature. But what is the "right" salary -- if ~$150k is too high, what salary should Amazon give to their workers? Who decides? Should they also cut benefits just as an added way to reduce gentrification? What happens when someone gets promoted...do they get fired because their salary is too high now?

I understand the issue of gentrification is real. But this is the first time I've heard a progressive argument against good paying good benefits jobs -- usually the argument is that jobs don't pay enough and the benefits are too little (that can be regulated.)

Re: It Started With a Jolt: How New York Became a Tech Town

#87

Post by count »

madengr wrote: post #17

NY is not a tech town. Google is not tech, it’s advertising. Amazon is a mail-order company. Uber is a taxi company. Stop calling “tech” technology. The revenue generated by those companies is not the technology itself. A semiconductor fab, a satellite construction facility, a defense contractor; those are “tech”. /rant

They're all software companies. Software is "tech".

Re: It Started With a Jolt: How New York Became a Tech Town

#89

Post by TuringNYC »

leereeves wrote: post #85
TuringNYC wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Not limiting the number of high-paying tech jobs in the Bay Area has been terrible for blue collar workers who don't own any land. I'd say limiting high-density housing is really what has brought down the Bay Area. In contrast, New York has mostly embraced high-density housing. Take a look at LIC: https://www.6sqft.com/queens-new-skyline-a-rundown-of-the-30... When you build upwards, the sky is the limit, literall…

I looked at the first seven of those; one was a hotel and the rest were all high-density luxury towers, not affordable housing for blue collar workers. For example: https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/us/the-forge

You're absolutely right, but I dont see what is wrong with that. When you build high-density luxury towers, it creates capacity and fewer people "push out" into bordering areas. Contrast this with the Bay Area where the lack of high-density luxury towers causes people to push miles out and buy homes. Would the Bay Area have a housing problem if there were ~20 more luxury high rises Palo Alto? Seems to be that would greatly relieve the upwards pressure on the locus around Palo Alto.

Also, forcing people to move into low-density homes seems regressive. It can be an option.

Re: It Started With a Jolt: How New York Became a Tech Town

#90

Post by pge »

Watching from afar, it seemed to me that the catalyzing event for NY's startup scene was the collapse of the banks. The big banks had a lot of very strong tech talent, for whom it was a huge financial risk to leave and join a startup (because the salaries were so high at the banks). It wasn't until the banks collapsed that that talent was released. Prior to that, NY had tech companies, like any major city does, but was not one of the leading centers on the east coast at all.
Post reply on HN