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

261–270 of 281 posts

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

#261

Post by nerfhammer »

Bartweiss wrote: post #188
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…

I've seen quite a few takes suggesting NYC will be transformed by the sudden arrival of high earners, like the Seattle city councilors who went to NYC to warn the city about their mistakes.[1] Whatever Amazon's merits, the specific arguments seem ludicrous. Seattle lawmakers talked about how Amazon took up 20% of the city's office space. That was 45,000 workers in a city of 730,000 (6%), and a metro area of 3,800,000…

I've found that people the Bay Area at least often don't have an intuitive grasp of the scale of NYC. Something like they think that a borough is more like on the scale of a neighborhood, like the financial district is like Manhattan or Brooklyn is roughly like the Mission.

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

#262

Post by coredog64 »

moate wrote: post #214
maehwasu wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the United States is a very, very large country, and Amazon has lots of options as to where it takes its headquarters? Put another way--why should Amazon go to NYC? Do New Yorkers have a god-given right to the benefits of large tech companies?

No, but the idea that the only options are "amazon with a bunch of tax gifts" or nothing is a false dichotomy. The point is that NYC probably doesn't need Amazon's side (High End Jobs) as much as Amazon needed NYC (Access to high end talent, proximity to the center of the global economy). There will always be some megacorp looking to open up in NYC. Why diminish the return for the city?

NYC tax revenue ebbs and flows on the strength of the finance industry (e.g. recent news that market slowdowns are showing up as a billion dollar shortfall in tax revenue). Google and Facebook are both ad-tech. Amazon would have brought a third major industry to town, something that could have worked to smooth out those tax revenue swings.

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

#263

Post by JetSpiegel »

oh_sigh wrote: post #247
eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why not just go with plan B all along and save political capital?

Instead they did the dog and pony show of shopping their Decision around, commited to NY and had to backtrack. You can't spin this as a plus for Bezos.

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

#264

Post by JetSpiegel »

oh_sigh wrote: post #248
anth_anm wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You need to pay taxes anyway, it's not a choice you can make.

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

#265

Post by JetSpiegel »

whatok wrote: post #98
dingaling wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't hate the player, hate the game Without the players, the game ends. Amazon can afford to pay its own costs many times over. Many SMEs cannot. I'd have had a lot of respect for Amazon had they just chosen a site on logistical criteria and built it out of pocket. Instead, I despise them even more than before.

These tax breaks existed long before Amazon planned on moving to New York. SMEs could and still can utilize them if they choose to do so. There's nothing that prevents them from doing so and they also have more incentives available to them than larger businesses.

> There's nothing that prevents them from doing so

If Amazon moved in the public coffers would be 3B smaller and those benefits might not exist.

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

#266

Post by coredog64 »

tmugavero wrote: post #241
unethical_ban wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Long Island City is practically indistinguishable from Manhattan these days. Those mom and pop shops are going to be pushed out regardless of whether or not HQ2 is in LIC. At best, current residents have a reprieve that can be measured in months or two years at the outside.

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

#267

Post by JetSpiegel »

whatok wrote: post #153
dingaling wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon doesn't pay dividends, so the magnitude of profit has no direct relevance to shareholders. So if it won't harm the shareholders ( most of whom are secondary-market holders and thus not investors ) why not what is morally right versus technically right? Isn't that what we ask engineers to consider before working for ad networks, for example? Why does that not scale to companies?

Whether a company pays a dividend or not has no relevance to whether profit should matter to an investor. I'm not sure what you're trying to make a point about here. Additionally, I'm not sure what your point about "secondary market holders" vs "investors" is about either. Would you mind clarifying these?

> Whether a company pays a dividend or not has no relevance to whether profit should matter to an investor.

What? The point if owning stocks is receiving dividends, otherwise it's just speculation. Without dividends, you can only realize gains by selling to someone else, turning the whole thing into a Ponzi scheme.

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

#268

Post by JetSpiegel »

whatok wrote: post #180
mcphage wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm wondering why all the blame is directed at Amazon The first step is recognizing that there's a problem. > If the problem people have is with tax subsidies in general then isn't the government the real issue here? Maybe the problem people have isn't with tax subsidies. Maybe their problem is who the subsidies are being given to? People are realizing that Amazon isn't a good corporate citizen, and I don't think a…

How do you design a subsidy program that actually benefits everyone if one of the criteria is likability? The more grey areas you introduce into a program like this, the more cronyism and corruption kicks in which more than likely results in an inefficient use of taxpayer money.

Cap the subsidies by revenue. A trillion dollar company doesn't need handouts, if they can't make profits on that scale of revenues they are inefficient and that capital should be re-routed elsewhere.

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

#269

Post by JetSpiegel »

mc32 wrote: post #57
melling wrote: post #25

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.

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.

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

#270

Post by JetSpiegel »

jnordwick wrote: post #117
jmngomes wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It turns out that in many cases there is no " net profit (...) regardless of subsidies" In fact, in some cases the jobs that the subsidized company 'creates' are move expensive to taxpayers (due to subsidies) than it would be to just pay the same people to not work, or work on something else that is actually productive for society at large. Here's a good analysis of the issue: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-in…

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.
Post reply on HN