Amazon Picks New York City, Northern Virginia for Its HQ2 Locations

[Stretch]

Interesting your socialist friend Cortez tweeted out that there is outrage in the community over Queens being selected. Why would that be?

"Lastly, this isn't just about one company or one headquarters. It's about cost of living, corps paying their fair share, etc"

She's a "Queens First-er" MQGA! eh Alexandria?

[Oneuli]

It might sound nice in theory but the real world doesn't work that way because politicians are elected on a local bases and get judged by how they represent their City. Helping other cities instead of their own usually doesen't equate to re-election.

The system I'm suggesting wouldn't be a matter of helping other cities instead of their own. It would be about helping their own cities by preventing all the cities from being stampeded by a company like Amazon (or a pro sports team, for that matter) into a race to the bottom.

Think of it in terms of sports. Why would a player's union agree to a ban on performance enhancing drugs, when their individual members stand to be hurt by way of suspensions, fines, and other enforcement mechanisms? The reason is that without the ban on steroids, etc., and enforcement mechanisms for making that ban meaningful, the players are put in a position where everyone needs to do those drugs, or choose to compete on a playing field that's effectively tilted against them. So, it's in the collective best interest of all the players if none of the players can enhance their performance by way of dangerous drugs, without a big penalty. What I'm talking about is similar, but where the "steroids" would be corporate welfare, that allows a city to compete at a higher level in an individual contest to lure a business, but which winds up being a long-term harm to the cities collectively.

If Amazon's M.O. is a well educated workforce, and NYC offers that, why did they go so far with their corporate welfare?

Wow, we're right back to the question that was already answered. It's like if the conservatives get an answer that doesn't support their agenda, they think they can just ask the same question again and count it as if they'd made a point. AGAIN, even if NYC had more to offer on that front, it could still be out-competed by another city that had somewhat less to offer, but offered a lot more in the way of corporate handouts. So, it felt compelled to offer up advantages, so that it could compete on a level playing field with the cities that were doing so. Obviously, they weren't so confident in their educated workforce, etc., that they thought it would definitely overwhelm all other considerations.

Anyway, I suspect their real worry wasn't competing with the "uneducated goys" of places like, say, Tulsa or Birmingham, but rather competing with other cities with elite workforces, like Boston, Denver, Philly, and Toronto.

[cawacko]

The system I'm suggesting wouldn't be a matter of helping other cities instead of their own. It would be about helping their own cities by preventing all the cities from being stampeded by a company like Amazon (or a pro sports team, for that matter) into a race to the bottom.

Think of it in terms of sports. Why would a player's union agree to a ban on performance enhancing drugs, when their individual members stand to be hurt by way of suspensions, fines, and other enforcement mechanisms? The reason is that without the ban on steroids, etc., and enforcement mechanisms for making that ban meaningful, the players are put in a position where everyone needs to do those drugs, or choose to compete on a playing field that's effectively tilted against them. So, it's in the collective best interest of all the players if none of the players can enhance their performance by way of dangerous drugs, without a big penalty. What I'm talking about is similar, but where the "steroids" would be corporate welfare, that allows a city to compete at a higher level in an individual contest to lure a business, but which winds up being a long-term harm to the cities collectively.



Wow, we're right back to the question that was already answered. It's like if the conservatives get an answer that doesn't support their agenda, they think they can just ask the same question again and count it as if they'd made a point. AGAIN, even if NYC had more to offer on that front, it could still be out-competed by another city that had somewhat less to offer, but offered a lot more in the way of corporate handouts. So, it felt compelled to offer up advantages, so that it could compete on a level playing field with the cities that were doing so. Obviously, they weren't so confident in their educated workforce, etc., that they thought it would definitely overwhelm all other considerations.

Anyway, I suspect their real worry wasn't competing with the "uneducated goys" of places like, say, Tulsa or Birmingham, but rather competing with other cities with elite workforces, like Boston, Denver, Philly, and Toronto.

Sporting leagues aren't like cities as their isn't an owner or commissioner of a City like there is in a sporting league. For cities to want to join in what your suggesting they would have to start off on an even playing field and they don't.

Guno started this thread and the few times he hasn't spoken about his generation dying off he supported socialism and was anti-corporate welfare. So it's surprising to see the guy celebrating when his City gave the richest company in the world massive corporate welfare.

Was it 100 or so City's initially filled out the RFP? And then Amazon narrowed it down to 20 before making their selection.

[cawacko]

The system I'm suggesting wouldn't be a matter of helping other cities instead of their own. It would be about helping their own cities by preventing all the cities from being stampeded by a company like Amazon (or a pro sports team, for that matter) into a race to the bottom.

Think of it in terms of sports. Why would a player's union agree to a ban on performance enhancing drugs, when their individual members stand to be hurt by way of suspensions, fines, and other enforcement mechanisms? The reason is that without the ban on steroids, etc., and enforcement mechanisms for making that ban meaningful, the players are put in a position where everyone needs to do those drugs, or choose to compete on a playing field that's effectively tilted against them. So, it's in the collective best interest of all the players if none of the players can enhance their performance by way of dangerous drugs, without a big penalty. What I'm talking about is similar, but where the "steroids" would be corporate welfare, that allows a city to compete at a higher level in an individual contest to lure a business, but which winds up being a long-term harm to the cities collectively.



Wow, we're right back to the question that was already answered. It's like if the conservatives get an answer that doesn't support their agenda, they think they can just ask the same question again and count it as if they'd made a point. AGAIN, even if NYC had more to offer on that front, it could still be out-competed by another city that had somewhat less to offer, but offered a lot more in the way of corporate handouts. So, it felt compelled to offer up advantages, so that it could compete on a level playing field with the cities that were doing so. Obviously, they weren't so confident in their educated workforce, etc., that they thought it would definitely overwhelm all other considerations.

Anyway, I suspect their real worry wasn't competing with the "uneducated goys" of places like, say, Tulsa or Birmingham, but rather competing with other cities with elite workforces, like Boston, Denver, Philly, and Toronto.

This was list of the final 20 Cities. You notice the G.O.A.T. is on there



Atlanta, GA
Austin, TX
Boston, MA
Chicago, IL
Columbus, OH
Dallas, TX
Denver, CO
Indianapolis, IN
Los Angeles, CA
Miami, FL
Montgomery County, MD
Nashville, TN
Newark, NJ
New York City, NY
Northern Virginia, VA
Philadelphia, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Raleigh, NC
Toronto, ON
Washington D.C.

[Oneuli]

Sporting leagues aren't like cities as their isn't an owner or commissioner of a City like there is in a sporting league.

Yet there could be. Sporting leagues didn't start out with commissioners. Baseball didn't have a commissioner until 1921. The NL had been playing without a commissioner since the 1870s, and the AL and NL had been functioning as a league since 1903. The commissioner was a useful way for the individual teams to coordinate their efforts at that level. Individual cities could set up something similar, for coordinating the kind of mutual investment fund I'm talking about, and to make rulings about what kinds of things individual cities can and can't do to entice businesses, without triggering enforcement mechanisms against them.

For cities to want to join in what your suggesting they would have to start off on an even playing field

I don't think so. Individual sports teams don't start on an even playing field. Yet still they have certain rules, including salary caps, drafts, etc., that apply to all of them, in order to set mutually beneficial terms of competition.

So it's surprising to see the guy celebrating when his City gave the richest company in the world massive corporate welfare.

I don't see him celebrating that. Regardless, the interesting part, from my perspective, is what everyone on Amazon's short-list had in common. In theory, Amazon had the resources, if they'd wanted, to go set up a compound anywhere in the US. They could have bought up dirt-cheap land in rural Indiana for next to nothing. But they focused on urban areas -- and mostly liberal urban areas in liberal regions, like the two states that ended up winning. That's not because they offered them the most tax cuts and the like. They could have been paying much lower effective tax rates in South Dakota or somewhere. But they wanted what only certain kinds of cities can offer. They wanted a highly educated workforce, and that meant locating in a place that has a lot of educated people, and where the culture is going to be attractive to the kinds of people they want to lure from elsewhere. If you're looking to, say, poach elite programmers from Silicon Valley, you might be able to pull that off in the NY or DC area, but it's going to be a tough sales pitch to get them to move to Hot Springs.

That's a less for cities that are trying to think about how to position themselves to compete in the 21st century. Trying to race the third-world to the bottom, when it comes to low labor costs and little regulation, isn't a great strategy. It's better to focus on maximizing one's relative advantages -- offering up the kinds of things that cheap-labor countries can't offer, including a high-skills workforce, excellent infrastructure, a culture that's attractive to creative people and elite professionals, etc.

[Oneuli]

This was list of the final 20 Cities. You notice the G.O.A.T. is on there



Atlanta, GA
Austin, TX
Boston, MA
Chicago, IL
Columbus, OH
Dallas, TX
Denver, CO
Indianapolis, IN
Los Angeles, CA
Miami, FL
Montgomery County, MD
Nashville, TN
Newark, NJ
New York City, NY
Northern Virginia, VA
Philadelphia, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Raleigh, NC
Toronto, ON
Washington D.C.

Yes. Columbus was one of a few "purple state" entries on that list. However, it was always widely regarded as one of the cities that had no real shot, despite having offered up plenty in the way of sweeteners to lure Amazon.

https://investorplace.com/2018/10/7-...-headquarters/

[cawacko]

Yes. Columbus was one of a few "purple state" entries on that list. However, it was always widely regarded as one of the cities that had no real shot, despite having offered up plenty in the way of sweeteners to lure Amazon.

https://investorplace.com/2018/10/7-...-headquarters/

It's Amazon's choice if they don't want the best.

[cawacko]

Yet there could be. Sporting leagues didn't start out with commissioners. Baseball didn't have a commissioner until 1921. The NL had been playing without a commissioner since the 1870s, and the AL and NL had been functioning as a league since 1903. The commissioner was a useful way for the individual teams to coordinate their efforts at that level. Individual cities could set up something similar, for coordinating the kind of mutual investment fund I'm talking about, and to make rulings about what kinds of things individual cities can and can't do to entice businesses, without triggering enforcement mechanisms against them.



I don't think so. Individual sports teams don't start on an even playing field. Yet still they have certain rules, including salary caps, drafts, etc., that apply to all of them, in order to set mutually beneficial terms of competition.



I don't see him celebrating that. Regardless, the interesting part, from my perspective, is what everyone on Amazon's short-list had in common. In theory, Amazon had the resources, if they'd wanted, to go set up a compound anywhere in the US. They could have bought up dirt-cheap land in rural Indiana for next to nothing. But they focused on urban areas -- and mostly liberal urban areas in liberal regions, like the two states that ended up winning. That's not because they offered them the most tax cuts and the like. They could have been paying much lower effective tax rates in South Dakota or somewhere. But they wanted what only certain kinds of cities can offer. They wanted a highly educated workforce, and that meant locating in a place that has a lot of educated people, and where the culture is going to be attractive to the kinds of people they want to lure from elsewhere. If you're looking to, say, poach elite programmers from Silicon Valley, you might be able to pull that off in the NY or DC area, but it's going to be a tough sales pitch to get them to move to Hot Springs.

That's a less for cities that are trying to think about how to position themselves to compete in the 21st century. Trying to race the third-world to the bottom, when it comes to low labor costs and little regulation, isn't a great strategy. It's better to focus on maximizing one's relative advantages -- offering up the kinds of things that cheap-labor countries can't offer, including a high-skills workforce, excellent infrastructure, a culture that's attractive to creative people and elite professionals, etc.

I go back to the question then with all its inherent advantages why did NYC feel to need to offer such corporate welfare? It's not like NYC would have fallen off the map if Amazon didn't pick it. If it wanted to stick to its professed principles it easily could have said "you know the advantages you are getting with us, take it or leave it".

And most U.S. cities are liberal. They tend to be occupied by large numbers of minorities and young people who tend to vote liberal. Many surrounding suburbs are (not always but) often conservative though and many city workers come from those suburbs.

For high tech talent it's tough to beat the coastal cities. Austin is doing a hell of a job as many Silicon Valley companies priced out are moving there. Dallas is growing as is the research triangle in N.C.

[cawacko]

Yes. Columbus was one of a few "purple state" entries on that list. However, it was always widely regarded as one of the cities that had no real shot, despite having offered up plenty in the way of sweeteners to lure Amazon.

https://investorplace.com/2018/10/7-...-headquarters/

This means nothing but going off the 2016 election 10 of the 19 cities in the finals were from red states. (leaving out Ontario)

But Columbus being the G.O.A.T. has nothing to do with its politics.

[Oneuli]

It's Amazon's choice if they don't want the best.

I can't say I have any experience at all with Columbus. The closest I come is Cleveland. But, on paper, Columbus doesn't seem to have a huge amount to offer. It doesn't have any elite universities, nor elite cultural offerings (museums, pro sports teams, symphonies, theaters, etc.), and it's a fairly long trip to other big metro areas. It does have the advantage of having a huge state school there, which is going to mean a lot of ability to attract young college graduates, as well as some cultural offerings that center around universities. But practically every state has at least one city like that, so it doesn't really set it apart.

[cawacko]

I can't say I have any experience at all with Columbus. The closest I come is Cleveland. But, on paper, Columbus doesn't seem to have a huge amount to offer. It doesn't have any elite universities, nor elite cultural offerings (museums, pro sports teams, symphonies, theaters, etc.), and it's a fairly long trip to other big metro areas. It does have the advantage of having a huge state school there, which is going to mean a lot of ability to attract young college graduates, as well as some cultural offerings that center around universities. But practically every state has at least one city like that, so it doesn't really set it apart.

Excuse me... The Ohio State University is one of the finest University's in the country. They are home to the Columbus Yellow Jackets. It has elite cultural attractions along with Ohio State Buckeyes football.

Mott would you like to jump in here?

[Oneuli]

This means nothing but going off the 2016 election 10 of the 19 cities in the finals were from red states.

Exactly. Judging by 2016, 60% of states were red states, yet only 50% of the finalist list were red states, meaning they were under-represented. And half of those were actually "purple states" -- states that had gone for Obama twice before swinging to Trump. Only five were from true red states (GA, TX, IN, and TN).

[cawacko]

Exactly. Judging by 2016, 60% of states were red states, yet only 50% of the finalist list were red states, meaning they were under-represented. And half of those were actually "purple states" -- states that had gone for Obama twice before swinging to Trump. Only five were from true red states (GA, TX, IN, and TN).

10/19 is over 50%

[cawacko]

Exactly. Judging by 2016, 60% of states were red states, yet only 50% of the finalist list were red states, meaning they were under-represented. And half of those were actually "purple states" -- states that had gone for Obama twice before swinging to Trump. Only five were from true red states (GA, TX, IN, and TN).

Sorry for going off topic here but do you ever look up Martin O'Malley and the black vote for the 2016 primary? Last time we spoke you were offering 2012 numbers and saying black voters supported him. But what you had left out was the results of his zero tolerance policy in Baltimore and how black voters had turned against him by 2016.

[Fentoine Lum]

It's Amazon's choice if they don't want the best.

What Bezos wants is for the unsubstantial people to keep subsidizing him and his empire. He's a socialist.