Amazon Picks New York City, Northern Virginia for Its HQ2 Locations
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
The education factor
cawacko
Well-known member
you ok with, or happy about, the tax giveaways NYC gave to Amazon?
This really underscores just how strongly future-oriented companies value education. New York City and Northern Virginia each have some of the most expensive land, high-priced employees, and high overall cost of living in the whole country. Yet Amazon was willing to accept all of that, even as numerous cut-rate locations were lining up to hand them deal sweeteners. And, in fact, nearly the entirety of the Amazon short list consisted of similar high-cost places, chosen for the education levels of the local population -- as well as the cultural attractiveness of the location, which makes it easier to recruit and retain the kinds of talent they're after.
"Jesusland," as you put it, may be great for lower-end manufacturing work, as well as call centers. But with those areas of endeavor, they're effectively racing to the bottom against the likes of China and India. When it comes to higher-compensation professional work, there are a relatively small number of places in the US that really complete: the metro areas for NYC, DC, SF, Seattle, and Boston being the most prominent.
I kind of feel bad for leaders of cities trying to be forward looking, but mired in states that aren't (e.g., Austin, Atlanta, Raleigh, etc.) They do what they can to make themselves attractive to educated, progressive workers, but if the wider state is focused on abortion restrictions, gay-bashing, and stroking the egos of rural white blue collar workers, that can really undermine the effort.
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
Amazon's Billion-Dollar Shakedown of America's Cities
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/amazons-billion-dollar-shakedown-of-americas-cities/
cawacko
Well-known member
Why would such a well educated progressive forward thinking state and city such as New York offer such corporate welfare to the world's richest company if it already dominates with its educated workforce?
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
Because that's how your system works hon.
Amazon smartly created a feeding frenzy. Each of the cities ended up in a position where they were worried that even with whatever natural advantages they brought to the table, they'd be out-competed by some other city, that may have a little less to offer in terms of those fundamentals, but offered a whole lot more in terms of tax breaks. So, even the most competitive cities were coaxed into offering corporate handouts to stay on an even playing field with the others that were doing so.
Cities would do well to get together and agree among themselves not to be played this way in the future. They could even create enforcement mechanisms to punish cities that broke faith with the rest. For example, the 50 top cities could each contribute a fairly substantial amount into a joint investment account that paid dividends to all the cities, but with an agreement that any city that offered a special tax break to attract a business would lose its stake in that account. That way, everyone would have an incentive not to race to the bottom that way. Unfortunately, cities (and states) don't tend to cooperate well with each other, and so companies tend to be pretty successful at playing them off against each other.
cawacko
Well-known member
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.
And not all cities are equal. Not every City has excellent weather. Not every City has easy access to the Ocean. Each City must do what they can to compete. If Amazon's M.O. is a well educated workforce, and NYC offers that, why did they go so far with their corporate welfare? They should be able to beat someone from Jesusland with nothing but uneducated redneck goy's even if they offer more incentives right?
"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?
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.
cawacko
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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.
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.
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-cities-that-wont-win-the-second-amazon-headquarters/
cawacko
Well-known member
It's Amazon's choice if they don't want the best.
cawacko
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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.
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.