Amazon HQ2 thread

[mhays]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But why should the Seattle region perform near the top on this particular list? This list would naturally be dominated by metros that are seeing all sorts of corporate investment from entities large and small, from all walks of life, criss-crossing the continent, I imagine. That would explain why New York doesn’t perform as highly despite the fact that it surely captures the largest amount of corporate investment in sheer dollars.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/am...le-is-now-americas-biggest-company-town/

This ranking does not measure the most amount of dollars, but the highest volume of significant projects. It’s really an uncommon way to measure things, but it shines an interesting light on the underpinnings of the global economy. It for example shows why Chicago, which has not been as — in the most recent incarnation of the global economy (few really noteworthy names in modern tech as one example) also stubbornly isn’t exactly going away, so to speak. Too many unheard of middle men are building cargo facilities, distribution centers, auto dealerships, small supply-chain factories, intermodal hubs, extended stay hotels, airport facilities, in addition to the more visible tony office buildings, skyscrapers, transportation facilities, etc etc that we’re more used to talking about here.

Of course Seattle shouldn't be at the top. I didn't say it should, or how any city should rank. You're not following the discussion.

The article is exactly the sort of misleading information I'm talking about. Amazon is the #3 local private sector employer behind Boeing (I believe 65,000 or so) and Microsoft (50,000+ with contract employees). Simply reading the article would result in a wildly incorrect understanding of the city.