Amazon HQ2 thread

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by YSL

On the metro level, NY and to a lesser extent LA and DC are the only metro areas on the list where you wouldn't really notice an additional well-off 50,000 workers.

CSAs by the Number of Households Earning $200,000+, 2016.

Why choose $200,000+ when the vast majority of the workers in question won't make that? I believe Amazon said the average of salaries and BENEFITS would be $100,000 which means median salaries of like $75,000 at the most. A big reason to leave a place like Seattle is not having to pay exorbitant salaries because the cost of living is so much less in many of these cities.

[Nomad9]

It’s hard to guess a winner based on this big list. So many of them seem feasible. Instead, I’ll just say I’m hoping for Philly because I think Wilmington, and the rest of the metro, would benefit from such a huge shot in the arm within the MSA.

I’m really hoping it doesn’t go to city that already has sunbelt level growth going for it (Austin, Dallas, DC area, Atlanta, Nashville, and Raleigh). Nothing against those places but it would just be boring. Oh look, another corporate relocation to [rapidly expanding city], but BIGGER!

Couple of other thoughts:

-I’m surprised midwestern cities like Columbus and Indianapolis made it but Detroit and Minneapolis didn’t (though I’m guessing Minneapolis basically said “no thanks”).

-If Baltimore made a bid, they’ve gotta feel pretty insulted that two lesser nodes in their backyard got a top 20 spot over them.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by YSL

On the metro level, NY, LA and DC are the only metro areas on the list where you wouldn't really notice an additional well-off 50,000 workers.

Chicago could easily absorb that workforce without really any change at all in the cost of living. I think I saw a housing study somewhere that Chicago would be least affected by the HQ.

And unless all those employees decide to colonize the south side you wouldn't notice much difference either.

[jd3189]

If the HQ does go to Chicago, it would be used as a way to give more wealth to the South Side.


This article shares what many of the 20 finalists are doing to attract Amazon. Most are providing tax cuts.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by jd3189

If the HQ does go to Chicago, it would be used as a way to give more wealth to the South Side.

I see the opposite of this happening.

[Shawn]

Guys, I know lots of you feel a local talent pipeline is less important because Amazon hires globally, but there's something you're not accounting for . . . Amazon has really high churn. A lot more than the other big boys. Amazon is notorious for working its people to the bone; they're like the E&Y / PWC of Digital - survive for a few years after you graduate (almost like an extended grad program), and then get the hell out ASAP and land somewhere softer. If you can live through 3 years of Amazon, you'll get hired anywhere on the spot.

Whichever city wins will need a large, steady supply pool of local potential hires. It's prohibitively expensive to annually relocate people out of market just to offset churn, let alone actually staff incrementally up per Amazon's stated goals.

I don't think a metro less than 3-4 million can do this. And a premium will be put on a steady supply of college grads, who drag P&L overhead down less than someone with 5+ years of experience relocating from out-market will do.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Nomad9

Couple of other thoughts:

-I’m surprised midwestern cities like Columbus and Indianapolis made it but Detroit and Minneapolis didn’t (though I’m guessing Minneapolis basically said “no thanks”).

-If Baltimore made a bid, they’ve gotta feel pretty insulted that two lesser nodes in their backyard got a top 20 spot over them.

-Surprised by Indianapolis, but not surprised by Columbus at all, considering what's going on there. It's the capital, growing fast, very business-friendly, with major diverse corporate presence and one of the country's largest universities. Plus, it recently won the Smart City Challenge, beating out 77 other US cities, and now has $500M in public-private partnership funding to work towards revolutionizing urban transportation.

-Well, Montgomery County is as close as you can possibly get to being DC proper, so it's not really a "lesser node".

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Guys, I know lots of you feel a local talent pipeline is less important because Amazon hires globally, but there's something you're not accounting for . . . Amazon has really high churn. A lot more than the other big boys. Amazon is notorious for working its people to the bone; they're like the E&Y / PWC of Digital - survive for a few years after you graduate (almost like an extended grad program), and then get the hell out ASAP and land somewhere softer. If you can live through 3 years of Amazon, you'll get hired anywhere on the spot.

Whichever city wins will need a large, steady supply pool of local potential hires. It's prohibitively expensive to annually relocate people out of market just to offset churn, let alone actually staff incrementally up per Amazon's stated goals.

I don't think a metro less than 3-4 million can do this. And a premium will be put on a steady supply of college grads, who drag P&L overhead down less than someone with 5+ years of experience relocating from out-market will do.

Why not a large, steady supply of global talent, as Seattle has relied on? A Seattle Times story this week (just saw the headline) says 40% of local tech employees are foreign born...add people from around the US and I'd guess the number might be 90%, or possibly higher in the more technical positions. One analysis suggested that we educate 4% of the necessary flow for those positions locally. It's about hiring globally and nationally.

If you look at your own statement, your theory suggests that the local supply will DQ themselves in short order. You're not supporting your own point.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by mhays

Why not a large, steady supply of global talent, as Seattle has relied on? A Seattle Times story this week (just saw the headline) says 40% of local tech employees are foreign born...add people from around the US and I'd guess the number might be 90%, or possibly higher in the more technical positions. One analysis suggested that we educate 4% of the necessary flow for those positions locally. It's about hiring globally and nationally.

If you look at your own statement, your theory suggests that the local supply will DQ themselves in short order. You're not supporting your own point.

I think it really depends on the types of roles HQ2 is looking to house. If it's tech-heavy, I'll concede your point: global recruitment for engineers with the proper skill sets can still be cost efficient. But I have my doubts; I think HQ2 will be more media services and publisher relations-focused. Supply for these skill sets is a lot less restricted than for top engineers, and mark-comm degree holders are easier to find at the local level. Particularly in certain markets which have made Amazon's cut.

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by The North One

I see the opposite of this happening.

I never agree with you but this is (sadly) on point. Any city or area thinking this will help with areas with entrenched social problems are misguided. This can be leveraged with other interventions but on its own ... No

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by isaidso

No, taxes work out roughly the same. The difference is explained in what each country prioritizes. In the case of the US it's defense spending. In Canada it's health/education. I think I read somewhere that the benefit to Amazon of choosing a Canadian HQ would amount to $650 million in cost savings every year. That's a big carrot.

And correctional spending.. per capita, Canada has far fewer inmates than the United States, due to a combination of lower crime rates and much more lenient criminal sentencing. This is not a trivial difference either.. according to Wikipedia, America has 693 prisoners per 100,000 people, while Canada has just 114 per 100,000 people. Each American taxpayer has six times more prisoners to pay for.

As for health... Canadian health care costs the government (and thus the taxpayers) a lot of money, but because of the efficiency of running it in a centralized single payer fashion (no need for insurer profits or hospital marketing, economies of scale of having economy-wide purchasing, etc.), it saves the rest of the economy (individuals and employers) a lot more money than these taxes cost (when compared to the US at least).

Case in point: Ontario's health care system.. the one that an Amazon HQ2 in Toronto would be covered by, provides hospital care, doctor's visits, specialized care, etc. all completely free, no co-pay, no deductible, no limits. Plus there's free or heavily subsidized drugs for everyone under 25 or over 65, and for everyone between those age ranges who is low income or disabled*. Lots of other included things too.. annual eye exams are free for children and seniors. Transgender people get transition surgery for free. Mothers seeking IVF to have a baby get it for free.

The cost? For all 14 million people in Ontario.. the government pays about CA$54 billion (USD$43.5 billion) a year. That's a cost of about US$260 a month per citizen. A $260 a month health plan in America wouldn't be nearly that generous.

As for taxes.. while income taxes and business taxes are comparable (the latter were cheaper until Trump came along with the tax cut), sales taxes are a lot higher. Sales tax is 13% in Toronto. I don't think anywhere in the US is nearly that high. That extra money goes to things like social spending, mental health coverage, more heavily subsidized college tuition (in Ontario low-income families get free university), etc.

*Detailed explanation of drug coverage in Ontario:
-Completely free (no copay, no deductible) for everyone aged 24 and under
-$2 copay with deductibles for very high income individuals (only the richest 10% end up paying them) for everyone aged 65 and over
-$2 copay with no deductible for those on social assistance or disability
-$2 copay with a deductible equal to 4% of net income for everyone else

[bnk]

Honestly this whole 20 city list is asinine.

There are only 5 locations in the USA that can do what Amazon asks in its very own RPF at this point. Unless they found some kind of gem that is not required to meet their original requests anymore in its site selection process, which I find unlikely.

Now here is a good post

Originally Posted by Shawn

Guys, ....
Whichever city wins will need a large, steady supply pool of local potential hires. It's prohibitively expensive to annually relocate people out of market just to offset churn, let alone actually staff incrementally up per Amazon's stated goals.

I don't think a metro less than 3-4 million can do this. And a premium will be put on a steady supply of college grads, who drag P&L overhead down less than someone with 5+ years of experience relocating from out-market will do.

There are many sub 4 + million metros listed. Many of the them not viable alone on just rail access and international airports....



Its likely down to three metros at this point. This whole thing is idiotic. The said metro is most likely already chosen, its now how much money they can squeeze out of these said 3 or at most 4 metros.

Letting Indy pass as an option is stupid enough.


Unless there is any new news in the next few days it would be better to shut this thread down because Amazon is not in a hurry for anything other than publicity negative or positive at this point.

[bobdreamz]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Most of the top 20 are good, except Indianapolis(I hope that wasn't politically motivated).

I hope they go to either Chicago, one of the east coast cities, or Austin. Austin would be convenient for me, while I would never work for Amazon personally it would still be a boost for the whole of IT employment and wages in the region.

Miami sounds like a really poor choice IMO. Hurricanes and cultural differences with the rest of the country.

Hurricanes can happen anywhere along the East coast or do you not remember what Sandy did to the northeast?
As for cultural differences what exactly do you mean by that?

[atlwarrior]

Originally Posted by bnk

20 is ridiculousness, 5-6 max. Three are all that are needed at this point.

Kind of suspired so many are on the east coast, or at least time zone. NYC, Toronto, LA, Boston,DC are more costly. They don't make sense from what Amazon was originally asking for. And I find it hard to belive that Amazon will pick NC lacking a global airport. Miami makes no sense to me. I still Think Canada is a non starter and Columbus too small.

Iteresting to note there are only 3 cities in the Central Time zone, Chicago and two in Texas, so really there are only two possible locations in the Central Time Zone.
Very Eastern leaning list. Oh I forgot Nashville is in the central time zone, not sure what they can deliver on other than cheap housing.

How in the hell did Indianapolis make the list. Now we got to hear from the entire state of Indiana for the next 6 months before they start the next round at 10 cities.





IMO the real ones are the DC area, Phli, Atlanta, one of the Texas cities more likely Dallas and Chicago. So that's the real top 5.



For those that haven't read the RFP yet


https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/...mages/usa/hero-1500900-hq2candidates.jpg

I agree! The list is useless at this point. Amazon already knows its choice and should end this show tomorrow.

[Marv95]

Toronto's not getting this. Not with this federal tax plan in place and not with Toronto holding out on incentives. And if transportation/distance to the airport is a criteria then you can knock 5 additional cities off.

[10023]

Originally Posted by jd3189

If the HQ does go to Chicago, it would be used as a way to give more wealth to the South Side.

Where did you get that idea?

One of the proposed sites is on the near South Side, but it's unlikely to be the one that they choose.

Most likely, Amazon choosing Chicago would take the West Loop boom to another level.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by YSL

On the metro level, NY, LA and DC are the only metro areas on the list where you wouldn't really notice an additional well-off 50,000 workers.

Interesting if Amazon is not looking to 'transform' anywhere, and simply wants to be absorbed and not blamed for rocketing cost of living.

Completely disagree.

NY is probably the only metro in the US where the above is the case

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

As for taxes.. while income taxes and business taxes are comparable (the latter were cheaper until Trump came along with the tax cut), sales taxes are a lot higher. Sales tax is 13% in Toronto. I don't think anywhere in the US is nearly that high. That extra money goes to things like social spending, mental health coverage, more heavily subsidized college tuition (in Ontario low-income families get free university), etc.

One big downside of Toronto is income taxes for Amazon's workers.

HQ2 in Austin or Dallas for example (Texas has no personal state income tax) means you can pay those ~50,000 workers less while still having them perfectly satisfied with their net earnings and the lifestyle they can get from their pay.

[10023]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Completely disagree.

NY is probably the only metro in the US where the above is the case

I would argue that not only those three, but several others could easily absorb 50k newcomers with these salaries.

[10023]

Originally Posted by lio45

One big downside of Toronto is income taxes for Amazon's workers.

HQ2 in Austin or Dallas for example (Texas has no personal state income tax) means you can pay those ~50,000 workers less while still having them perfectly satisfied with their net earnings and the lifestyle they can get from their pay.

That's not really an issue if the plan would be to hire Canadians (including skilled immigrants). It's a different labor pool, of people who couldn't or wouldn't necessarily move to Texas.