Amazon HQ2 thread

[McBane]

Originally Posted by AbortedWalrus

And yet Joe Biden commuted from the Philadelphia metro to DC for his entire political career. Philadelphia's position makes it possible to do both easily.

Yes. Specifically, the site that Philadelphia proposed is immediately adjacent to 30th Street Station, making a trip to DC (or NY) very convenient.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by bnk

The more and more I read into this three headed hydra the less worried I become working the health care industry.




http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/2...-berkshire-hathaway-cant-fix-healthcares

January 31, 2018

Bezos, Buffett and Dimon can't solve health care's ills



Even with their combined brainpower, resources, and a U.S. employee base of 1 million people, the new partnership formed by Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan Chase will have a tough time curing the persistent ills of the $3.3 trillion U.S. health care industry. But the size of the target—with health care accounting for 18 percent of domestic GDP—is too large for these three world-class organizations not to try to disrupt the system, if only to wring some cost savings for their employees.


Controlling costs will be a monumental task, given rising health care consumption, the aging population and increasing number of chronic diseases and conditions. The harsh reality in health care is obesity, poor diets and lack of exercise are major risks. Greater technology usage also adds to skyrocketing costs. It's expensive, and the reality is that, by extending life expectancy, the technology also adds to higher costs for health care as people live into their 80s and even 90s and beyond.
More:


For three companies with the will and good intentions, but no expertise in health care delivery, these challenges could prove to be insurmountable.

Yet there is a void in health care now that the Affordable Care Act, after numerous repeal attempts, has been largely undermined by the new tax legislation,

...


News of the partnership and the potential that its solutions could scale elsewhere were enough to send shock waves through the health care sector, with the market value of 10 large, publicly traded health insurance and pharmacy companies losing a combined $30 billion—on a day when the overall stock market sold off sharply.


But even with the leadership firepower behind this new venture, health care is an extremely complex problem to fix. In the joint statement, Amazon's Jeff Bezos acknowledged that "we enter into this challenge open-eyed about the degree of difficulty." Berkshire's Warren Buffett added: "Our group does not come to this problem with answers. But we do not accept it as inevitable. Rather, we share the belief that putting our collective resources behind the country's best talent can, in time, check the rise in health costs while concurrently enhancing patient satisfaction and outcomes."

Employers and employees alike are seeking ways to improve health and wellness for individuals and to lower the cost of providing health care in the U.S. It's also a competitive issue. With health care closing in on 20 percent of GDP, the U.S. is less globally competitive. In contrast, health expenditures in Germany, the Netherlands, France and Sweden account for about 11 percent of their GDPs. In Japan, health care is about 10 percent of GDP.


Any progress in reining in health care expenditures would be a huge positive for Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase internally as they manage health care costs for their employees and dependents. And given Amazon's massive reach to consumers in every demographic in the U.S., and its appetite to expand (reportedly, it has been looking at pharmaceuticals), health care is an obvious target. But making the first inroads will prove whether this is only good intentions or a plan that can yield real actions and results.

Harry Kraemer is a professor at Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and the former CEO of Baxter.

LoL. Amazon used to be only an online bookstore. Saying they are too small to have an impact in the $3.3 trillion healthcare market is like someone 15 years ago saying Amazon was too small to have a real impact on the $12 trillion US retail market. And yet they did.

Given Amazon's history, if this consortium is able to move the needle on health care I suspect the partners would want to grow it. Add 10 to 20 more Fortune 500 companies to the consortium and suddenly the numbers are not so immaterial.

Having said that, of course Health Care has been the most-miserably intractable of all US segments. Still interesting as hell that these companies have targeted it.

[the urban politician]

Ironically, healthcare was much cheaper before corporate America got involved

[LouisVanDerWright]

Did anyone else see the list of 9 of the 20 finalists that LGBTQ rights activists are demanding Amazon drop from consideration? They are Austin, Dallas, Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, Indianapolis, Miami, Raleigh, and Northern Virginia.

It's just one group at this point, but you have to wonder how much they are right about culture clashes for Amazon. Does Jeff Bezos want to have to jump in and reprimand the state every time they try to ban transexuals or something absurd? Salesforce has had similar issues with their large presence in Indianapolis for example. Laws were passed that didn't sit well with Salesforce's diverse employees and Benihoff had to personally intervene and threaten the politicians. People in this thread have been talking a lot about housing prices, transit, government, incentives, etc., but to what extent do worries about "culture clash" blackball certain cities? I'm sure Austin isn't necessarily ruled out on these grounds, but what about Indy? What about Dallas? What about Nashville? Sure all cities lean liberal, but certain states have a bit of, um, "history" on these issues whether race, gay rights, or just general modern, liberal, values. To what extent does Amazon want to locate in a state where people try to remove evolution from text books?

Gay activists ask Amazon to avoid these cities for its second headquarters

Amazon has trimmed its list of potential cities for its second headquarters down to twenty. But one group of gay activists is pressuring the company to avoid some of the locations that made the cut.

The tech behemoth, currently headquartered in Seattle, launched a public search for the site of its second headquarters, or HQ2, last year. It said it would spend $50 billion on constructing the new headquarters and is expecting to hire a workforce of 50,000 people. When the company requested proposals, more than 238 cities from across North America responded.

Last month when Amazon announced the finalists, Conor Gaughan, the manager of the "No Gay? No Way!" campaign, said he was shocked to find eleven of the twenty cities were located in nine states that did not have protections for LGBTQ people. Gaughan, a full-time digital communications consultant, reached out to a group of friends and activists to launch this new campaign.

Related
Support For LGBTQ People Suffers 'Alarming Erosion,' Report Finds
“The goal of this campaign is for Amazon to abide by its own values of diversity and equality, and not reward cities that are anti-LGBT,” Gaughan told NBC News. “Amazon has always been a great ally for LGBTQ issues, and we hope this gives them a chance to be a leader. With their huge platform, they can send the signal that if you want business in your state, you can’t discriminate.”

The campaign reported nine states on Amazon’s list that currently have no legal protections against firing someone, denying them housing or refusing them service because they are LGBTQ: Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Ohio.

...

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/...e-cities-its-second-headquarters-n843736

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Having said that, of course Health Care has been the most-miserably intractable of all US segments. Still interesting as hell that these companies have targeted it.

They are targeting for good reason, as you said, it's trillions of dollars. Wherever there's rising prices there is profit potential. If they can find a better way, they will make a killing.

[10023]

^ Did anyone else notice that map doesn't even acknowledge New Jersey's existence?

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ Did anyone else notice that map doesn't even acknowledge New Jersey's existence?

No worries, some of my fellow NJ neighbors think NJ is part of the USSR, but... can't please everyone!

Either that or Chris Christie jumped, pushing the tectonic plates below grade, and causing massive flooding.

I like that they photo shopped us. But they may be pleasantly suprised when the pick goes to either Philly or NY, and us fellow New Jerseyans reap the benefits. No love like Jay-Z said.

NJ gets a lot of crap, but its a good state. We are like an expensive Filet mignon. If you want Purdue Chicken, you go to other states, but in NJ, you get what you paid for.

And we offered massive tax cuts for Amazon to move here.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Delaware is missing too.

[Shawn]

LouisVanDerWright, I've been saying this whole time that red states have a bigger disadvantage here than boosters want to admit. Yeah, Atlanta and Dallas are liberal cities, but their state legislatures sure as hell aren't. Amazon is not likely to move to states which regularly come up with the likes of bathroom bans or allow gays to be fired for being gay.

Tax breaks are great and all, but Bezos cares a lot about cultural fits. If Amazon does go to a red state, in a kind of Kremlinology sort of way we'll learn that his Board has more sway than was generally realized.

[jd3189]

Amazon could contribute to those states becoming less red if talent comes to the new HQ. Florida, Georgia, and Virginia are also swing states.


I know that states like Florida, Texas, and Georgia are still conservative strongholds with politicians who could care less about about the LGBT community. However, these states are growing rapidly, becoming bluer, and will continue to influence national politics as a result.


Yeah, it would be cool if Amazon went to a state that was blue. But it would continue the same congregating of major corporations in a few areas of the country. But it is what it is.

[austlar1]

I guess my reaction to the NoGayNoWay blacklist of cities located in states with no statewide protections for gay civil rights is defensive. I can only speak with any knowledge about Texas cities. All major Texas cities (and some large suburban cities as well) in Texas have passed civil rights protections for the LGBT community at the local level. Many of these cities have elected openly gay or lesbian people to various positions including many city council members, at least one lesbian mayor (Houston), one state senator (Austin) and one county sheriff (Dallas) in the past. Both Austin and Dallas have vibrant and politically active LGBT communities It seems to me that blacklisting cities like Austin and Dallas penalizes these cities unduly. Yes, we are vulnerable here to threatened state wide legislation that can overturn local civil rights ordinances. There was a real threat of that happening in the last Texas legislative session. Having a super major employer like Amazon locate HQ2 in either Dallas or Austin would seem to validate the progressive aspects of those cities and provide the local LGBT community with a strong sense of being supported. Most major corporations headquartered in Texas strongly support LGBT rights. Adding Amazon to the top of that heap would be something that right wing zealots might have a hard time ignoring. I don't really think either Dallas or Austin will get HQ2, but I am hoping that the decision will be based on something other than the threat posed by right wing zealots to LGBT civil liberties. These right wing types won't be moved by Amazon deciding to go elsewhere. It will just piss them off. On the other hand, they just might be susceptible to pressure from the business community and more enlightened political interests to back off when it is likely to upset a major player like Amazon.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Shawn

LouisVanDerWright, I've been saying this whole time that red states have a bigger disadvantage here than boosters want to admit. Yeah, Atlanta and Dallas are liberal cities, but their state legislatures sure as hell aren't. Amazon is not likely to move to states which regularly come up with the likes of bathroom bans or allow gays to be fired for being gay.

Tax breaks are great and all, but Bezos cares a lot about cultural fits. If Amazon does go to a red state, in a kind of Kremlinology sort of way we'll learn that his Board has more sway than was generally realized.

I said the same thing when the discussion started and was told Bezos only cares about business. Nonsense of course. He's caring more and more about politics and culture and less about business as he gets closer to achieving the goal of his second $100 billion. I'm waiting for him to move from CEO to Chairman of Amazon.

[KevinFromTexas]

Austin's city manager is gay, too. One of my forumer friends also bumped into Elizabeth Warren in Austin today. They were walking downtown and snapped a photo with her. She's in town doing some speech. Anyway, I, too, would hope Texas isn't overlooked because of its politics. It's not like the cities are conservative wastelands like people make the rest of the state out to be.

[Pedestrian]

^^Blue cities in red states are always at risk of having their progressive laws overruled by the state. It happened in Tucson too. And I'm sure they were apoplectic on the Duke campus in Durham at some of the doings of the North Carolina legislature over the last decade (hopefully now ended since they have a Democratic governor).

[10023]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Delaware is missing too.

Dela-where?

Not only did I not notice that, but I didn't notice it after carefully checking to see if any states other than NJ were missing...




Delaware: Corporate America's PO Box

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by Shawn

LouisVanDerWright, I've been saying this whole time that red states have a bigger disadvantage here than boosters want to admit. Yeah, Atlanta and Dallas are liberal cities, but their state legislatures sure as hell aren't. Amazon is not likely to move to states which regularly come up with the likes of bathroom bans or allow gays to be fired for being gay.

Tax breaks are great and all, but Bezos cares a lot about cultural fits. If Amazon does go to a red state, in a kind of Kremlinology sort of way we'll learn that his Board has more sway than was generally realized.

I'm wondering if they might not consider a red state that is threatening to go blue (or at least purple) under the reasoning that their 50K employees might help swing the state over to the other side? Under the presumption that the majority of those 50K employees will tend toward liberal, of course.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Austin's city manager is gay, too. One of my forumer friends also bumped into Elizabeth Warren in Austin today. They were walking downtown and snapped a photo with her. She's in town doing some speech. Anyway, I, too, would hope Texas isn't overlooked because of its politics. It's not like the cities are conservative wastelands like people make the rest of the state out to be.

I don't think a place like Austin would be "ruled out" simply because of the Texas statehouse, but it doesn't help. It might be a much bigger drag on Dallas' bid where it's not quite as progressive of a city and is in a fairly unprogressive state. Then there's places like Indianapolis which I think would be totally ruled out given the history there like I mentioned with Salesforce. No CEO wants to have their employees focused on such nonsense and they certainly don't want to have to waste their own extremely valuable time reprimanding the neanderthal politicians elected by city hating hostiles surrounding their shiny new urban corporate campus. I mean I don't know why they even wasted their time considering places like that because it's just not compatible at all with their culture. I feel like Indy is only there to get Indiana to buck up with huge tax credits to put pressure (or political cover) on Chicago to up their bid.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I guess my reaction to the NoGayNoWay blacklist of cities located in states with no statewide protections for gay civil rights is defensive. I can only speak with any knowledge about Texas cities. All major Texas cities (and some large suburban cities as well) in Texas have passed civil rights protections for the LGBT community at the local level.

I think that's a very important counter-point. Among the states singled-out by NoGayNoWay, Pennsylvania, for example, actually has 44 municipalities with localized LGBT protections in employment, housing, etc. These are local versions of ENDA. Most notably, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, two Amazon finalists, have scores of 100 on the Human Rights Commission's Municipality Equality Index--which is the highest possible score. And a much more moderate state like PA isn't exactly passing bathroom bills--it just has a very stodgy and more-conservative-than-the-general-population-due-to-gerrymandering state legislature. In fact, that's likely true of many of these states.

Here's the thing. I completely understand and support the spirit of pushing states to move into the 21st Century of common sense civil rights protections with widespread support among the general populace. But I think there's a strong counter-argument to be made for Amazon to do the exact opposite of what NGNW is proposing. That is, locate in a state that is behind on civil rights protections as a method of being a change catalyst at the state level.

Think about it. Amazon could very easily add in a condition of locating HQ2 in Texas or Georgia the passage of a statewide ENDA law within, say, 1 year of its decision to locate its operations in said state. Not to mention, Amazon hiring tens of thousands of ostensibly "progressive" techies would no doubt have a not insignificant political effect on even the largest of states. However, the approach that NGNW is taking--that is, to essentially "guilt" Amazon into locating in state with ENDA protections already in place--is a complete waste of leverage and opportunity to "spread" the adoption of stronger civil rights laws.

It's the same mindset that causes partisan "sorting" and acute divisiveness in the US. That's a whole other topic, but SOMEONE has to begin to break up this absurd patchwork of varying policies among states once and for all. The case of Amazon could very easily prove the method for doing so.

[JManc]

Texas is backwards as hell but it is changing and changing pretty fast which is freaking out the establishment and they see the writing on the wall (which could explain a slew of wonky laws as of late) and Amazon can probably as well and could be willing to deal with a few years of BS before the state flips.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by JManc

Texas is backwards as hell but it is changing and changing pretty fast which is freaking out the establishment and they see the writing on the wall (which could explain a slew of wonky laws as of late) and Amazon can probably as well and could be willing to deal with a few years of BS before the state flips.

Is it really changing that quickly? Trump won Texas comfortably. I know Ted Cruz is increasingly unpopular. I've heard a bit about the democrat (O'Rourke?) running against him. Does he stand a chance?

I don't know much about Texas politics at the state/local level. I know that Clinton carried core counties and the counties along the US-Mexico border, but Trump won big in suburban and rural counties. I do dream of a world where Texas is consistently blue. If Trump is around to seek re-election in 2020, Texas could very well flip. We'll see though. Once Florida is reliably blue, the Dems should hit Texas hard. Even if they can't win over the state legislature, they can certainly chip away at the GOPs hold.

If Amazon is truly concerned about the make-up of state legislatures and the electoral college, it'd be more strategic to put HQ2 in a state that is reliably blue or true swing state. Ohio or even Pennsylvania would be a better choice from that perspective. Texas is still very much a gamble.

[JManc]

Trump won Texas by 52%. Hardly a blowout. Hillary is loathed here yet still grabbed 43%.

In 2012, Romney, a meh candidate, beat Obama, 57% to 41%.