Amazon HQ2 thread

[Nomad9]

Originally Posted by 10023

The Seattle “head tax” passed despite Amazon being the big fish locally. I doubt they’re thinking about it that way. They’re not looking to be like Wal-Mart in Bentonville. Even in Nashville or Raleigh, they wouldn’t be able to singlehandedly block something like that.

Maybe not, but it seems like similar measures are less likely to happen in a city like Raleigh or Nashville (or Atlanta, Dallas, etc.). The political climate tilts more in Amazon’s favor than someplace like Philly or Boston, IMO.

Other than a DC area site, I think Atlanta would be my next guess. Wouldn’t hurt to have huge operations in an a state with an increasingly strong film/tv studio presence given Amazon’s foray into streaming.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by Nomad9

Maybe not, but it seems like similar measures are less likely to happen in a city like Raleigh or Nashville (or Atlanta, Dallas, etc.). The political climate tilts more in Amazon’s favor than someplace like Philly or Boston, IMO.

Other than a DC area site, I think Atlanta would be my next guess. Wouldn’t hurt to have huge operations in an a state with an increasingly strong film/tv studio presence given Amazon’s foray into streaming.

Who knows, but it seems that the smaller the city, the more that city is going to try to get from Amazon and the larger the city, the more Amazon is going to try to get from that city.
This whole exercise will work if the city that is selected is one in which both parties can get what they need from each other and not be adversarial about it. Win/win I think they call it.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Nomad9

Maybe not, but it seems like similar measures are less likely to happen in a city like Raleigh or Nashville (or Atlanta, Dallas, etc.). The political climate tilts more in Amazon’s favor than someplace like Philly or Boston, IMO.

Other than a DC area site, I think Atlanta would be my next guess. Wouldn’t hurt to have huge operations in an a state with an increasingly strong film/tv studio presence given Amazon’s foray into streaming.

I don’t agree. I think these Northeastern and Midwestern cities are more left-leaning on social issues, but I don’t think that Chicago, for instance, is any less pro-business than any city in the South.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by 10023

I don’t agree. I think these Northeastern and Midwestern cities are more left-leaning on social issues, but I don’t think that Chicago, for instance, is any less pro-business than any city in the South.

Chicago is undoubtedly as probusiness as the South. I mean it's the center of neoliberal economic thought for Pete's sake... In fact, Chicago is probably more pro business, albeit in a special way, than just about anywhere in the country. As I said before, the government here has wide authority and centralized power to essentially run roughshod over anyone and anything resisting their agenda. This means that our bosses like Daley and Rahm will just will things into existence if it's deemed critical to the city or their political goals. If Amazon comes, don't expect any Yahoo aldermen to propose a head tax and get it passed. They might propose it but Rahm is an animal and will destroy them if they try to block him from winning this prize.

[skyscraperpage17]

Chicago proper may have a somewhat business friendly environment, but the problem is the state of Illinois does not (Chicago, being a creature of the state of Illinois, also gets a black mark because of this by association). In fact, it's frequently ranked among the least business friendly states along with Connecticut and California.

This is especially the case now with the state's financial problems. Even if Chicago/Illinois does bend over backwards for Amazon, do they (Amazon) really want to place their employees in an environment where the city/state may go bankrupt soon (which will mean much higher taxes and much poorer services for those workers in the not-so-distant future)?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Chicago is undoubtedly as probusiness as the South. I mean it's the center of neoliberal economic thought for Pete's sake... In fact, Chicago is probably more pro business, albeit in a special way, than just about anywhere in the country. As I said before, the government here has wide authority and centralized power to essentially run roughshod over anyone and anything resisting their agenda. This means that our bosses like Daley and Rahm will just will things into existence if it's deemed critical to the city or their political goals. If Amazon comes, don't expect any Yahoo aldermen to propose a head tax and get it passed. They might propose it but Rahm is an animal and will destroy them if they try to block him from winning this prize.

I think businesses largely don't want to deal with a big boss (Daley, Rahm), as appealing as it is in theory. They'd rather have consistency and checks and balances. That same boss can, tommorrow, become an enemy tyrant as soon as you rub him the wrong way.

Sorry, but it's time Chicago move away from this nonsense.

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Chicago is undoubtedly as probusiness as the South. I mean it's the center of neoliberal economic thought for Pete's sake... In fact, Chicago is probably more pro business, albeit in a special way, than just about anywhere in the country. As I said before, the government here has wide authority and centralized power to essentially run roughshod over anyone and anything resisting their agenda. This means that our bosses like Daley and Rahm will just will things into existence if it's deemed critical to the city or their political goals. If Amazon comes, don't expect any Yahoo aldermen to propose a head tax and get it passed. They might propose it but Rahm is an animal and will destroy them if they try to block him from winning this prize.

The problem for Chicago is, what you describe is a bad thing. You don't want government acting this way. the best thing government can do for business is to just get the hell out of the way and not picking the winners and losers.
what you describe is not pro-business. it is anti-business, authoritarian government run amok. there is nothing liberal, progressive, or good about it.

[iheartthed]

1. I still think Toronto and Boston are the frontrunners.
2. Considering the feedback about the Arlington site, I think an NYC area site has more favorable odds than I previous thought. But it will be Newark or Brooklyn, not Manhattan.
3. I'd give Chicago a slight edge over Philadelphia because I sense Chicago has better stats on attracting and retaining talent.
4. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that Atlanta or Dallas offer what they're looking for.
5. I also don't think D.C. is as much of a favorite as other people seem to believe.
6. Finally, I don't think it will go to any region that is smaller than Seattle.

[chicubs111]

If the list gets trimmed down to Top 5 I strongly believe it would be... Chicago, Boston, DC, Philly, NYC.. These are the big boys that really fit Amazons wants and needs... Toronto is impressive but i do not see Amazon having there second HQ in Cananda...no way

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by chicubs111

Toronto is impressive but i do not see Amazon having there second HQ in Cananda...no way

I'm rather surprised at the degree of opposition to a HQ2 going to Canada. For over a century Canadian firms, some of them quite big, have moved their only HQ to the US from Canada.

Montreal based Seagrams, once the world's largest liquor company, effectively moved its HQ to NYC. Lets not forget that the Seagrams building is in NYC not Montreal. Vancouver based Lions Gate Films, our largest film studio, is now based in LA. When Molson and Coors merged the HQ was put in Denver rather than Montreal. Toronto based Thomson-Reuters is now run out of Connecticut. These are very big companies for a country the size of Canada.

It's a loss to this country but in the end companies go where they perceive they can have the best success. The Amazon move isn't even a company leaving the US, but setting up a 2nd HQ. It seems it's fine when companies move to the US, but not when it happens in the other direction.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

The problem for Chicago is, what you describe is a bad thing. You don't want government acting this way. the best thing government can do for business is to just get the hell out of the way and not picking the winners and losers.
what you describe is not pro-business. it is anti-business, authoritarian government run amok. there is nothing liberal, progressive, or good about it.

And that might matter if Amazon showed anything approaching a principled stance on idealized government. But it hasn't. It's been as self-centered and willing to suckle at the public teat as much as any other corporate welfare recipient.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by 10023

I don’t think that Chicago, for instance, is any less pro-business than any city in the South.

We do have annual lists of rankings that come out and for example, Illinois was 37th, right behind Arkansas in the Best states for Business in 2017. One of their factors are 'business costs' [labor, energy and taxes].

People have been voting with their feet.

Top few:
1) North Carolina
2) Texas
3) Utah
4) Nebraska
5) Virginia
6) Georgia
7) Florida

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by emathias

And that might matter if Amazon showed anything approaching a principled stance on idealized government. But it hasn't. It's been as self-centered and willing to suckle at the public teat as much as any other corporate welfare recipient.

^ Your point doesn't refute Skyscraper's. Any self-interest company is better off with stability than with a dictator-as-Mayor

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I'm rather surprised at the degree of opposition to a HQ2 going to Canada. For over a century Canadian firms, some of them quite big, have moved their only HQ to the US from Canada.

Montreal based Seagrams, once the world's largest liquor company, effectively moved its HQ to NYC. Lets not forget that the Seagrams building is in NYC not Montreal. Vancouver based Lions Gate Films, our largest film studio, is now based in LA. When Molson and Coors merged the HQ was put in Denver rather than Montreal. Toronto based Thomson-Reuters is now run out of Connecticut. These are very big companies for a country the size of Canada.

It's a loss to this country but in the end companies go where they perceive they can have the best success. The Amazon move isn't even a company leaving the US, but setting up a 2nd HQ. It seems it's fine when companies move to the US, but not when it happens in the other direction.

Canadian companies eventually outgrow Canada and head south to a market 10 times its size. The reverse really doesn't make much sense. That said, Toronto still a chance as we don't know what HQ2 will be.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

We do have annual lists of rankings that come out and for example, Illinois was 37th, right behind Arkansas in the Best states for Business in 2017. One of their factors are 'business costs' [labor, energy and taxes].

People have been voting with their feet.

Top few:
1) North Carolina
2) Texas
3) Utah
4) Nebraska
5) Virginia
6) Georgia
7) Florida

Different lists put different places on top. Some put costs, regulations, etc., at the top. Others switch it around...transit, education, air connections, ability to recruit top talent, etc.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

We do have annual lists of rankings that come out and for example, Illinois was 37th, right behind Arkansas in the Best states for Business in 2017. One of their factors are 'business costs' [labor, energy and taxes].

People have been voting with their feet.

Top few:
1) North Carolina
2) Texas
3) Utah
4) Nebraska
5) Virginia
6) Georgia
7) Florida

I don’t care about Illinois.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by 10023

I don’t care about Illinois.

Lol, you should though! An economically viable metro east would be a major boost. There may also be some potential within the Champaign/Urbana and Bloomington/Normal corridor.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Your point doesn't refute Skyscraper's. Any self-interest company is better off with stability than with a dictator-as-Mayor

What's more stable than two all powerful mayor's total in the past 30 years? The city that works does not change, the system here has been entrenched and predictable since the gangland era. It may be radically immoral, but it's extremely effective for the big corporations.

Originally Posted by emathias

And that might matter if Amazon showed anything approaching a principled stance on idealized government. But it hasn't. It's been as self-centered and willing to suckle at the public teat as much as any other corporate welfare recipient.

I was going to say... Since when is anywhere in the USA a functioning social democracy? Everyone is acting as if these sun belt or Coastal cities are so principled and fair. Meanwhile this subforum is constantly peppered with stories of oligaric corporate bribery, Ill advised "social policies", and governments passing stone age regulations on corporations that toe the line on social issues. Wake up people, this entire country is run by entrenched interests whether it's corporate handouts or legal bribery to the lower classes in the form of social handouts. You can't tell me that Chicago is somehow worse than the delusional places that operate under the pretense that they are somehow morally pure and removed from the Spectre of special interest groups.

At least Chicago is open and honest about how things work. There is no delusion here that you don't have to buy votes with "social programs" in poor neighborhoods and that the city won't bend over backwards to bring another corporate overlord into the circle.

I think corporations would rather have Rahm felating them than swarms of entitled legislaters passing head taxes on them, instituting rent control, or slapping them for dropping NRA discounts. Talk about instability subjecting yourself to the whims of the masses when you can just go somewhere where dissent is not tolerated. Also what would motivate a mayor like Rahm to suddenly turn on a corporate patron like Amazon? Name one example of any of Chicagos bosses doing anything even remotely punative to one of our Titans of industry? It just doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

We do have annual lists of rankings that come out and for example, Illinois was 37th, right behind Arkansas in the Best states for Business in 2017. One of their factors are 'business costs' [labor, energy and taxes].

People have been voting with their feet.

Top few:
1) North Carolina
2) Texas
3) Utah
4) Nebraska
5) Virginia
6) Georgia
7) Florida

Yeah yeah, we all know the narrative. No one is disputing the suckiness of Illinois, but the facts on the ground in the city of Chicago don't lie. Tech startups are sprouting everywhere. Corporate headquarters are pouring into downtown. Entire quadrants of the city are being redeveloped. Everyone in the crypto currency industry is relocating here to be where the only financial institutions that have legitamized their markets are. We have some of the best food and theater scenes in the world right now. Tourism numbers are shattering records year after year. Obviously there is something going on in Chicago that can't be qualified in terms of Uhaul trailer counts, shitty Barron's rankings, or click bait "news".

[Doady]

Trump already hates Amazon a lot as is. Now imagine if they went against his "America first" agenda and chose Toronto as HQ2. He'd go ballistic. So I think we can safely forget about Toronto in this discussion.

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I think corporations would rather have Rahm felating them than swarms of entitled legislaters passing head taxes on them, instituting rent control, or slapping them for dropping NRA discounts.

What they're saying is that if Rahm drops dead tomorrow, those companies have no idea who's going to take over, and it can very easily go against them. Meanwhile, in places that don't depend on one person so much, that fear evaporates.