Amazon HQ2 thread

[10023]

People in Atlanta think that Chik-fil-A is good food. Case closed.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by chris08876

The impact to the local economy alone is worth it. 50,000+ jobs long-term wise is a great asset. The impact towards the local businesses, the potential housing that may be built as a result of it. It all starts to add up.

Suppose the move long-term caused an increase in the local GDP by 2%, that alone is worth the bidding.

Which is why I'd like to see more cities becoming competitive and offer perks to allocate space from the suburbs into the core. Speaking generally here.

How do we know that Amazon can fulfill any of this?

I'm just saying: this sounds like the very same hubris of a booming company that has the "world at its fingertips" that we've seen before in America over and over again.

Growth is rarely linear. You eventually run into anti-trust and other realities. Will the 50,000 highly paid jobs really materialize? And even if they do, how many of those will simply be a replacement for jobs lost due to Amazon's existence to begin with?

I get that it's convenient for politicians to boast about Amazon and jobs, in order to get voted. But for the rest of us: people should really be considering these factors when weighing what incentives to offer them.

[chris08876]

^^^^^

There is always a risk in the grand scheme of things, but the odds are generally good. Its not like Amazon is plummeting in shareholder value and has a problem like Equinox or is a company with Enron type problems.

Its a good investment for "X" city with a high probability of return. Even if was just 30k jobs for sake of argument, its still a good deal. Just like if Google or Apple wanted to expand elsewhere, there's a very good chance of success.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by 10023

People in Atlanta think that Chik-fil-A is good food. Case closed.

It's good fast food. But nobody with any sense of taste would try to compare it with real food. Lol.

TIL there's an Atlanta style pizza. Actually, I'd put antico up against any deep dish out there

[a very long weekend]

^ we have the same thing happening in california with in & out. it's objectively bad food, but probably a bit better than jack in the box or carl's junior to most people (though i don't really think so).

[LouisVanDerWright]

So when will we know what their final decision is? This whole thing seemed to come out of nowhere and is moving very fast.

[James Bond Agent 007]

They said sometime next year. I'm wondering if even they (Amazon) don't know exactly when.

[Omaharocks]

I mean, this is Amazon we're talking about. Their whole business model is based on speed.

My guess is that they'll reach a decision earlier than expected, and when they can get a lot of attention/publicity, perhaps over the holidays.

[nature's calling]

Originally Posted by 10023

People in Atlanta think that Chik-fil-A is good food. Case closed.

Sending you love. And an order for new tastes buds xx

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by 10023

People in Atlanta think that Chik-fil-A is good food. Case closed.

I tried England's brand of fish and chips, and I'll take Chick-Fil-A (or even Waffle House) any day over that woefully unseasoned stuff.

But that's what makes people great. We all have our own taste in food.

[bnk]

"Chik-fil-A is good food" is not going to win it for
Amazon btw.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

They said sometime next year. I'm wondering if even they (Amazon) don't know exactly when.

I heard "early 2018."

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by 10023

Amazon has generated more aggregate wealth than all but a few companies in history. Cities quite rightly want a part of that.

That's not really accurate. Amazon has lost money in most quarters. I'm sure over the course of their existence they've lot money overall. You're right that they are worth a lot of money ON PAPER, but the vast majority of that valuation is based on predictions for the future. Predictions don't always come true. The stock market is very overvalued right now, do I need to remind you what happened to a lot of other highly valued money losing companies in 1999 when the market crashed? Will this happen to Amazon? Nobody knows, but it's a very real possibility.

Originally Posted by 10023

And huge "companies" have essentially run cities for as long as they have existed. They haven't always been limited liability companies (that was a 17th century invention), but there have been trade guilds (such as in the City of London) or wealthy families (such as the Medicis) far longer.

That may well be true but it's neither a moral nor an economic argument. I do understand that argument that the wealthiest people and companies create jobs and therefore should pay the lowest taxes. However there is actually quite a bit of economic evidence that this is not the case and that small business is more an incubator of innovation and that wealthy individuals don't so much create wealth as take wealth from others. That's the economic argument and no matter which way you fall on that there is also a moral argument about whether it morally makes sense for the less well off to pay taxes which go to subsidize the most well off.

Originally Posted by 10023

Also, if we are really talking about 50k six-figure jobs, then the winning city will collect plenty of property, sales, and other taxes from Amazon's employees even if they don't pay a dime as a company; not to mention the ancillary businesses that would spring up around Amazon.

First off I'd bet my bottom dollar that many jobs never materialize and not at that income level. However, even if they do they would have materialized anyways whether they received subsidies or not so it's really just a case of the broken window fallacy since the opportunity cost of those billions of dollars in subsidizes is higher taxes on other businesses driving them out of the region. There's no free lunch.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^^^

There is always a risk in the grand scheme of things, but the odds are generally good. Its not like Amazon is plummeting in shareholder value and has a problem like Equinox or is a company with Enron type problems.

Its a good investment for "X" city with a high probability of return. Even if was just 30k jobs for sake of argument, its still a good deal. Just like if Google or Apple wanted to expand elsewhere, there's a very good chance of success.

There's a list a mile long of states that gave out subsidies to big business only to see those businesses go back on all their promises. Even when jobs are created is paying $100,000+ in subsidies per job really worth it?

As for Enron, how would any of us know if Amazon had that sort of problems? Enron was as much or more of a business darling when it was going strong as Amazon is now. Everyone thought they were the smartest, most innovative company until we all found out they weren't.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^^^

There is always a risk in the grand scheme of things, but the odds are generally good. Its not like Amazon is plummeting in shareholder value and has a problem like Equinox or is a company with Enron type problems.

Its a good investment for "X" city with a high probability of return. Even if was just 30k jobs for sake of argument, its still a good deal. Just like if Google or Apple wanted to expand elsewhere, there's a very good chance of success.

Besides, life would be pretty boring if there were no risks with everything we do.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

There's a list a mile long of states that gave out subsidies to big business only to see those businesses go back on all their promises. Even when jobs are created is paying $100,000+ in subsidies per job really worth it?

As for Enron, how would any of us know if Amazon had that sort of problems? Enron was as much or more of a business darling when it was going strong as Amazon is now. Everyone thought they were the smartest, most innovative company until we all found out they weren't.

Sarbanes-Oxley ensures that's very unlikely. And if it were happening, Jeff Bezos would be a broke man overnight while becoming accustomed to his new home inside a jail cell.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

^ we have the same thing happening in california with in & out. it's objectively bad food, but probably a bit better than jack in the box or carl's junior to most people (though i don't really think so).

You're crazy. In n out is fantastic

[10023]

Originally Posted by cabasse

It's good fast food. But nobody with any sense of taste would try to compare it with real food. Lol.

TIL there's an Atlanta style pizza. Actually, I'd put antico up against any deep dish out there

There is much better "fast food", if we're talking about actual speed of service and don't actually mean "large chain with consistency between locations and a national TV advertising budget".

In-N-Out sucks too. "Better than McDonald's" is nothing to brag about.

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I tried England's brand of fish and chips, and I'll take Chick-Fil-A (or even Waffle House) any day over that woefully unseasoned stuff.

But that's what makes people great. We all have our own taste in food.

What on earth is England's "brand" of fish and chips? There are literally tens of thousands of places serving fish and chips of varying quality. I don't doubt you had a bad one.

Waffle House is vomit inducing.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by chris08876

The impact to the local economy alone is worth it. 50,000+ jobs long-term wise is a great asset. The impact towards the local businesses, the potential housing that may be built as a result of it. It all starts to add up.

Worth it to whom? Numerous studies have cast doubt on the notion that corporate welfare is a good idea.

Just Google "Is corporate welfare worth it?". First all, the promised jobs may never materialize and those that do may be filled by people not currently residing in the subsidizing geographic area who may not even be qualified for most of them. Then there are the infrastructure and other costs in addition to the subsidies. Also the negative impacts for current residents on trafffic and other quality-of-life factors. The national unemployment rate is already at full employment levels. In my city, it's under 3%. If we got 50,000 new jobs, who'd take them? It we got 50,000 new people over a short period of time to take them, the city could enter gridlock territory. As usual, cue the "San Francisco is different" chorus, but not that different really. Not in this case.

[10023]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

That's not really accurate. Amazon has lost money in most quarters. I'm sure over the course of their existence they've lot money overall. You're right that they are worth a lot of money ON PAPER, but the vast majority of that valuation is based on predictions for the future. Predictions don't always come true. The stock market is very overvalued right now, do I need to remind you what happened to a lot of other highly valued money losing companies in 1999 when the market crashed? Will this happen to Amazon? Nobody knows, but it's a very real possibility.


That may well be true but it's neither a moral nor an economic argument. I do understand that argument that the wealthiest people and companies create jobs and therefore should pay the lowest taxes. However there is actually quite a bit of economic evidence that this is not the case and that small business is more an incubator of innovation and that wealthy individuals don't so much create wealth as take wealth from others. That's the economic argument and no matter which way you fall on that there is also a moral argument about whether it morally makes sense for the less well off to pay taxes which go to subsidize the most well off.


First off I'd bet my bottom dollar that many jobs never materialize and not at that income level. However, even if they do they would have materialized anyways whether they received subsidies or not so it's really just a case of the broken window fallacy since the opportunity cost of those billions of dollars in subsidizes is higher taxes on other businesses driving them out of the region. There's no free lunch.

Back to the subject at hand...

I am not trying to make a moral argument either way. But to stress the moral aspects of this is to misunderstand what cities are. A city is a concentration of economic activity... they exist for and because of big business interests.

And in any event, taxes are paid by individuals and business that are making money. The poor don't pay much in taxes on an absolute basis, certainly not enough to be subsidizing anyone.

Lastly, we'll have to see how the winning city's incentives are structured, but most tax breaks would be dependent on the size of the operation. If this thing fizzles and ends up being nowhere near the scale and impact being promised by Amazon, then the incentives are likely to be worth much less as well.