Amazon HQ2

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

Any city they chose will have nimbys that fight them.

This is the reality Amazon is dealing with.

[drummer]

Yeah, that's true. I wonder how much she'll try to fight it though, in any case. She seems set on a no-growth mentality rather than healthy growth, that's for sure. But yes, Austin is not at all unique in NIMBY attitudes. And, to a degree, NIMBYism really begins with a desire to protect a city's identity and way of life, so there is some positive in discussion - so long as it's discussion and not merely trying to shout something down at all costs.

[Austin1971]

https://www.kxan.com/video/why-the-army-...e-to-come-here_20180824233135/1394121213

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by drummer

I wonder how much she'll try to fight it though

Nimby power is in the ability to say "no" when a developer/employer wants something. They can employ new city regs etc to slow progress, but that can backfire when affects the locals too. They have not tried to stop Google from adding 100's of jobs, or Facebook, or Oracle, etc....because they know they can't stop them, or even slow them. Those companies didn't ask them for anything-that I'm aware of.

Amazon probably always knew where they wanted to go, and ginned up their search for publicity and possibly increase the incentives offered by their favorite city. Austin won't have to offer much. Texas will offer plenty, and Austin's cost of living will take care of the rest. (paying 50,000 employees $50k+ less per year than Boston,DC area adds up quickly) Austin is a town that has plenty of room in the urban core now, and room for them to grow....and they can make a difference with their weight/money. Amazon can almost mold Austin into the urban city they desire.

Amazon would not choose a town and hope that they could convince a small cadre of people to allow them to relocate. I think we are giving the nimby's too much credit in this particular case.

They will complain, piss and moan, but in the end......I doubt Bezos will lose any sleep over Poole (or her equivalent in some other city).

I've raise my prediction from 33-50% to 50-67% that we got this.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

Nimby power is in the ability to say "no" when a developer/employer wants something. They can employ new city regs etc to slow progress, but that can backfire when affects the locals too. They have not tried to stop Google from adding 100's of jobs, or Facebook, or Oracle, etc....because they know they can't stop them, or even slow them. Those companies didn't ask them for anything-that I'm aware of.

Amazon probably always knew where they wanted to go, and ginned up their search for publicity and possibly increase the incentives offered by their favorite city. Austin won't have to offer much. Texas will offer plenty, and Austin's cost of living will take care of the rest. (paying 50,000 employees $50k+ less per year than Boston,DC area adds up quickly) Austin is a town that has plenty of room in the urban core now, and room for them to grow....and they can make a difference with their weight/money. Amazon can almost mold Austin into the urban city they desire.

Amazon would not choose a town and hope that they could convince a small cadre of people to allow them to relocate. I think we are giving the nimby's too much credit in this particular case.

They will complain, piss and moan, but in the end......I doubt Bezos will lose any sleep over Poole (or her equivalent in some other city).

I've raise my prediction from 33-50% to 50-67% that we got this.

I think you are overestimating the salary difference between Austin and other tech hubs. I work for a company based in Boston, and I can assure you that the employees here do not make $50k less for doing the same job. We have exactly the same salary bands.

The only area that pays substantially higher salaries in an apples to apples comparison is the Bay Area. After that you are looking more at "MIT grad working at Google vs. A&M grad working at NI" type of comparisons.

Where Austin's cost of living does factor is that talent wants to live here because they can buy a house and live a more comfortable life. So there is a recruitment value there. But I don't buy that Amazon would save all that much money on salaries, nor would they care frankly. Quality talent pays for itself.

[papertowelroll]

Also, regarding the location within Austin for a potential HQ2, if I were Amazon I would follow Indeed's approach of distributing the HQ amongst offices in different parts of the city. I actually think they should do that even with the current regional office.

Being located at the domain discourages a lot of potential employees located in south, east, and downtown Austin. While a downtown location is equally discouraging for those in the northern suburbs. Offices split between downtown, the Statesman, and Broadmoor would be outstanding, for instance.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

I think you are overestimating the salary difference between Austin and other tech hubs. I work for a company based in Boston, and I can assure you that the employees here do not make $50k less for doing the same job. We have exactly the same salary bands.

The only area that pays substantially higher salaries in an apples to apples comparison is the Bay Area. After that you are looking more at "MIT grad working at Google vs. A&M grad working at NI" type of comparisons.

Where Austin's cost of living does factor is that talent wants to live here because they can buy a house and live a more comfortable life. So there is a recruitment value there. But I don't buy that Amazon would save all that much money on salaries, nor would they care frankly. Quality talent pays for itself.

I understand what you are saying, but I still have a hard believing Amazon wouldn't rather hire in a "right to work" state with low union participation, no state taxes, and no city taxes, not to mention the cost of living.

Making $100k yr in Austin, I'm sure gets you more bang for your buck than Boston, or DC (the 2 of the 3 cities I believe are real contenders). As much as we all complain how difficult it is to get something done in Austin, I'll wager it is even harder in the E Coast cities.

Even if the number were $10K difference, that would be a half billion a year alone.

[abigdeal]

Originally Posted by drummer

Does anyone else think that Leslie Pool may try to kill any chance of Amazon coming if Austin were chosen?

100% chance of her trying to do this.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

I understand what you are saying, but I still have a hard believing Amazon wouldn't rather hire in a "right to work" state with low union participation, no state taxes, and no city taxes, not to mention the cost of living.

Making $100k yr in Austin, I'm sure gets you more bang for your buck than Boston, or DC (the 2 of the 3 cities I believe are real contenders). As much as we all complain how difficult it is to get something done in Austin, I'll wager it is even harder in the E Coast cities.

Even if the number were $10K difference, that would be a half billion a year alone.

Like I said, I do think the COL plays a factor in the sense that Amazon can use it to recruit people who are turned off by the exorbitant COL in SV or Seattle. Similarly, Austin's sunny weather may appeal to those who won't consider Seattle because of the gloom, etc.

What I don't think is that Amazon will pick Austin because they will save money on corporate salaries. Their problem is not "our people make too much money", it's "we need more talented employees to grow our business and it's too difficult to recruit them all to our office in Seattle".

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

Like I said, I do think the COL plays a factor in the sense that Amazon can use it to recruit people who are turned off by the exorbitant COL in SV or Seattle. Similarly, Austin's sunny weather may appeal to those who won't consider Seattle because of the gloom, etc.

What I don't think is that Amazon will pick Austin because they will save money on corporate salaries. Their problem is not "our people make too much money", it's "we need more talented employees to grow our business and it's too difficult to recruit them all to our office in Seattle".

Good point.

[Mentallect]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

I understand what you are saying, but I still have a hard believing Amazon wouldn't rather hire in a "right to work" state with low union participation, no state taxes, and no city taxes, not to mention the cost of living.

Making $100k yr in Austin, I'm sure gets you more bang for your buck than Boston, or DC (the 2 of the 3 cities I believe are real contenders). As much as we all complain how difficult it is to get something done in Austin, I'll wager it is even harder in the E Coast cities.

Even if the number were $10K difference, that would be a half billion a year alone.

Right to Work is a poison pill for the best and brightest which is why all the top tech companies are in liberal blue states. Top talent will not relocate in a stare where on a whim some psycho manager removes there livelihood because they are having a bad day. Right to Work is Right to Poverty.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Mentallect

Right to Work is a poison pill for the best and brightest which is why all the top tech companies are in liberal blue states. Top talent will not relocate in a stare where on a whim some psycho manager removes there livelihood because they are having a bad day. Right to Work is Right to Poverty.

That couldn't be more incorrect.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by Mentallect

Right to Work is a poison pill for the best and brightest which is why all the top tech companies are in liberal blue states. Top talent will not relocate in a stare where on a whim some psycho manager removes there livelihood because they are having a bad day. Right to Work is Right to Poverty.

Man I agree. I once had to fire an employee because the owner didn't like the way she looked. Used the, "It's just not working out" excuse. Still feel bad about that. Lost a career job, I think, because the company who bought our operation said they didn't pay my position as much as I was getting paid by the prior company. I said I would take a pay cut, but they thought I wouldn't be as productive with less pay. So out the door I went. Lost another job because my boss made it clear he wouldn't have hired me in the first place due to my age. My prior boss hired me for my skills. This guy at least was waiting for me to make a mistake so age discrimination was less obvious. This is certainly a fire by will state except if its discriminatory. I just don't see that slowing down people moving here to work. Almost as quickly as I lost one job, I found another. I would never work for a private employer or franchise again due to there is no corporate HR to appeal the firing to, and even then there's no guarantee of a positive resolution. But I'm not aware about laws in other states that protect employees any more than here though.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by the Genral

I just don't see that slowing down people moving here to work.

That's because medium and large companies and a lot of small companies have HR guidelines that don't allow people to be fired at will.
I have had to terminate several of my employees over the past few years for poor attendance, safety issues or poor performance, and we always have to have significant documentation in place before termination that is strong enough to hold up in court. The "right to work" concept is not much more than an idea in most cases.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Mentallect

Right to Work is a poison pill for the best and brightest which is why all the top tech companies are in liberal blue states. Top talent will not relocate in a stare where on a whim some psycho manager removes there livelihood because they are having a bad day. Right to Work is Right to Poverty.

Man, I gotta disagree with you. I've been an employer and an employee in Austin since '87. If we had unions, prices for EVERYTHING would be higher. And good luck getting rid of a bad employee......I owned a restaurant for 5 years, 1 bad employee can kill moral in a small company of 10. Best to be able to get rid of them asap. Hopefully they learn that there are consequences for their shitty behavior.

I think most of the tech companies have a good structure as it is....seems like the best talent come and go as they please, at least according to my friends in tech.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

Man, I gotta disagree with you. I've been an employer and an employee in Austin since '87. If we had unions, prices for EVERYTHING would be higher. And good luck getting rid of a bad employee......I owned a restaurant for 5 years, 1 bad employee can kill moral in a small company of 10. Best to be able to get rid of them asap. Hopefully they learn that there are consequences for their shitty behavior.

I think most of the tech companies have a good structure as it is....seems like the best talent come and go as they please, at least according to my friends in tech.

It's one thing to fire someone over poor performance but another to deny them the opportunity to ask for better working conditions or even improved pay where it is deserved. That is my issue with right to work laws, the name itself is completly misleading and gives all the power to the employer. It's just wrong.

But before this gets into a heated debate, let's just agree to disagree. This topic could go on and on and on. Whether it applies to what Amazon is looking for in a state could be a reasonable debate, however It will still be speculation until the announcement comes out.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

It's one thing to fire someone over poor performance but another to deny them the opportunity to ask for better working conditions or even improved pay where it is deserved. That is my issue with right to work laws, the name itself is completly misleading and gives all the power to the employer. It's just wrong.

But before this gets into a heated debate, let's just agree to disagree. This topic could go on and on and on. Whether it applies to what Amazon is looking for in a state could be a reasonable debate, however It will still be speculation until the announcement comes out.

I get your point.

[SkyPie]

Right to work doesn't stop unions, it just makes them have to justify their existence, which isn't always easy and is why unions are not prevalent in Texas. Most employers are not anxious to fire employees due to the training and recruiting costs that come with replacing somebody. Unions still have a place in some industries, but for the most part, they add little value to employees. The market realities of today dictate that employer's have to compete with each other to attract and retain talent by offering competitive pay and benefits.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by SkyPie

Right to work doesn't stop unions, it just makes them have to justify their existence, which isn't always easy and is why unions are not prevalent in Texas. Most employers are not anxious to fire employees due to the training and recruiting costs that come with replacing somebody. Unions still have a place in some industries, but for the most part, they add little value to employees. The market realities of today dictate that employer's have to compete with each other to attract and retain talent by offering competitive pay and benefits.

Exactly.

[Geckos_Rule]

Originally Posted by Mentallect

Right to Work is a poison pill for the best and brightest which is why all the top tech companies are in liberal blue states. Top talent will not relocate in a stare where on a whim some psycho manager removes there livelihood because they are having a bad day. Right to Work is Right to Poverty.

Speaking rather anecdotally as a 25 year old attorney, I never once thought about the fact that Texas has at-will employment (when it came to the decision of wanting to work in Austin), and I would wager a large amount that none of my law school classmates thought about it either. Many of them are indeed the "best and the brightest" and I don't think labor laws played even 1% into the choice of what firm to work for or what city to move to. Whereas a lack of state income tax, as well as pure salary amount amounted for about 75% of the "which city to I want to work in" decision. The other 25% is a mix of "how cool is this city" and availability of specific work in a specific area of law.

Just my 2 cents, but I wouldn't be surprised if this mindset is that of a number of other young people outside of the legal field as well. Many/most of my peers have never really thought about how their employer could fire them.