Cities' Offers For Amazon Base Are Secrets Even To Many City Leaders (nytimes.com) 142
The location for Amazon's second headquarters is shrouded in secrecy, so much so that many city leaders are unaware of the financial incentives their cities used to entice Amazon (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). The New York Times reports: Across the country, the search for HQ2, as the project has been nicknamed, is shrouded in secrecy. Even civic leaders can't find out what sort of tax credits and other inducements have been promised to Amazon. And there is a growing legal push to find out, because taxpayers could get saddled with a huge bill and have little chance to stop it. A primary reason for the information blackout is that, in many cases, the bids were handled by local private Chamber of Commerce affiliates or economic development groups that aren't required to make their negotiations public. Many of the groups are also not covered by Freedom of Information Act or state open-records requests.
But another reason is gamesmanship. Some cities say they want their Amazon proposals to remain confidential to avoid showing their hand to rivals. And Amazon required the finalists to sign nondisclosure agreements that forbid the local groups to release proprietary information about the company. With so much secrecy -- and bids like Austin's that involve unelected officials making promises -- there is the risk that taxpayers and their civic leaders will be forced to accept the proposed terms or live with turning down an enormously lucrative opportunity. Amazon, which is expected to make $235 billion in revenue this year, promises to bring the winning location up to 50,000 high-paying jobs and a $5 billion investment in construction.
But another reason is gamesmanship. Some cities say they want their Amazon proposals to remain confidential to avoid showing their hand to rivals. And Amazon required the finalists to sign nondisclosure agreements that forbid the local groups to release proprietary information about the company. With so much secrecy -- and bids like Austin's that involve unelected officials making promises -- there is the risk that taxpayers and their civic leaders will be forced to accept the proposed terms or live with turning down an enormously lucrative opportunity. Amazon, which is expected to make $235 billion in revenue this year, promises to bring the winning location up to 50,000 high-paying jobs and a $5 billion investment in construction.
Re: (Score:1)
Guys, guys... (Score:3)
Unelected Officials Usually Not Authorized to Act (Score:5, Insightful)
In my city, different chamber of commerces can promise whatever they want. The city is not bound to respect those promises. If city officials do not want to respect those concessions, I doubt they have to. Then Amazon can move down the list to another city, which likely will.
If I were Amazon, I would accept promises from all finalists, start with the best promises, and negotiate all deals in parallel. Then, it's possible to use concessions from one party against another party, even out of context. This is probably what Amazon is going to do, since they have people that have studied game theory more than I have working for them.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
my man you need to move to philly, chicago, detroit, i can go on
you get city councils - like a congress - with multi million dollar budgets per counselor who do jack shit but take bribes and dump hard drives in rivers
you think a foia request is gonna get a word doc out of a river
captcha: downfall
lol
Re: Unelected Officials Usually Not Authorized to (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this instead, all should be treated equally under law and that includes taxation laws. If those fuckers can get local and state tax exemptions, why the fuck can't the rest of the population get them, hardly fucking equal. I want federal laws that ban tax holidays for tax cheats that pay offshore tax haven bribes to local and state government politicians and political appointees. It should be fucking illegal under law because it treats them differently, it taxes the richest the least and the poorest the most, how fucking corrupt is that.
Laws, one in all in, all pay tax at the same rates on the same income, property tax at the same rate for the property value. No insurance subsidise for underwaterfront property, you got you sick psycho jollies from excluding the poor from the beach, now sink with it.
As for tax havens, fuck em, bankrupt them, kill their currency and ban all repatriations of cash from those locations. Force that stolen income, stolen from the taxes we have to pay, into the local valueless currency. Do no know destroying all the money in tax havens, actually makes all the money outside of tax havens worth much more. Destroy the tax havens, lets see laws with real bite.
One set of tax rules, no fucking cheating, earn more, pay more because you fucking cunts, you are getting a bigger reward from society, so you should pay more.
Sure, here's an equal deal for you (Score:3)
We'll give you the exact same deal.
You spend $5 billion developing local real estate and provide 50,000 high paying jobs here in Dallas, we'll make it easier for you to bring $5 billion here by deferring the property taxes for a few years.
Re:Sure, here's an equal deal for you (Score:4, Insightful)
We'll give you the exact same deal.
You spend $5 billion developing local real estate and provide 50,000 high paying jobs here in Dallas, we'll make it easier for you to bring $5 billion here by deferring the property taxes for a few years.
The point is that a city shouldn't be allowed to reduce or defer property tax or any other tax for a single entity. They shouldn't be making any kind of deals with a private person or organization. Something like "we'll build a road out to your new place" or "we'll increase the capacity of our sewer system to accomodate the new people" is one thing but the deals that cities make by giving away property tax or sales tax is extremely unethical and they end up cutting each other's throats. It shouldn't be legal.
The Washington, DC way of doing it (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand where you are coming from.
Like it or not, other cities WILL encourage investment and jobs by waiting on the property taxes, so unless YOUR city does the same, or is otherwise very attractive, your city won't get the 50,000 jobs. Fortunately, it ends up working out well most of the time, which is good because there is no way to make it illegal. Congress shows us why.
Congress of course passes thousands of pages of tax law. Taxes vary based on hundreds, if not thousands, of factors. The government can of course set different tax rebates and such for base load power plants than for companies who talk about one day making solar panels. Without a Constitutional amendment, it's legal to say solar power companies get a 250% tax credit. Unwise maybe, but perfectly legal. They can institute a tax on building new buildings, or a tax credit for building new facilities. Perhaps building a new factory over 100,000 square feet gets you a $500,000 tax credit.
Following that line of thought, if they can give solar panel companies a negative tax, and they can hand out a tax credit for new construction, they can of course write a tax credit for "solar panel companies who build new factories" (no actual production of solar panels required).
One could intelligently argue that it should be a flat, equal tax for everyone. That would mean deleting 99.99% of the tax code. One could also intelligently argue that the government may make the tax laws arbitrarily complex. What doesn't make sense is to say "it should be illegal for them to write various different rules, for different situations, except for all the ones I like. It should be legal to give billions to companies who have "green" or "solar" in their name, but illegal to allow natural gas companies to deduct their expenses just like every other business in the country". Make sense? Either they can make complex tax law, favoring some groups, or they can't.
Congress passed a law with special treatment for "recycling companies founded in 1913 in Kenosha, Wisconsin". Of course, there was approximately one family owning company which met those conditions. Shockingly, that family had donated a bunch of money to the Congressman who wrote the clause.
If the government can make different tax laws for different *groups* of people or companies, if they can favor any group or industry, they can combine those to favor arbitrarily small groups, down to single individuals or companies.
Either you have a flat tax where everyone pays the same rate, or you let the politicians decide who pays what. They're clever enough (or their donors lawyers are clever enough) to write the rules to benefit the particular donor if you let them write the rules at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The solar panel tax credit is likely flawed. It makes sense for the government to capture externalities via the tax code, which means for "green" energy, the best solution would be just to tax non-green energy sources (e.g. carb
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that a city shouldn't be allowed to reduce or defer property tax or any other tax for a single entity.
Yes they should, and can (and sometimes must) *if* that benefits the community substantially. Job creation and the ability to attract magnet companies that net thousands of high paying jobs is part of a local government's jobs. Each one of those jobs have a "magnifying" effect of creating between 7 to 10 more jobs (read Enrico Moretti's "The New Geography of Jobs."
The operative word here is *if*. The benefits must be tangible and the expectations reasonable. It makes no sense to defer property tax (or oth
Re: (Score:2)
Job creation and the ability to attract magnet companies that net thousands of high paying jobs is part of a local government's jobs.
The way to attract businesses is to improve your infrastructure so that your city is more attractive. Doing things like improving your roads, your parks, etc... Even something like increasing the length of your runway so that larger planes can land falls or training locals so they are more qualifies for jobs falls under the ability to attract companies. I'm even ok with a limited amount of lobbying and talking up your town to businesses but you shouldn't be paying a business to set up shop in your town o
Re: (Score:3)
Of cou
What's the however? What are you proposing? (Score:1)
What exactly are you proposing? Bring more small businesses to town by having proportionately greater incentives to move into your city? Should your city offer me a 10 year property tax deferral to get me to bring my three-person company to wherever you live? Do you think that would work to get me to move?
We probably both see how ridiculous this conversation is:
Fred: Trump shouldn't be recklessly tweeting whatever comes to his mind. What a US president says impact, in the US and around the world.
Bob: That
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
LMOL you really are a moron aren't you. Corporation promise locate investment but don't follow through.
San Francisco Officials to Tech Workers: Buy Your Lunch https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... [nytimes.com]
All those workers who are suppose to go out into the communities are being kept on campus. So no Potsy cities you should not give tax break on the promise of hordes of workers going to the community when there is no intention of that to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a headquarters, not a warehouse (Score:2)
Amazon builds warehouses all the time. As in literally they are constantly building new warehouses. That's not national news.
This isn't a warehouse.
Re: Unelected Officials Usually Not Authorized to (Score:2)
Further, what do you care how the citizens of cities in which you do not reside choose to conduct their business? If so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about this instead, all should be treated equally under law and that includes taxation laws. If those fuckers can get local and state tax exemptions, why the fuck can't the rest of the population get them, hardly fucking equal.
{...}
One set of tax rules, no fucking cheating, earn more, pay more because you fucking cunts, you are getting a bigger reward from society, so you should pay more.
There's a disconnect there somewhere ... I thought you said you wanted everybody taxed equally?
OK, I'm on board ... what shall that equal tax rate be; 25%? 35%? And everybody pays it, right - even the minimum wage guy? NO exceptions or exemptions? For anybody, since we're being all equal and all?
What's that? No?
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, from the article.
“The only time the public may become aware if the city has promised Amazon incentives is if we win and then we need to get those incentives passed,” Mr. Evans said.
These groups can promise all they want, they don't write tax codes or spend government money. And one thing Amazon doesn't want to do is award to a city and then not have it pass.
Re: (Score:2)
The challenge is that Amazon will say, "We negotiated, we agreed, and this is the deal. Take it or we go over there"
The issue here is the lack of accountability in the negotiation.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is that a problem? Amazon wouldn't be in the second or third round of negotiations without that offer so the city would be out nothing they were not prepared to lose.
Re: (Score:2)
This is probably what Amazon is going to do, since they have people that have studied game theory more than I have working for them.
This is probably what Amazon is going to do, since they have no scruples.
FTFY
Private Affiliates? (Score:1)
A primary reason for the information blackout is that, in many cases, the bids were handled by local private Chamber of Commerce affiliates or economic development groups that aren't required to make their negotiations public. Many of the groups are also not covered by Freedom of Information Act or state open-records requests.
And yet those people have the authority to grant tax breaks/incentives? That don't seem right.
Re: (Score:3)
Pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Shopping around for factory sites has been going on for a long time. Obviously it's in commercial concerns' best interests to extract the best deal they can get. Heck, Ireland was pulling the same stunt with the entire country, using its status as a member state of the EU and coupling it with a low corporate tax rate, giving big tech firms the EU headquarters they needed along with a willing partner in laundering profits made in the Common Market through what amounted to a nation-wide tax haven. Obviously this went against the spirit of the Common Market, and the EU has shut it down and ordered Ireland to collect the taxes it should have been all along, but sadly such mechanisms don't exist everywhere. It certainly happens in the US and Canada, where pressure is put on state/provincial and municipal governments to drop the tax revenues down, and of course, governments will extract these commitments to do blah blah blah for lots of years, but when it becomes convenient to pull up stakes and move to another jurisdictions even more willing to whore themselves in the race to the bottom, they'll walk anyways.
Re:Pathetic (Score:5, Informative)
They have also bilked my country out of something like $375 million (local dollars) over the last 15 years or so, even though nobody can actually determine that we get any sort of return on that "investment".
The last time Warner Bros. threatened to take a movie away from us, our government gave them $50 million extra and altered the employment laws to prevent local workers from taking industrial action if they didn't like the work conditions.
Apparently there are "jobs" involved.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that euroskeptics want the UK to be independent so that it can do deals like this free from the EU rules that currently prevent EU members from entering a race to the bottom.
There is a real danger that the UK will get into a race to the bottom with China and the US, while also getting locked out of the EU single market.
Re: (Score:2)
My response what have have been, what all of two jobs since Ireland is just a postal office box.
Such a fucking ass-hole.
Re: (Score:1)
Self employed is the enemy of the union.
Re: (Score:2)
This is pathetic, we live in a society where we need to beg corporations to open offices and employee us! What a privilege it must be to have a job! To have the opportunity to trade our most precious commodity, time, for money!
Money is a claim on other people's labor and goods, so yes, you do need to exchange something for it. What's wrong with that?
If you've got something more valuable (to people who have money) on hand than your time, don't worry; there are folks who'd be glad to exchange money for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Olympics (Score:3)
I doubt they'd bother (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks to our right leaning SCOTUS we're pretty boned for at least the next 40 years. Maybe longer.
But you're right about one thing: it's exactly like the Olympics. The last thing on Earth you want to do is 'win' the right to host it. It's going to be a gian
Re:I doubt they'd bother (Score:5, Interesting)
in America due to a Supreme Court ruling (Citizens United) political corruption is explicitly legal. Money is speech here
You should actually read the decision, rather than repeating falsehoods. Citizens United said nothing like that. I don't know how that sad meme got started, but it just makes you look foolish to repeat it.
The Citizens United ruling said that closely held corporations have the same rights as partnerships - if a small group of people want to pool their money to engage in political advocacy, it doesn't matter whether they incorporate or not. The First Amendment is pretty clear about the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government.
Nothing at all to do with public corporations.
And have you really thought through your "money is speech" rant? Jeff Bezos can buy the Washington Post if he wants his voice to be heard. You can buy an ad in the Post. Do you really want it to be legal for Bezos, but illegal for you? You think that will help?
I'm well aware the actual ruling was rather narrow (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
most campaign finance laws no longer hold up post CU
Correlation, causation, etc. CU is not the basis for the problem. The government policing itself it the problem.
And, again, it's not clear that "PAC money", in a general sense, is in any way unconstitutional. The Constitution in no way put a limit on the amount of your personal resources you devote to political advocacy. There are actually some laws against normal corporations donating directly to PACs, but they don't accomplish anything with the fox guarding the henhouse and all.
I'm not sure how we un-
The dark money started immediately after CU (Score:1)
This isn't correlation, this is blindingly obvious results of stuffing our courts with right wing, pro-corporate ideologues for 40+ years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Citizens United ruling said that closely held corporations have the same rights as partnerships - if a small group of people want to pool their money to engage in political advocacy, it doesn't matter whether they incorporate or not. The First Amendment is pretty clear about the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government.
Nothing at all to do with public corporations.
Funny how those "closely held corporations" aren't bound by the 3k per person limit that everyone else is. I have no problem with a small group of people pooling their money but they should have the same campaign limits as individuals. I would like it to go one step further and if someone gives money to a union, the NRA, etc... and that company donates on their behalf then it should count again their 3k limit as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how those "closely held corporations" aren't bound by the 3k per person limit that everyone else is. I have no problem with a small group of people pooling their money but they should have the same campaign limits as individuals. I would like it to go one step further and if someone gives money to a union, the NRA, etc... and that company donates on their behalf then it should count again their 3k limit as well.
You, and closely held corporations, and PACs, are held to rather small limits ($3k, $5k) when donating directly to a candidate. There's no limit on you, or organizations, to run "this message was not endorsed by any candidate" ads. Feel free to spend as much as you like that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should there be any such limits on individual spending?
So Jeff Bezos buys the Post and uses it for political advocacy. That's it precisely centered on "freedom of the press". Running your own newspaper for political advocacy is exactly what "freedom of the press" means.
So, again, is it OK for Bezos, but not OK for me to buy a $5k ad in the Post? You think that's a good thing?
Re:I doubt they'd bother (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It that wrong, though? Should each citizen be able to spend as much as he likes to support the politics of his choice? How is that "corruption"?
You can bet that quid pro quo corruption is very common, and cracking down on that would make a huge difference to US politics without infringing on anyone's rights. Sadly, there's almost no enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is that people with money have a disproportionate amount of power. If Bezos can personally buy a national newspaper to amplify his opinions and all you can do is save up to place a little ad in there one time, that doesn't seem very democratic.
As for corporations, we have seen time and time again that they act like sociopaths and it's generally a bad thing when they own too much of the media. The First Amendment guarantees your right to say stuff, it doesn't guarantee your right to own all the med
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, AmiMoJo, we already know from hundreds of posts about the topic that you don't support freedom of speech. So of course you'd say it's not OK to buy a newspaper and use it for political advocacy. Here in the USA we're attached to our hard-won freedom from Brits telling us we shouldn't have freedom of the press. We won that war, so kindly bugger off.
Re: (Score:2)
in America due to a Supreme Court ruling (Citizens United) political corruption is explicitly legal. Money is speech here and virtually all campaign finance laws get shot down as a result (despite literally centuries of case law to the contrary).
Distributing speech does indeed cost money - unless you want to be at the mercy of big corps like Facebook to distribute it for you. I'm sure that will be fairly and unbiased-ly done; such a corp would never promote those it prefers and suppress those it does not!
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, yes; Wikipedia says the same thing about Communism. That lie tells everyone that socialism and communism are methods of political control. They are a means of controlling capital: with socialism distributing profits to all stakeholders; with communism sending profits to the government (making government, the owners in practice).
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it's not socialism. Socialism is government control of the means of production. Anyone tells you anything else, he's lying.
Actually, it’s not government but a collective control of production, distribution, etc. of production by the people. Marx saw it as the step between capitalism and communism. The two have been seen as the same in common usage, with socialism being government providing goods and services. Call government giving tax breaks etc. what you want but whatever you call it the biggest welfare queens in the country are corporations.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What!! Negative. Socialism is not government services. Socialism is government control of the means of production. End of story. That's literally what it is.
No, It is not; socialism is collective control, such as a kibbutz. The term socialism has been misused, especially in the US, that most folks don’t understand its true meaning and how it figured in Marx’s economic theory.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, exactly: government control of the means of production. That's socialism. Schools, roads, police: not socialism.
We clearly disagree on the definition of government vs collective control. For example, government control of power production is not socialism, a group of farmers who create their own power generation capacity and exercise collective control of its use is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or perhaps like Disneyland and Anaheim?
http://www.latimes.com/project... [latimes.com]
But those sweet minimum wage jobs...
What else does it promise to bring? (Score:5, Interesting)
...promises to bring the winning location up to 50,000 high-paying jobs and a $5 billion investment in construction.
50,000 additional drivers adding to congestion on the streets and freeways? 50,000 jobs that perhaps need 50,000 more units of housing stock that don't exist yet, and which will drive up housing prices until the gap is closed. You can't build 50,000 houses and apartments overnight.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm all for the idea that jobs adding lanes to the freeways will be created. And other jobs building those houses and apartments. And if I lived there I'd love the idea that the value of the home I already own going up (even though it's not worth anything until someone else buys it.) But don't think that all those good things don't come without a lot of bad, or at best neutral, things.
Personally I'm pretty glad that "my city" dropped out of this race to the bottom. If the winning city gives tax concessions that result in the locals paying for all the infrastructure improvements while Amazon and Bezos laugh all the way to the bank then they have my sympathy on one hand, but also my disdain on the other for being so stupid.
If you ask me, the smartest thing all these cities could do would be to walk away, en mass. Let Amazon pick a city based on what it needs and the individual merits of the candidate city. And then the city that "wins" will have the power to say "Okay Amazon, here's what you're going to need to do if you're going to bring 50,000 new jobs into this city.
But they won't.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the cities/areas on the list have some type of public transportation. For instance, DC, Mongomery County MD and Northern VA have the Washington Metro (although, due to maintenance & safety issues it's use at your own risk).
DC’s, despite its issues is pretty good for getting a round the city but also expensive. If Amazon went there it would probably be for political clout since the cost of living is very high. Montgomery County is what, $500k for a condo near the Metro?
Elko, Nevada (Score:2)
Instead of negotiating for tax breaks in shitty cities, just pick a place that already has decent taxes and cost of living. I suggest any nice town in any decent state. Amazon has already set up a warehouse in Fernley, NV. That's a nice city, so what's wrong with that for HQ? Dunno, so let's go down Highway 80 and Elko looks good. There is plenty of cheap land, but still a real city core. I am sure Elko would be glad to add a company that was not about gambling.
Re: (Score:1)
Personally, I think Amazon's HQ2 will be in the DC area (Bezos owns the major news outlet in the area and a $25 million house) or Denver (central location).
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of negotiating for tax breaks in shitty cities, just pick a place that already has decent taxes and cost of living. I suggest any nice town in any decent state. Amazon has already set up a warehouse in Fernley, NV. That's a nice city, so what's wrong with that for HQ? Dunno, so let's go down Highway 80 and Elko looks good. There is plenty of cheap land, but still a real city core. I am sure Elko would be glad to add a company that was not about gambling.
A nice town on a supposedly decent state with nice taxes is not enough for attracting (and keeping) tech talent. Read Enrico Moretti's "The New Geography of Jobs". The mechanics that make such work possible are all about demographic agglomeration.
Will the contract go both ways? (Score:2)
Typically, yes. Watch out for bankruptcy (Score:2)
Typically, yes, the contracts would have such clauses.
Where those can fall through is when a small city brings in a upstart, relatively small company and they end up going bankrupt within the three years or so that it would be painful.
Amazon isn't likely to go bankrupt any time soon, so not much to worry about there. They can afford to pay taxes due and any penalties if their plans change.
I mentioned small companies. Once on a while a somewhat larger company can be a fad too. A company whose stock sells for
I have a tough time believing... (Score:1)
That any chamber of commerce has any power whatsoever to make binding commitments on behalf of the city it's in.
At most I can see them being front men and women that go to the City Council and the mayor and say "we think you should do this.
$5 billion in construction? LOL (Score:2)
Might just as well pay the Mafia that money directly and use existing facilities.
race to the bottom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
An actual legitimate use of the interstate commerce clause.
Except, then in the real world, Amazon gets to negotiate with congress on collecting sales tax as if it's some sort of game. A game of Gods.
The consumers, workers, and small businesses suffering at every turn of course, and Jeff Bezos profiting at every turn off our suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
This race to the bottom will only be stopped by Federal laws against special exemptions. Amazon is big enough without special perks thank you.
Except Congress likes to give them as well, such as an earmark, excuse me directed spending, to give money for a road sonWalMart builds in their district instead of next door or a tax break for a corporation, that theoretically anyone can get except only one company matches the specific requirements in the tax break.
Re: (Score:2)
This race to the bottom will only be stopped by Federal laws against special exemptions. Amazon is big enough without special perks thank you.
I absolutely guarantee, right now without having to read it, that any such Federal law will be gotten around by the incredibly highly paid lawyers and accountants at big businesses all over the country.
Like Trans-Pacific Partnership (Score:2)
The TPP trade deal was negotiated over many years in great secrecy while denying the elected representatives of the negotiating nations the chance to see what was being negotiated on their behalf.
In the end, Trump refused to sign on, and the deal morphed into the CPTPP, an agreement between the non-USA members of the TPP, with a bunch of USA-insisted-on provisions being 'suspended'. CPTPP is not in force yet but looks like it is happening.
I am not at all an expert on any of this stuff. Corrections are welco
Efficiency (Score:2)
How about they plop the subsidized Amazon warehouse next to a subsidized Foxconn factory, and products can go right from factory to warehouse?
Re: (Score:2)
mars cheese castle can go up scale. also the high payed works and trucks can pay the new I-94 toll!
Re: (Score:2)
How about they plop the subsidized Amazon warehouse next to a subsidized Foxconn factory, and products can go right from factory to warehouse?
You might be trying to be sarcastic but have you ever seen or read how Dell's assembly plants work? You just described it in a nutshell.
A Bad Deal for the Community (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm certainly not against economic development, but don't become a serf to corporatism.
Jobs (Score:3)
Wait, up to 50.000 high-paying jobs? All I see are stories about how Amazon underpays their employees and how being a warehouse worker is dreadful. So, define high-paying I guess?
Re: (Score:2)
These are engineering positions. At Amazon, they tend to be high paid (as well as high hours and high turnover). This isn't some shitty warehouse.
Re: (Score:2)
These are engineering positions. At Amazon, they tend to be high paid (as well as high hours and high turnover). This isn't some shitty warehouse.
Indeed. I know people that work at Amazon as engineers. It's hard work and you get what you put in. Salaries are very, very nice.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, up to 50.000 high-paying jobs? All I see are stories about how Amazon underpays their employees and how being a warehouse worker is dreadful. So, define high-paying I guess?
I can't believe I have to explain this, but Amazon right now is more than Jeff Bezos + warehouse workers. Amazon actually has an HQ building where people have desk jobs. The idea is that HQ2 will have more of those desk jobs in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, up to 50.000 high-paying jobs? All I see are stories about how Amazon underpays their employees and how being a warehouse worker is dreadful. So, define high-paying I guess?
I can't believe I have to explain this, but Amazon right now is more than Jeff Bezos + warehouse workers. Amazon actually has an HQ building where people have desk jobs. The idea is that HQ2 will have more of those desk jobs in it.
Dude, believe it. This is a country with millions of anti-vaxxers and many millions who hated Obamacare but loved the ACA. \_()_/
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, up to 50.000 high-paying jobs? All I see are stories about how Amazon underpays their employees and how being a warehouse worker is dreadful. So, define high-paying I guess?
Because there's no differentiation between high-paying software engineer jobs and warehousing jobs. #rollseyes.
It's like Walmart. Walmart actually has an impressive software and R&D division with high paying jobs. We do not need a degree in Physics to know those jobs are not the same as those at the cashier lines, do we?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, up to 50.000 high-paying jobs? All I see are stories about how Amazon underpays their employees and how being a warehouse worker is dreadful. So, define high-paying I guess?
They said, "up to." Anything from zero to 50,000 high-paying jobs will satisfy that qualification without technically making them liars.
Promises from private organizations? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Local landowners, when property values soar, will win big.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes there is a problem with this model though. Eventually HQ moves somewhere else. Ask the folks in Wilkesboro about the impact of Lowe's moving to Moresville for example.
When you have one player representing to big a slice of your towns economy you have a recipe for implosion. Property values spike and existing owners make out until said corp leaves. Than you have a lot of people left holding property they can't sell. Nobody will buy a home in a place they can't get a job. In the mean time the town i
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they sell before the megacorp announces that it's leaving for a better deal somewhere else.
Re: (Score:3)
They're idiots if they don't setup in Toronto. More tech workers there now than in Silicon Valley, at a fraction of the wages, with a far less litigious civil system, while being outside the reach of US law makers and the biggest fish in a relatively small pond.
Re: (Score:2)
Toronto would actually be a good choice - there are direct flights worldwide from that airport for schmoozing officials everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think Amazon wants "tech workers"? They want wage slaves. Actual skills are immaterial to 9/10 jobs they will be hiring for.
Re: (Score:2)
What is Amazon HQ2?
HQ2 will be the second Amazon headquarters in North America. We are looking for a location with strong local and regional talent—particularly in software development and related fields—as well as a stable and business-friendly environment to continue hiring and innovating on behalf of our customers.
https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UT... [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The guy pouring sawdust on vomit at Disneyland is a 'Cast Member", and the guy pressing the button to lock the lap bar in your cart is an "Imagineer".
McDonald's want bright, energetic team members with the skills and motivation to go out of their way to make your visit special!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but they're not using marketing bullshit, they're straight up saying they need software developers. I'm sure a chunk of the employees will be underpaid cleaning staff and such but they aren't building a distribution centre they're building a second administrative/development building.