Amazon Opens Search for Amazon HQ2

[barryem]

Originally Posted by rcentros

A relatively small town in the Fort Worth area recently "paid" Farmer Brothers to move their headquarters from California to Texas. They gave them a ten year tax abatement.

A tax abatement isn't quite the same thing as paying them. That just means they gave them a reduction on their property taxes. If they brought jobs into the community, even for 10 years, it might be a good deal for all involved. It really depends on the details.

Barry

[haertig]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

"Amazon hightailed it out of there so fast"

Wait, Amazon moved all 5k employees based in NYC to other locations?

Hint: When trying to be sarcastic, include the sarcasm smilie in your post, otherwise people might misinterpret that and think you lack cognitive ability and comprehension skills.

It should have been pretty obvious that I was talking about hightailing it out of the new headquarters agreement and not hightailing it out of every job in the state. Don't you agree?

[barryem]

Amazon would have been a financial boon to NYC according to all the analysis I've seen but it also would have increased living costs the way big tech companies do in other towns, including Seattle, so that a lot of people now living in NYC would no longer be able to afford to live there. Companies like this also increase homeless rates.

So it's all true. Amazon would have been a good thing for NYC and a bad thing for NYC.

A number of articles I've read point out that what Amazon has done was pretty much the same thing Google and other tech companies do when they open other offices. The difference was that Amazon did it very publicly and got themselves a lot of attention while the others do it more quietly.

I don't personally care if Amazon goes to New York. I wish the city well but they're pretty far down on the list of things I care about. I just hope they don't come here to Sheridan, Arkansas. It's a nice quiet little town and I like it that way.

Barry

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Some of you seem to be using the same faulty logic that AOC and other Amazon opponents did--framing the story as NYS and NYC handing over $3 billion that now can be used for something else. But the money was in tax breaks, not a handout. There's no pile of money that can be reassigned to something the opponents deem more worthy.

Not the first time AOC has applied faulty logic--remember her claim that a $21 trillion Pentagon accounting error could pay for Medicare for all?

I'm no fan of "AOC" but this wasn't all tax credits, unless a "grant" means something different than what I think it does. Amazon can afford to build their own place and pay the same taxes everyone else has to pay. They're one of the richest corporations in the world. Why should they be given an unfair advantage?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by barryem

A tax abatement isn't quite the same thing as paying them. That just means they gave them a reduction on their property taxes. If they brought jobs into the community, even for 10 years, it might be a good deal for all involved. It really depends on the details.

Basically the same. It was 90% tax abatement on property taxes for ten years. Meanwhile the property owners in this town had to pay for the improvements necessary to support Farmer Brothers' headquarters. And the workers (since this town is right next to major cities) probably won't even be coming from that small town. It's corporate welfare. If I started a business there I would have to pay full property taxes and not expect the citizens of the town to foot the bill for ten years. After ten years, I can just about guarantee that Farmer Brothers will either renegotiate for another abatement, or move on somewhere else. This is the way it's done now. There won't be any loyalty for the town bending over backwards for them.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Some of you seem to be using the same faulty logic that AOC and other Amazon opponents did--framing the story as NYS and NYC handing over $3 billion that now can be used for something else.

Well, my logic is that other companies, more committed to New York City than Amazon (for example, publishers!), will demand and get their own corporate welfare. The amount lost by publicizing willingness to pay corporate welfare indeed isn't $3 billion. I fear it is more.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

New York City has been "hollowing out" for decades. Check the number of Fortune 500 companies who have left versus those that have moved to NYC.

There has indeed been a regression to the mean in term of number of corporate headquarters per NYC capita.

But as for hollowing out:

Detroit has been hollowing out.

Philadelphia, alas, has been hollowing out.

New York City population is at a record high.

New York Public Library Overdrive - 148,258 eBooks (43,123 per million residents)

Brooklyn Overdrive - 128,945 eBooks (48,677 per million residents)

Philadelphia Overdrive - 29,264 (18,510 per million residents)

And, just sayin':

Houston Overdrive - 42,035 (18,173 per million residents)

This isn't the only metric to tell if a city is prosperous, but it's a good one one I like

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Well, my logic is that other companies, more committed to New York City than Amazon (for example, publishers!), will demand and get their own corporate welfare. The amount lost by publicizing willingness to pay corporate welfare indeed isn't $3 billion. I fear it is more.




There has indeed been a regression to the mean in term of number of corporate headquarters per NYC capita.

But as for hollowing out:

Detroit has been hollowing out.

Philadelphia, alas, has been hollowing out.

New York City population is at a record high.

New York Public Library Overdrive - 148,258 eBooks (43,123 per million residents)

Brooklyn Overdrive - 128,945 eBooks (48,677 per million residents)

Philadelphia Overdrive - 29,264 (18,510 per million residents)

And, just sayin':

Houston Overdrive - 42,035 (18,173 per million residents)

This isn't the only metric to tell if a city is prosperous, but it's a good one one I like

I should have been more precise in my language. I meant economically hollowing out. You can have a very populous city, but still very poor. Look at a number of third world cities. . .

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I'm no fan of "AOC" but this wasn't all tax credits, unless a "grant" means something different than what I think it does. Amazon can afford to build their own place and pay the same taxes everyone else has to pay. They're one of the richest corporations in the world. Why should they be given an unfair advantage?

On this I agree 100%! NY is already one of the most expensive states to live in, and I question if this move would truly benefit any of the lower/medium income people who already live there. My guess is no it wouldn't.

[haertig]

Most every large city offers tax advantages to large corporations considering relocating there. It's quite standard. That doesn't mean you have to like it, but it's what's happening these days. If a city wants a large business to consider them as a location, they're just going to have to offer tax incentives in most every case. Like it or not.

The same way football players can demand millions of dollars per year.

[j.p.s]

Lots of things that used to be standard are not done anymore.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Lots of things that used to be standard are not done anymore.

True. But when you overplay your hand and try to change things overnight, arguably as New York tried to do with Amazon, then you just get dumped. As New York did.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by haertig

Most every large city offers tax advantages to large corporations considering relocating there. It's quite standard. That doesn't mean you have to like it, but it's what's happening these days. If a city wants a large business to consider them as a location, they're just going to have to offer tax incentives in most every case. Like it or not.

The same way football players can demand millions of dollars per year.

My point is that bribing a corporation to come to a city is supposed to benefit the residents of that city. Modern day corporate bribes end up hurting the average resident and small business owner, by raising taxes that the corporation is exempted from paying. So the bribe benefits a few key players (developers, for one) while harming the average citizen. And, by what I've seen, housing prices are extremely high in NY, what happens to housing prices when you bring 25,000 more people to work in the center of the city?

Not only do I NOT have to like it, I can also oppose it (to the best of my ability anyhow). About 25 years ago they tried this same thing with Micron Technology in Twin Falls, Idaho. Tax incentives. "Look at the benefits," they (mostly the Chamber of Commerce and Realtors) said. "Look at the cost," we said. "What happens if something this huge ups and leaves?" Besides, housing was already tight. Finally the local opposition caused Micron to move elsewhere, to Utah, where the factory was shuttered before it was ever opened. I think ten years later, Intel and Micron went together and finally opened it. Meanwhile a lot of people in a small community got hurt.

[John K]

A bit off topic, we're on page 8 after all, this video examines just how far off the tracks corporate subsidies can go.
15:24

[rcentros]

And I thought Texas was bad.

[j.p.s]

So, if NY would just increase corporate handouts enough, it could be just like Louisiana.