which is a good bit of why they have such a housing crunch. In a healthy housing and job market the influx of new, higher-paying jobs would be largely beneficial in that it would produce umpteen secondary and tertiary job creation effects. As with San Francisco, the utter shortage of even semi-affordable housing is largely the function of bad policy, not a misfunctioning market.
RE: This was 25,000 high paying jobs in excess of 100k, Â
they could afford to live in the area if they wanted too. They also could have followed the time honored tradition of living in New Jersey and commuting.
Why are we in such a rush to believe in that "25,000 amazing jobs" flag? It's quite a carrot on the stick, I know, but why exactly are we giving a giant corporation the benefit of the doubt here?
3. the idea to decentralize corporate growth in other boroughs outside of Manhattan is a decent idea but giving 3 Billion dollar tax break to world's largest corporation was insane - whoever thought this would fly in NYC is crazy.
Well, the likelihood of $27B coming back to NYC over 25yrs seemed like a good deal to me. A 9:1 ROI.
And even if you assume those numbers might by goosed by 25%, you still get $20B+. Still close to a 7:1 ROI.
RE: RE: This was 25,000 high paying jobs in excess of 100k, Â
they could afford to live in the area if they wanted too. They also could have followed the time honored tradition of living in New Jersey and commuting.
Why are we in such a rush to believe in that "25,000 amazing jobs" flag? It's quite a carrot on the stick, I know, but why exactly are we giving a giant corporation the benefit of the doubt here?
By the same token, it looks as if Amazon gave NYS the benefit of the doubt...and it was misplaced.
RE: RE: RE: 25,000 high paying jobs is great if you end up working for Amazon. Â
If you don't and live in that area, you are going to get squeezed. Housing (rent/property values) will start to skyrocket.
I think that has always been the argument is that HQs like this need to come with some sort of housing or low income housing guarantee attached to it.
I live in the Bay Area and rents/property values are the biggest concerns. Rents are so bad that google/fb/etc are building their own campuses to house employees rather than let them deal with finding housing on their own. If you make minimum wage in the bay, you are commuting two hours to work or having many roomates to make ends meet.
There was probably a middle ground where Amazon gets its tax breaks but invests in low income housing or something like that.
The state of the Super Companies that provide housing to employees is quite scary to me. They are probably tracking everything you do in one of those places. When do you have your own time? Etc.
Amazon is the scariest of them all since the own the largest amount of the biggest commodity right now. Data. AWS collects so much data on everyone it's terrifying. Netflix is even on AWS.
Anti-trust laws need to be made to stop some of this, as the size and power of these places is getting to big.
So gov't can say "they can't do that to our pledges..."
Well the big problem is that a place like Amazon destroys its competitors and people that sell things online, because they can see that data.
So instead of adding more competition, they find out what sells well, go directly to manufacturers of that product, and then start selling them at a lower price. They then put those smaller companies selling on their website out of business, and have free reign to raise costs.
They will lose massive amounts of money just to get rid of a competitor.
There is a reason relentless.com goes directly to Amazon.
Amazon has an absolute obligation to do what;s best for Amazon and the same applies to the NYC pols. It seems like everyone fulfills those obligations by dissolving the agreement.
but the arguments I've seen on social media both ways seem to elide. For me, the question is: Was NYC/NYS's investment (via tax breaks, incentives, etc.) a good one vis-a-vis other possible investments or uses of money. I don't know the answer to that. But I also don't think it was obviously a great or shitty use of money.
On a side note, I have some friends who work at Amazon, and they tell me they truly have a scary, comprehensive amount of data on us.
NYC isn't going to "reinvest" the money because the money was revenue they would have foregone with the tax breaks. We can (and should) complain about corporate subsidy, and there were other local concerns. But the idea that there are other, better uses of resources misses the mark. The governor complained yesterday that New Yorkers were leaving for better tax states like Florida. This is not going to prevent that from happening.
this sounds like a new stadium extortion with the promise that it will more than pay for itself. Why would any community need to give Amazon tax breaks? What's in it for the people who live in the community now? Too lazy to read through all the both sides of it. Anyone have a quick simmation?
NYC isn't going to "reinvest" the money because the money was revenue they would have foregone with the tax breaks. We can (and should) complain about corporate subsidy, and there were other local concerns. But the idea that there are other, better uses of resources misses the mark. The governor complained yesterday that New Yorkers were leaving for better tax states like Florida. This is not going to prevent that from happening.
You're right, I spoke in shorthand. Theoretically, other companies will use the office space and resources set aside for Amazon to create jobs, NY will not forego that tax revenue with tax breaks, and therefore it will have more total money. While I admit that sounds very theoretical and pie-in-the-sky, Google did announce it was expanding without any tax breaks. So not completely impossible.
RE: Unless someone explains it differently to me Â
this sounds like a new stadium extortion with the promise that it will more than pay for itself. Why would any community need to give Amazon tax breaks? What's in it for the people who live in the community now? Too lazy to read through all the both sides of it. Anyone have a quick simmation?
There's a ton of research demonstrating that stadium construction does very little to boost local employment. (For many reasons: the vast majority of the jobs created are part-time; the players and owners tend not live right near the stadium; etc.)
Amazon is a much different animal: all the jobs are full time; many are high paying; many of the employees will live near campus, etc. So I don't think that's a great comparison.
RE: Unless someone explains it differently to me Â
this sounds like a new stadium extortion with the promise that it will more than pay for itself. Why would any community need to give Amazon tax breaks? What's in it for the people who live in the community now? Too lazy to read through all the both sides of it. Anyone have a quick simmation?
Corporate handouts are usually a mixed bag. Some have been predominately negative, some have had more mixed results. Amazon's probably would have been a significant net benefit, but not uniformly positive (for reasons discussed above, among others). Stadiums are generally an awful investment depending on how much the local and state govts put into it, because the jobs are low-skill, the stadium may host events only a couple dozen days out of the year, etc etc.
well I guess they pack up and go to Shelbyville now... Â
which is a good bit of why they have such a housing crunch. In a healthy housing and job market the influx of new, higher-paying jobs would be largely beneficial in that it would produce umpteen secondary and tertiary job creation effects. As with San Francisco, the utter shortage of even semi-affordable housing is largely the function of bad policy, not a misfunctioning market.
I agree with you, but the problem is exacerbated when you are adding jobs and not housing to keep pace. Sometimes the path of least resistance is to put the onus on the company to add more housing. Nobody wants to add low income housing to their developments unless incentivized.
RE: RE: NYC permits remarkably little new construction... Â
which is a good bit of why they have such a housing crunch. In a healthy housing and job market the influx of new, higher-paying jobs would be largely beneficial in that it would produce umpteen secondary and tertiary job creation effects. As with San Francisco, the utter shortage of even semi-affordable housing is largely the function of bad policy, not a misfunctioning market.
I agree with you, but the problem is exacerbated when you are adding jobs and not housing to keep pace. Sometimes the path of least resistance is to put the onus on the company to add more housing. Nobody wants to add low income housing to their developments unless incentivized.
I think part of the theoretical proposition in this specific case is that Queens is the borough currently undergoing the most gentrification, and that there actually were legitimate opportunities to add housing.
I'm not in a position to attest to the veracity of those claims/assumptions, but adding housing to the market was very much a part of the picture being painted.
Some people seem to think that NYC is a decrepit metropolis... Â
That's a lot. But Amazon would have generated $27 billion in the first $10 years alone.
The sheer stupidity of the city and state is mind blowing. When that kind of return on investment is too complex for people to understand, you deserve what you get.
Yelling about how corporate subsidies should be better spent elsewhere. It’s an insane narrative that shows just how little people understand about the place of corporations within the corporate ecosystem. To hear certain politicians from nyc perpetuate that narrative is just sad and frankly scary
That's a lot. But Amazon would have generated $27 billion in the first $10 years alone.
The sheer stupidity of the city and state is mind blowing. When that kind of return on investment is too complex for people to understand, you deserve what you get.
Please provide sources and data to show these numbers.
That's a lot. But Amazon would have generated $27 billion in the first $10 years alone.
The sheer stupidity of the city and state is mind blowing. When that kind of return on investment is too complex for people to understand, you deserve what you get.
Please provide sources and data to show these numbers.
That's a lot. But Amazon would have generated $27 billion in the first $10 years alone.
The sheer stupidity of the city and state is mind blowing. When that kind of return on investment is too complex for people to understand, you deserve what you get.
Please provide sources and data to show these numbers.
Thank you.
Or, you could do a search yourself...
It’s a easy to throw numbers out and say this and that and this is exactly what you get when you can’t back up the information.
I think for most people in the area they were afraid they would get Â
priced out and the infrastructure wouldn’t be able to support the influx of people and businesses. LIC was already the hottest neighborhood in the city before this. A 500sq studio condo goes for 750k at least. 1500$ rent means you are in the living room of a three bedroom apt sharing one bathroom with three other people. 25k jobs making 250k means nothing to NYC, those taxes would be a drop in the bucket. One income family making 250k won’t be raising kids in Manhattan or LIC.
Amazon undoubtedly would have been good for the city as a whole. It’s a big loss for the city for sure. See what Google is doing to the area around Chelsea. For people in the area though, I am sure they aren’t shedding a tear over this. Amazon definitely would’ve attracted businesses that would transform LIC into a destination and not just a collection of skyscrapers. Most of us won’t have to deal with the small inconveniences that would’ve come with the move though in the short term. I guess we can be happy about that.
"Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world."
"Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world."
Stick it to the man baby!!
I think that’s the salient point in all of this. Not the deal itself or what Amazon wanted versus what NY was willing to give, but that the political climate changed in November and Amazon likely felt that they would face overt hostility forever. Likely decided it wasn’t worth the aggravation of fighting uphill forever.
"Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world."
Stick it to the man baby!!
I think that’s the salient point in all of this. Not the deal itself or what Amazon wanted versus what NY was willing to give, but that the political climate changed in November and Amazon likely felt that they would face overt hostility forever. Likely decided it wasn’t worth the aggravation of fighting uphill forever.
Thats exactly what Amazon said “While polls show that 70% of New Yorkers support our plans and investment, a number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City.”
That's a lot. But Amazon would have generated $27 billion in the first $10 years alone.
The sheer stupidity of the city and state is mind blowing. When that kind of return on investment is too complex for people to understand, you deserve what you get.
Numbers don’t lie, but they also don’t tell the whole truth. You create a culture of haves and have-nots with these kinds of jobs. Everyone who has one of these shiney new high-tech jobs will easily out bid and drive the prices on once middle-class homes and communities. Everyone else will either try and make it work due to increased prices of everything else or be forced out. Look at the Bay Area.
That's a lot. But Amazon would have generated $27 billion in the first $10 years alone.
The sheer stupidity of the city and state is mind blowing. When that kind of return on investment is too complex for people to understand, you deserve what you get.
Numbers don’t lie, but they also don’t tell the whole truth. You create a culture of haves and have-nots with these kinds of jobs. Everyone who has one of these shiney new high-tech jobs will easily out bid and drive the prices on once middle-class homes and communities. Everyone else will either try and make it work due to increased prices of everything else or be forced out. Look at the Bay Area.
The problem in the Bay Area is the housing supply hasn't kept pace with the population growth. Same thing in most northern metros certainly NYC, DC, Boston, LA etc. All the talk about companies moving for lower taxes it's probably as much or more about lower cost of living which translates to lower wages they have to pay their employees. These areas need to build more housing but local opposition makes it real hard. Residents in my Northern NJ town blocked a townhouse complex on vacant lot for about 15 years - it's just going up now. Same story all over the place.
In places where jobs are scarce and at a premium, we look like a bunch of ungrateful assholes for turning this down. New York’s public officials should have negotiated wages that worked for blue collar workers in NYC and effects on the neighborhood more effectively so pricing out situations for locals were kept to a bare minimum. But you can’t just turn down that many jobs just by stamping feet and saying Amazon is the devil incarnate and they can’t set foot here
"Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world."
Stick it to the man baby!!
Predictably, giants24 shows up to urinate in the punch bowl.
NYC just turned there backs on 25,000 high paying jobs Â
If people are worried about income inequality, the answer is not to stop creating high paying jobs and only have low paying jobs. These 25000 people would have lived in the Tri-state area and traveled every day into Amazon. In addition to the 25,000 people, business would have flowed into all the restaurants, bars, etc. in the area. Local businesses would have flourished because of supplying goods and services to Amazon and new jobs would have been created at all these "non-Amazon" companies. Plus the tax base would increase.
Killing this is a very short-sighted, political decision. When people see they are left with crappy low paying jobs (or no jobs) I bet the elections will get very interesting.
Also estimates say that another 67,000 jobs would have been created Â
Those who fought the opening of the Amazon HQ in Long Island City have won the battle but they are surely losing the war.
They have "cut off their nose to spite their face".
Good for them.
Where will they find employment?
Amazon was offering 25,000 new high paying jobs.
For the $3B in incentives this is what NYC and NYS were receiving;
Quote:
NYC would benefit from 25,000 permanent well paying jobs
In addition to the permanent jobs, NYC would benefit from thousands of construction jobs.
The locals were to have free training so that they would be have the prerequisite skills to obtain the employment opportunity
Increased Real Estate taxes
Increased Employment and payroll taxes
Increased Income taxes on those working in the facility
Increased activity and local spending by the Amazon employees.
Improved rail and ferry access to NYC.
Improved infrastructure.
New businesses moving in that are ancillary to Amazon
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her constituents are going to be sorely disappointed if they believe that the incentive money will now go to low income housing.
The money does not exist. It came in tax reductions, Bonding, Infrastructure spending etc.
Those jobs weren't going to anyone in the area.
RE: This was 25,000 high paying jobs in excess of 100k, Â
they could afford to live in the area if they wanted too. They also could have followed the time honored tradition of living in New Jersey and commuting.
$150K isn't cutting it in all the new residential buildings in the area. They are all 7 figures.
RE: NYC permits remarkably little new construction... Â
which is a good bit of why they have such a housing crunch. In a healthy housing and job market the influx of new, higher-paying jobs would be largely beneficial in that it would produce umpteen secondary and tertiary job creation effects. As with San Francisco, the utter shortage of even semi-affordable housing is largely the function of bad policy, not a misfunctioning market.
There's not a housing crunch; there is an affordable housing crunch. There is a ton of new development, especially in Brooklyn and Queens. The problem is, most of it is not even close to affordable for the average New Yorker.
1) I work in the building they were supposed to have moved in to. That part never made sense to me because the building is a dump and they seemed intent on not tearing it down for some reason.
2) This is more about politics than anything else. The governor and Mayor illegally cut a back-room deal with Bezos and city council members were pissed that they were bypassed...rightfully so. There are stipulations for the city council to approve all deals involving city owned land/property.
3) AOC is a fucking moron. She is talking about spending the $3B on infrastructure like education. It isn't fucking money the city was handing over to Amazon and now has freed up to spend. Without the deal, there is no $3B.
4) I am skeptical about the numbers anyway. The $27B over 25 years is being thrown around a lot. It sounds like when they try to sell the public on the benefits of a new stadium or winning a SB or Olympic bid. The reality is there are so many hidden or ignored costs that this is never the actual revenues realized from the deal. I suspect the same is the case here.
5) A big question is does this shatter the credibility of DiBlasio and Cuomo on the national stage?
3) AOC is a fucking moron. She is talking about spending the $3B on infrastructure like education. It isn't fucking money the city was handing over to Amazon and now has freed up to spend. Without the deal, there is no $3B.
Or perhaps all tax breaks are actually tax expenditures if you want to view from a true policy cost perspective. Just sayin
3) AOC is a fucking moron. She is talking about spending the $3B on infrastructure like education. It isn't fucking money the city was handing over to Amazon and now has freed up to spend. Without the deal, there is no $3B.
Or perhaps all tax breaks are actually tax expenditures if you want to view from a true policy cost perspective. Just sayin
Moron!! - ( New Window )
That article is a nice fluff piece, but does nothing to dispel the notion that when it comes toeconomics, she simply doesn't know what she is talking about. She says a lot of nice things with no substance or plans behind them. This $3B was not a tax expenditure. IT was based on a combination of the realized revenues and the corporate behavior.
Just to remind everyone that there is no political discussion allowed Â
In places where jobs are scarce and at a premium, we look like a bunch of ungrateful assholes for turning this down. New York’s public officials should have negotiated wages that worked for blue collar workers in NYC and effects on the neighborhood more effectively so pricing out situations for locals were kept to a bare minimum. But you can’t just turn down that many jobs just by stamping feet and saying Amazon is the devil incarnate and they can’t set foot here
Thing is, as a software engineer who is both a hiring manager, and gets hit up by recruiter at least five times a week, we don't need more tech jobs in this city. It's hard enough to fill the jobs that currently exist here. Is that reason to kill this move, probably not, but I honestly believe that they could still add many of those jobs by just expanding their existing presence in the city. Google owns an entire office building in Chelsea, Amazon could have done the same and left LIC out of it.
RE: Just to remind everyone that there is no political discussion allowed Â
If your take on this matter is to slam a particular politician, then you should share it elsewhere.
My take isn't to slam her as a politician, but as a public figure making stupid comments with no basis. IF you want to continue this discussion without discussing her, I'm fine with that. But, there were several others who brought her up first,.
My take isn't to slam her as a politician, but as a public figure making stupid comments with no basis. IF you want to continue this discussion without discussing her, I'm fine with that. But, there were several others who brought her up first,.
Yes, and I'm weighing in now to tell everyone to stop it.
RE: RE: RE: Just to remind everyone that there is no political discussion allowed Â
My take isn't to slam her as a politician, but as a public figure making stupid comments with no basis. IF you want to continue this discussion without discussing her, I'm fine with that. But, there were several others who brought her up first,.
Yes, and I'm weighing in now to tell everyone to stop it.
Instead of killing this thread can we please just ban this guy? We were having a pretty sensible discussion that was mostly avoiding politics before he came along. This site is way better when we can have economic discussions that avoid obvious politics. Although there's a political component to all economic discussions, he clearly tried to inject the political element into it. And I can't think of any reason to do it--knowing the rules--other than to stir up shit.
Never let it be said that we don't believe in customer service here at BBI
I could see Amazon going to Detroit or Cleveland Â
Why are we in such a rush to believe in that "25,000 amazing jobs" flag? It's quite a carrot on the stick, I know, but why exactly are we giving a giant corporation the benefit of the doubt here?
3. the idea to decentralize corporate growth in other boroughs outside of Manhattan is a decent idea but giving 3 Billion dollar tax break to world's largest corporation was insane - whoever thought this would fly in NYC is crazy.
Well, the likelihood of $27B coming back to NYC over 25yrs seemed like a good deal to me. A 9:1 ROI.
And even if you assume those numbers might by goosed by 25%, you still get $20B+. Still close to a 7:1 ROI.
Quote:
they could afford to live in the area if they wanted too. They also could have followed the time honored tradition of living in New Jersey and commuting.
Why are we in such a rush to believe in that "25,000 amazing jobs" flag? It's quite a carrot on the stick, I know, but why exactly are we giving a giant corporation the benefit of the doubt here?
By the same token, it looks as if Amazon gave NYS the benefit of the doubt...and it was misplaced.
Quote:
In comment 14296804 BH28 said:
Quote:
If you don't and live in that area, you are going to get squeezed. Housing (rent/property values) will start to skyrocket.
I think that has always been the argument is that HQs like this need to come with some sort of housing or low income housing guarantee attached to it.
I live in the Bay Area and rents/property values are the biggest concerns. Rents are so bad that google/fb/etc are building their own campuses to house employees rather than let them deal with finding housing on their own. If you make minimum wage in the bay, you are commuting two hours to work or having many roomates to make ends meet.
There was probably a middle ground where Amazon gets its tax breaks but invests in low income housing or something like that.
The state of the Super Companies that provide housing to employees is quite scary to me. They are probably tracking everything you do in one of those places. When do you have your own time? Etc.
Amazon is the scariest of them all since the own the largest amount of the biggest commodity right now. Data. AWS collects so much data on everyone it's terrifying. Netflix is even on AWS.
Anti-trust laws need to be made to stop some of this, as the size and power of these places is getting to big.
So gov't can say "they can't do that to our pledges..."
Well the big problem is that a place like Amazon destroys its competitors and people that sell things online, because they can see that data.
So instead of adding more competition, they find out what sells well, go directly to manufacturers of that product, and then start selling them at a lower price. They then put those smaller companies selling on their website out of business, and have free reign to raise costs.
They will lose massive amounts of money just to get rid of a competitor.
There is a reason relentless.com goes directly to Amazon.
Check out what they did to diapers.com
Diapers.com - ( New Window )
Amazon said half of total jobs would be high paying the rest would be support staff.
On a side note, I have some friends who work at Amazon, and they tell me they truly have a scary, comprehensive amount of data on us.
You're right, I spoke in shorthand. Theoretically, other companies will use the office space and resources set aside for Amazon to create jobs, NY will not forego that tax revenue with tax breaks, and therefore it will have more total money. While I admit that sounds very theoretical and pie-in-the-sky, Google did announce it was expanding without any tax breaks. So not completely impossible.
There's a ton of research demonstrating that stadium construction does very little to boost local employment. (For many reasons: the vast majority of the jobs created are part-time; the players and owners tend not live right near the stadium; etc.)
Amazon is a much different animal: all the jobs are full time; many are high paying; many of the employees will live near campus, etc. So I don't think that's a great comparison.
Corporate handouts are usually a mixed bag. Some have been predominately negative, some have had more mixed results. Amazon's probably would have been a significant net benefit, but not uniformly positive (for reasons discussed above, among others). Stadiums are generally an awful investment depending on how much the local and state govts put into it, because the jobs are low-skill, the stadium may host events only a couple dozen days out of the year, etc etc.
I agree with you, but the problem is exacerbated when you are adding jobs and not housing to keep pace. Sometimes the path of least resistance is to put the onus on the company to add more housing. Nobody wants to add low income housing to their developments unless incentivized.
Quote:
which is a good bit of why they have such a housing crunch. In a healthy housing and job market the influx of new, higher-paying jobs would be largely beneficial in that it would produce umpteen secondary and tertiary job creation effects. As with San Francisco, the utter shortage of even semi-affordable housing is largely the function of bad policy, not a misfunctioning market.
I agree with you, but the problem is exacerbated when you are adding jobs and not housing to keep pace. Sometimes the path of least resistance is to put the onus on the company to add more housing. Nobody wants to add low income housing to their developments unless incentivized.
I think part of the theoretical proposition in this specific case is that Queens is the borough currently undergoing the most gentrification, and that there actually were legitimate opportunities to add housing.
I'm not in a position to attest to the veracity of those claims/assumptions, but adding housing to the market was very much a part of the picture being painted.
Even if Amazon brought all those 25,000 jobs, they still wouldn't crack the top 20 of NYC employers.
The sheer stupidity of the city and state is mind blowing. When that kind of return on investment is too complex for people to understand, you deserve what you get.
The sheer stupidity of the city and state is mind blowing. When that kind of return on investment is too complex for people to understand, you deserve what you get.
Please provide sources and data to show these numbers.
Thank you.
Quote:
That's a lot. But Amazon would have generated $27 billion in the first $10 years alone.
The sheer stupidity of the city and state is mind blowing. When that kind of return on investment is too complex for people to understand, you deserve what you get.
Please provide sources and data to show these numbers.
Thank you.
Or, you could do a search yourself...
Quote:
In comment 14296989 since1925 said:
Quote:
That's a lot. But Amazon would have generated $27 billion in the first $10 years alone.
The sheer stupidity of the city and state is mind blowing. When that kind of return on investment is too complex for people to understand, you deserve what you get.
Please provide sources and data to show these numbers.
Thank you.
Or, you could do a search yourself...
It’s a easy to throw numbers out and say this and that and this is exactly what you get when you can’t back up the information.
Amazon undoubtedly would have been good for the city as a whole. It’s a big loss for the city for sure. See what Google is doing to the area around Chelsea. For people in the area though, I am sure they aren’t shedding a tear over this. Amazon definitely would’ve attracted businesses that would transform LIC into a destination and not just a collection of skyscrapers. Most of us won’t have to deal with the small inconveniences that would’ve come with the move though in the short term. I guess we can be happy about that.
Stick it to the man baby!!
Stick it to the man baby!!
I think that’s the salient point in all of this. Not the deal itself or what Amazon wanted versus what NY was willing to give, but that the political climate changed in November and Amazon likely felt that they would face overt hostility forever. Likely decided it wasn’t worth the aggravation of fighting uphill forever.
Quote:
"Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world."
Stick it to the man baby!!
I think that’s the salient point in all of this. Not the deal itself or what Amazon wanted versus what NY was willing to give, but that the political climate changed in November and Amazon likely felt that they would face overt hostility forever. Likely decided it wasn’t worth the aggravation of fighting uphill forever.
Thats exactly what Amazon said “While polls show that 70% of New Yorkers support our plans and investment, a number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City.”
The sheer stupidity of the city and state is mind blowing. When that kind of return on investment is too complex for people to understand, you deserve what you get.
Numbers don’t lie, but they also don’t tell the whole truth. You create a culture of haves and have-nots with these kinds of jobs. Everyone who has one of these shiney new high-tech jobs will easily out bid and drive the prices on once middle-class homes and communities. Everyone else will either try and make it work due to increased prices of everything else or be forced out. Look at the Bay Area.
Quote:
That's a lot. But Amazon would have generated $27 billion in the first $10 years alone.
The sheer stupidity of the city and state is mind blowing. When that kind of return on investment is too complex for people to understand, you deserve what you get.
Numbers don’t lie, but they also don’t tell the whole truth. You create a culture of haves and have-nots with these kinds of jobs. Everyone who has one of these shiney new high-tech jobs will easily out bid and drive the prices on once middle-class homes and communities. Everyone else will either try and make it work due to increased prices of everything else or be forced out. Look at the Bay Area.
The problem in the Bay Area is the housing supply hasn't kept pace with the population growth. Same thing in most northern metros certainly NYC, DC, Boston, LA etc. All the talk about companies moving for lower taxes it's probably as much or more about lower cost of living which translates to lower wages they have to pay their employees. These areas need to build more housing but local opposition makes it real hard. Residents in my Northern NJ town blocked a townhouse complex on vacant lot for about 15 years - it's just going up now. Same story all over the place.
Stick it to the man baby!!
Predictably, giants24 shows up to urinate in the punch bowl.
Killing this is a very short-sighted, political decision. When people see they are left with crappy low paying jobs (or no jobs) I bet the elections will get very interesting.
They have "cut off their nose to spite their face".
Good for them.
Where will they find employment?
Amazon was offering 25,000 new high paying jobs.
For the $3B in incentives this is what NYC and NYS were receiving;
Quote:
NYC would benefit from 25,000 permanent well paying jobs
In addition to the permanent jobs, NYC would benefit from thousands of construction jobs.
The locals were to have free training so that they would be have the prerequisite skills to obtain the employment opportunity
Increased Real Estate taxes
Increased Employment and payroll taxes
Increased Income taxes on those working in the facility
Increased activity and local spending by the Amazon employees.
Improved rail and ferry access to NYC.
Improved infrastructure.
New businesses moving in that are ancillary to Amazon
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her constituents are going to be sorely disappointed if they believe that the incentive money will now go to low income housing.
The money does not exist. It came in tax reductions, Bonding, Infrastructure spending etc.
2) This is more about politics than anything else. The governor and Mayor illegally cut a back-room deal with Bezos and city council members were pissed that they were bypassed...rightfully so. There are stipulations for the city council to approve all deals involving city owned land/property.
3) AOC is a fucking moron. She is talking about spending the $3B on infrastructure like education. It isn't fucking money the city was handing over to Amazon and now has freed up to spend. Without the deal, there is no $3B.
4) I am skeptical about the numbers anyway. The $27B over 25 years is being thrown around a lot. It sounds like when they try to sell the public on the benefits of a new stadium or winning a SB or Olympic bid. The reality is there are so many hidden or ignored costs that this is never the actual revenues realized from the deal. I suspect the same is the case here.
5) A big question is does this shatter the credibility of DiBlasio and Cuomo on the national stage?
Or perhaps all tax breaks are actually tax expenditures if you want to view from a true policy cost perspective. Just sayin
Moron!! - ( New Window )
Quote:
3) AOC is a fucking moron. She is talking about spending the $3B on infrastructure like education. It isn't fucking money the city was handing over to Amazon and now has freed up to spend. Without the deal, there is no $3B.
Or perhaps all tax breaks are actually tax expenditures if you want to view from a true policy cost perspective. Just sayin
Moron!! - ( New Window )
Thing is, as a software engineer who is both a hiring manager, and gets hit up by recruiter at least five times a week, we don't need more tech jobs in this city. It's hard enough to fill the jobs that currently exist here. Is that reason to kill this move, probably not, but I honestly believe that they could still add many of those jobs by just expanding their existing presence in the city. Google owns an entire office building in Chelsea, Amazon could have done the same and left LIC out of it.
Spoke way too soon. Stick to the economic/financial arguments.
Yes, and I'm weighing in now to tell everyone to stop it.
Quote:
My take isn't to slam her as a politician, but as a public figure making stupid comments with no basis. IF you want to continue this discussion without discussing her, I'm fine with that. But, there were several others who brought her up first,.
Yes, and I'm weighing in now to tell everyone to stop it.
Instead of killing this thread can we please just ban this guy? We were having a pretty sensible discussion that was mostly avoiding politics before he came along. This site is way better when we can have economic discussions that avoid obvious politics. Although there's a political component to all economic discussions, he clearly tried to inject the political element into it. And I can't think of any reason to do it--knowing the rules--other than to stir up shit.
Never let it be said that we don't believe in customer service here at BBI