Amazon Looking for a new HQ - Detroit-Windsor Bid Rejected

[313WX]

Just like Chrysler/Fiat -

Those are union jobs, which means safe/clean working environments, security, firm work schedules, profit sharing bonuses and very generous benefits.

[O3H]

Obviously you haven't been in a nice clean industrial place like Amazon.
Security involves tougher stuff than at the airports - cameras everywhere.

[archfan]

...
As I said, I have not seen a single major news source report that the deal was ever in serious jeopardy of being canceled by state or local political opposition. There was an executive meeting the weekend before Amazon announced their decision, which is likely when the decision was made to cut the LIC project. The reason they did it is because they didn't want to weather the bad press, and not because the state was in jeopardy of canceling the project.

I think you nailed it. It's almost as if they were surprised they weren't greeted with universal acclaim, or maybe they were shocked that New Yorkers complained.

[canuck]

Those are low wage, low skilled, non-union jobs.

Hardly comparable in terms of the economic multiplier to HQ2.

Still, and don't get me wrong, I love me some Amazon, but, and there is a but, multiplier effect or not, those billions over twenty years are nothing compared to what Bezos' soon to be ex-wife stands to gain from the divorce. Laffs...

[M. Brown]

A real crazy thought and most likely wont happen, but imagine if Amazon completely bought Rivian and ended up placing some sort of automotive HQ here.

[313WX]

Still, and don't get me wrong, I love me some Amazon, but, and there is a but, multiplier effect or not, those billions over twenty years are nothing compared to what Bezos' soon to be ex-wife stands to gain from the divorce. Laffs...

True. I don't feel sorry for him either.

[canuck]

True. I don't feel sorry for him either.

Indeed not. His private jet is bigger than mine.

[Wesley Mouch]

I don't get why Cuomo is doing this other than to score some political points. It has been well reported that Amazon completely blindsided them with this decision, and Amazon's decision wasn't the result of a stalemate in the negotiating process. The negotiations were moving in Amazon's favor.

There should not have been negotiations at all. NYS/NYC made an offer. It was accepted.

Maybe he and de Blasio are coordinating a good cop/bad cop response, since they both have been uncharacteristically careful not to attack each other in the fall out.

Both are big egos. Tension more likely than cooperation -- which is what Amazon figured out. The deal wasn't a deal. It was just a starting point for getting what you want.

Again, I'm not just giving my opinion here. I have followed this story very closely. First, this tax incentive deal was largely done between the state and Amazon. NYC doesn't offer tax incentives for corporate relocations, and the deal was even criticized by super pro-business former mayor Michael Bloomberg for offering tax incentives. But more importantly, the deal was never in any serious jeopardy of being cancelled by New York:

We get it. The players don't cooperate in NYC. They all jockey for position. And Amazon figured out that they were just a pawn in the game.

As I said, I have not seen a single major news source report that the deal was ever in serious jeopardy of being canceled by state or local political opposition.

Who needs MSM when you have the public website of the Governor telling you his side of the story. Reporters know nothing here.

There was an executive meeting the weekend before Amazon announced their decision, which is likely when the decision was made to cut the LIC project. The reason they did it is because they didn't want to weather the bad press, and not because the state was in jeopardy of canceling the project.

Back to heart-mouch-love... yes. There wasn't much danger to the deal, really. Yes, it would have been sorted out. Yes, they didn't want bad press. But also, I think they just don't want to be pawns in the games of others.

I can't side with you on blaming Amazon here. NYC/NYS, Cuomo/DiBlasio, Retail Workers Unions & Construction Unions. All on different pages. Amazon asked for a proposal, and they got pulled into politics and internecine warfare.

Win: Amazon. Loss: NYC -- but they'll be just fine continuing to build subway tunnels at twice the cost per mile of Paris.

[Richard]

They are also pulling back on Seattle,- 3500 jobs.

I still say amazon is on borrowed time,K-mart replaced by Wal-mart replaced by amazon,5 or 10 years down the road Amazon will be replaced by somebody else,silly to be committing billions looking at a 20 years down the road payback.

[313WX]

Indeed not. His private jet is bigger than mine.

To quote Mo'nique:

"See, when you do clownery, the clown comes back to bite."

[Worldsgreatest]

I wanna know what happened to ebay? Why are they not a serious competitor anymore?

It seemed like ebay was taking over in 2007, I even saw homes up for sale via ebay, what happened?

[O3H]

AMAZON lives and breathes upon human's constant need for convenience.
It ships a huge amount of cat food and dog food - direct to peoples door.

Fast food isn't going away, neither is Amazon. Convenience rules supreme

[iheartthed]

Back to heart-mouch-love... yes. There wasn't much danger to the deal, really. Yes, it would have been sorted out. Yes, they didn't want bad press. But also, I think they just don't want to be pawns in the games of others.

I can't side with you on blaming Amazon here. NYC/NYS, Cuomo/DiBlasio, Retail Workers Unions & Construction Unions. All on different pages. Amazon asked for a proposal, and they got pulled into politics and internecine warfare.

If Amazon did not realize that this was a realistic possibility then they did not do their homework. This was never going to be an easy sell in New York. Anyone who is remotely familiar with how New York works would know that nothing in New York is easy.

Also, Amazon confirmed:

“We think we could have gotten New York done, but you have to say, ‘At what cost?’” Holly Sullivan, Amazon’s director of global economic development, said at an event in Virginia on Thursday. “We made a prudent decision that gives us the opportunity to hyperfocus on D.C.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/nyregion/amazon-hq2-nyc.html

Amazon might have screwed it up for other companies by making such a public spectacle out of this HQ2 process. Companies may start getting a lot more scrutiny than they used to when they try to play different cities and states off of each other for tax breaks.

[Richard]

^ I kinda think that it is the other way around,businesses are taking a hard look at cities and the way they are doing business.

I mentioned Amazon reducing their presence or expansion in Seattle,why?

By far, the biggest impact will be felt by Amazon. With a $540 tax on each of its 40,000 Seattle employees, the online retailer will pay $21.6 million by way of the head tax. Amazon is already trying to be part of the solution to homelessness. It’s spending $10 million to build a homeless shelter inside one of its many new office towers downtown.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bus...meless-problem

So Seattle implements a head tax on employers in order to pay for homeless and low income houseing even after Amazon already spent 10 million on their own.

Boeing left taking thousands of jobs,the city councils reply was to nationalize Boeing and take their plants,instead of looking at what went wrong.

All of this anti evil big corporations attitudes will drive them away,it is not the corporations job to run cities,they provide employment opportunities and wages,it is the city governments job to run the city effectively.

Both Seattle and New York like to blame it on the rich corporations because of the ills and they should pay for it because they are privileged to be in our borders.

Buisness are also fleeing urban California for the same reasons,you can only squeeze them so far.

Not to bring politics into this but pay close attention to the cities that are pushing the new found socialist agenda,somebody has to pay for it,the message is the rich corporations will.

Useing common sense or even straight business sense,if your business could save $21 million dollars per year by relocating,would you do it?

Businesses are in business to make money and not be used to dictate social agendas and there are plenty of cities out there that are a little bit more hungry or run a little bit better to where they may feel a large business setting up shop is a complement to their economy and not a detriment.

[iheartthed]

Not to bring politics into this but pay close attention to the cities that are pushing the new found socialist agenda,somebody has to pay for it,the message is the rich corporations will.

If you're talking about New York and SF, they happen to be the richest cities in the world. Those crazy liberals must be doing something right.

[Richard]

If you're talking about New York and SF, they happen to be the richest cities in the world. Those crazy liberals must be doing something right.

The question is richest for whom,60,000 homeless in the streets,thousands fleeing daily to Nevada and Texas from California.

Thousands moving to Florida from New York with their attitudes,I was raised in the Bronx,I do not have to wait in line.

So what is happening is a split between rich and poor,little middle ground,once you cross that bridge you cannot go back.

Detroit actually has that advantage were they can solve houseing as they go along,which puts them in a much better position.

[iheartthed]

The question is richest for whom

You're trying to form a narrative to fit your ideology. The fact is that more rich people live in those two cities than live anywhere else in the country.

[313WX]

Somewhat related to the topic, but following the Amazon announcement, Nashville is now getting 3,000 Oracle jobs.

https://www.nashvillepost.com/busine...local-presence

[Bham1982]

^ I kinda think that it is the other way around,businesses are taking a hard look at cities and the way they are doing business.

That makes zero sense in the context of Amazon. If they didn't like how cities are doing business [[which you really mean to say they don't like progressive, high tax, high cost cities), then they wouldn't be in Seattle and they wouldn't have selected NYC and DC for expansion.

[Richard]

That makes zero sense in the context of Amazon. If they didn't like how cities are doing business [[which you really mean to say they don't like progressive, high tax, high cost cities), then they wouldn't be in Seattle and they wouldn't have selected NYC and DC for expansion.

But yet they are pulling back in Seattle and are not settled in New York.

The chose a city based on $750 million in incentives verses $7 billion,which says it is not about incentives but looking at trends 5 10 20 years down the road and how a city is being run and looking at how it is trending in the future.

Makeing sense has nothing to do with it,I posted the link in regards to Seattle and it is well discussed that NYC is now off of the table.

History proves the long term cycle of progressive,high tax,high cost cities and what happens when they reach that peak,it is not reinventing the wheel.

What I personally feel or regardless of my politics,corporations have been burned out of billions of dollars and facilities overseas because of changing politics.

Look at what happened in Seattle,it took less then a year for their city Council to implement the employee head tax that is now going to cost Amazon an extra $20 million a year in order to do business there.

They gave their answer plain and simple in Seattle and NYC thanks but no thanks,unstable local government made it a risky adventure.

I do not think Amazon was actually looking for a HQ2,I think that they were looking for a plan B for HQ1 and will start cutting back at HQ1 and Seattle has given them $20 million a year as a reason to cut costs and evaluate employee levels.

Their risk assessment teams will evaluate if Seattle or NYC or any other city is worth the added costs and instability of not knowing when they will be established at any given year.

Lets face it if you are working for Amazon or want to,at say $150,000 per year living in NYC or Seattle where $150 is nothing special,and they say,move to here if you want to keep your job and it is a city where $150k has the same purchaseing power as $250k outside of NYC or Seattle,are you going to move?

A 20 to 30 something without a family would jump at that,in Florida we have 20 and 30 something year olds moving down here and buying 350 to $450,000 first homes from places where they could have never dreamed of owning a home back where they came from.

What happened to the cities in the 1940s and 1950s,people followed the jobs out of the city’s,or the jobs followed them depending on how one looks at it.

To me all of this wanting to locate close to talent is bunk,outside of Detroit that would have the talent and supporting infrastructure for a complete product,the likes of Amazon could base in any town USA and the talent will follow them,retaining them is another thing but that is always determined by the question of ... at what cost.

Musk built massive facilities out in the middle of the desert,employees still go there to work,erea 51 busses thousands of employees there back and forth every day 7 days a week.

[Richard]

Somewhat related to the topic, but following the Amazon announcement, Nashville is now getting 3,000 Oracle jobs.

https://www.nashvillepost.com/busine...local-presence

It shows tech is on the move and is locating in city’s people do not associate with technology,it also shows a non tech growth in already established tech heavy states,otherwise they would have expanded in California.

It also shows capital is starting to stretch its legs outside of the main hot spots,I saw a number the other day,something like 380 billion in the last 3 years in VC outside the hot spots of Cali and New York,the combined total of the previous 10 years.

[Bham1982]

But yet they are pulling back in Seattle and are not settled in New York.

Yes, and? You think they were liberal in November and conservative in February? They just announced a gigantic expansion in said cities in November.

If Amazon doesn't like high cost liberal cities, why is Amazon in high cost liberal cities? If Amazon doesn't like taxes and NIMBYs why does Amazon put its most elite talent in such places?

[Bham1982]

It shows tech is on the move and is locating in city’s people do not associate with technology,it also shows a non tech growth in already established tech heavy states,otherwise they would have expanded in California.

Except Oracle is based in CA. Why would they put a back office in CA?

I find it hilarious how you have the same narrative regardless. Nashville is the most liberal town, by far, in TN. Silicon Valley isn't particularly liberal. And Bezos didn't have a lobotomy and go from liberal to conservative in three months.

[Wesley Mouch]

If you're talking about New York and SF, they happen to be the richest cities in the world. Those crazy liberals must be doing something right.

Dear Corazon, I hear this logic advanced. Don't get it. Are you suggesting that liberal policies created NYC and SF economic success? Feels other way around to me. Economic success created fertile ground for progressive dreams.

I'll go further. Look at Detroit. Forced integration of schools was a progressive policy that was the single biggest cause of urban decline in Detroit. Seems like 'crazy liberals' like Jerry Cavanaugh and CAY hurt Detroit far more than they helped it. But so long as progressive policies don't hurt too much, and the cities core areas are safe... no problem. But I can see a future where corporations start fleeing cities when they do silly thing like Seattle's head-tax -- and at the same time are creating huge homeless populations and injection needle risks. Time will tell.

[Canadian Visitor]

Dear Corazon, I hear this logic advanced. Don't get it. Are you suggesting that liberal policies created NYC and SF economic success? Feels other way around to me. Economic success created fertile ground for progressive dreams.

I'll go further. Look at Detroit. Forced integration of schools was a progressive policy that was the single biggest cause of urban decline in Detroit. Seems like 'crazy liberals' like Jerry Cavanaugh and CAY hurt Detroit far more than they helped it. But so long as progressive policies don't hurt too much, and the cities core areas are safe... no problem. But I can see a future where corporations start fleeing cities when they do silly thing like Seattle's head-tax -- and at the same time are creating huge homeless populations and injection needle risks. Time will tell.

This is the sort of response Wesley that diminishes you as a poster.

It is clearly motivated both by ideology and hatred at a completely irrational level.

It shows you are so blind to logic that the post itself isn't merely ridiculous but suggests its likely not possible to take any of your posts seriously.

***

You are welcome to reject various 'liberal' ideas; but not to join the Flat Earth Society.

SF didn't suddenly become Liberal in a post-Tech world.

NYC didn't just lurch left in the last decade either.

People did not flock to these Cities because of their politics per se [[though they certainly would have been a factor to some).

People came, yes for the economy.........but moreso the quality of life.

Try as you might, you can't separate ideas such as pedestrian friendly, above-average transit, quality parks, greater spending on the arts, etc etc. from that outcome.

Even cities that are growing robustly in what might otherwise be considered red states have a similar track record. Charlotte notably starting booming when it invested in sidewalks and transit and fighting poverty.

Detroit's greatest challenges are the product of more right-wing policies.

Crappy to absent transit, lots of tiny municipal fiefdoms that read a 'Eff you, I've got mine' [[though most of them don't). Over policing, and under investing in people and quality of life.