Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Picks 20 Finalists For 'HQ2' Second Headquarters Location (nbcnews.com)

bigpat writes: Amazon took in hundreds of proposals and narrowed it down to twenty places for its "second" headquarters, with up to 50,000 new jobs promised in the next 15 years and millions of square feet of office and research space. The cities include: Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Columbus, Dallas, Denver, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Montgomery County, Maryland, Nashville, Newark, NJ, New York City, Northern Virginia, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Toronto and Washington D.C. Amazon said that it will now work with the candidate locations to examine their proposals more closely and request additional information to "evaluate the feasibility of a future partnership that can accommodate our hiring plans as well as benefit our employees and the local community." The company said it would make its decision later in 2018.

123 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. I don't understand why cities compete by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understand why anyone would want their city to win this. Your taxes will go up to bring in Amazon, and that gets you... what?

    The way the EU has structured things, with incentives for relocation being illegal, seems far superior.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It brings in jobs, and the workers pay taxes. At least that's the theory.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      how are taxes going to go up when it's going to increase the tax base? it's not like cities pay cash to amazon. they give them tax breaks and it's not like the taxes would have been collected without amazon

    3. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by Scott+Tracy · · Score: 1

      Toronto didn't offer any incentives or tax breaks. That's why the thinking is that Toronto is the favourite, unless one of the American cities ponies up enough to overcome the advantages that Toronto naturally has, e.g., it's not in Trumplandia.

    4. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      Some of the cities/states are offering transferable/refundable tax credits. That's a fancy way of paying cash. And those property taxes would have been gathered otherwise. The land would be worth less than when Amazon had a headquarters on it, but it would be taxed.

      Plus, some of these cities are promising serious cash outlays on infrastructure... Amazon specific infrastructure.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It brings in jobs, and the workers pay taxes. At least that's the theory.

      Except that it never actually happens that way. The taxes paid by those new workers don't come anywhere close to the tax revenue that the city loses. Never has, never will.

      I find it quite sad that cities won't tell Amazon to fuck off and instead are falling all over themselves to give away billions of dollars to a huge wealthy company that already has plenty of money and could easily build a new headquarters without a penny in "tax breaks".

    6. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't understand why anyone would want their city to win this. Your taxes will go up to bring in Amazon, and that gets you... what?

      Because... they're going to spend billions of dollars wherever they settle, and there will be thousands of jobs. And those people will be buying lunch, hiring plumbers, paying oceans of income and property taxes, and otherwise bumping up the regional economy in a huge way. To say nothing of the local contractors, vendors and other service providers who will along for the ride. I can't think of too many cities that wouldn't want that boost in their local economies and the ability it brings to attract a thousand other businesses into the same orbit.

      The way the EU has structured things, with incentives for relocation being illegal, seems far superior.

      And it's exactly that sort of control over your town's choices and economic life that makes many people absolutely recoil at the notion of EU-style nanny statism.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, it's not secret. They post videos of their new robots (I'm guessing once the patents are issued).

      But that's not relevant to this particular topic. This Amazon facility is for the engineers, not the supply chain workers.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Cities are run by politicians who understand the political coin gained by attracting business and creating jobs for their voting citizens.

      Many (most) municipalities I've lived in and around have an economic development fund tied to sales tax receipts and the hotel/motel tax that salts away money to attract/convince business to relocate to their locale.

      This is typically in addition to tax breaks and credits that companies shop themselves about for.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    9. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      how are taxes going to go up when it's going to increase the tax base? it's not like cities pay cash to amazon. they give them tax breaks and it's not like the taxes would have been collected without amazon

      Why is it that Washington (state) and California have some of the highest taxes in the country despite the fact that Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing, Google, Facebook and many other highly profitable companies are located there? Shouldn't Washington and California have such an enormous tax base that they would be rolling in money without having to levy huge taxes on their residents?

      The answer, if you've been paying attention, is that those companies do everything they possibly can to avoid paying taxes. For example, Microsoft claiming that all of their revenue comes from a tiny office in Nevada, where there is no state income tax, allowing them to legally cheat Washington out of billions of dollars. So everyone else has too pay more, a lot more, to make up for it.

      This is the future for whatever city "wins" the new Amazon HQ.

    10. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by msauve · · Score: 1

      "how are taxes going to go up when it's going to increase the tax base?"

      I've often wonder the same damn thing. When the population of an area increases, property values and incomes increase, and there's more economic activity, shouldn't economies of scale kick in and taxes go down? Nope, they never do. They go up. The only explanation I can come up with is that government has negative efficiency.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    11. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      Maybe it's not just about a city getting more in tax dollars - maybe decreasing unemployment, even if many of the workers relocate to the city, you still have ancillary services they need - like restaurants, shopping, entertainment. Yes, it also increases traffic and makes a lot of other things worse - so it depends on what the city wants out of it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    12. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Even fully automated systems require a fair amount of human oversight and intervention. And it doesn't much change the support needs for the office, like power or supplies or shipping providers.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    13. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by Junta · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is complicated.

      Much of the time, the revenue that the city 'loses' is revenue that otherwise wouldn't exist. A company either would pay, say 20 million in taxes under 'normal' rules, but arrange to only pay 3 million, it is said they 'gave' them 17 million dollars. However the alternative for the city was not 20 million, it was 0 (or maybe from alternative taxpayers, but for many of these places they got enough empty space that amazon does not exactly bump other more profitable companies out.

      On top of the employment and immediately indirect benefits that the politicians like to tout, it's also a rationalization to get some public works spending through. I know that at least one of those metropolitan areas has been trying for many years to build some sane transit improvements, but the citizens never have the stomach and would rather sit in traffic two hours a day than see money spent to improve it. Amazon can become the justification to spend money on those projects.

      Of course, this is all hugely unfair still and favors big businesses with leverage and is another way that economic power gets focused to a handful of leaders at a handful of companies. The consequences of capitalism exacerbated by technology that facilitates really fast information travel and logistics to make it feasible to consolidate to gigantic powerful companies that grind all competition to dust.

        It can also be greatly disappointing. There was a small town that agreed basically to let a big datacenter take of residence basically without paying any taxes whatsoever, and in very real terms went into the red building infrastructure required by the company to make the deal. It was admittedly great for the construction companies in the short term, but as soon as everything was built, they became upset because that gigantic facility under normal conditions had maybe a dozen employees. They were imagining in their heads what a textile plant of that size would hire 30 years ago and instead got to be the suckers that happen to have a big datacenter that contributes nothing to the employment or economy of the area.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    14. Re: I don't understand why cities compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Jobs that are paid for by revenue from outside the area are a net plus for the local economy.

      At the very least, having Amazon jobs in your state means that the money your citizens are paying to Amazon will go back into the local economy.

    15. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      Your taxes will go up to bring in Amazon, and that gets you... what?

      They may not go up as much as you think. Will have to build new schools and roads, but Amazon employees and their housing arrangements will broaden the tax base. Will also increase demand for housing, which will drive up appraised values, which further mitigates the need to raise rates. Now, you're still paying more when your appraisal goes up, but usually that reflects an increase in the actual market value. So Amazon arriving means my house is suddenly worth more. It also means the market for tech workers will tighten up, which will increase salaries disproportionately in that one industry. Since I work in tech, that's good for me.

    16. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 1

      I want Amazon to come to where I live because of the effect on property values. All of those people making 100K+/year should easily increase my home price by 20% if not more.

      I can then sell at the top of the market and move someplace cheaper where I don't need 100K/year to get by.

    17. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      You know what makes me absolutely recoil in horror? The families I know who lost their homes (and the rest of their worldly possessions) in the flooding following Hurricane Harvey. The ones whose kids' schools haven't been rebuilt yet. The ones that are still living in hotels. What horrifies me is that 90% of it didn't have to happen.

      Many saw it coming. The Army Corps of Engineers who drew up plans in the 40s for more reservoirs that were never built. Or the plan in the 90s to run a massive region-wide drainage channel under I-10 - also never built. Or the people who called for zoning laws that require proper drainage for new developments. Or the people who called for restrictions on building homes inside the existing reservoirs that were designed to flood.

      "Too expensive", they said. "Unfriendly to business." The developers that lobbied for this short-sighted non-governance made a killing, and now the rest of society is left to clean up after them, to the tune of $200 billion. The city is having to buy back many of those houses that have been flooded 3 times in 3 years. (It's not just Harvey.) Families who have never needed welfare are lining up to get emergency food stamps. FEMA is paying for their hotels while all this gets sorted out.

      You know what, maybe the lack of a nanny to keep the children focused on important things is one of the reasons Houston was removed from the running for Amazon's HQ2. Bring on the nanny state if that's what's needed to protect me from these guys' folly.

    18. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      And it's exactly that sort of control over your town's choices and economic life that makes many people absolutely recoil at the notion of EU-style nanny statism.

      On the other hand, we don't have a race to bottom where things like environmental regulations and infrastructure costs get offloaded just to enrich some politicians.

      Yeah, we have corruption here too, we just make an effort to actually deal with it by removing powers that are frequently abused. I thought small government with less power was good???

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by supremebob · · Score: 2

      I think that the only reason that Toronto is on the list is so Amazon can extort federal tax breaks along with the state level tax breaks everyone is offering. I'd imagine that a thinly veiled "cut our taxes some more or we're moving our HQ to Canada" threat would work pretty well with the current administration.

    20. Re: I don't understand why cities compete by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 1

      Deus Ex had a pretty clever method for population control, perhaps we could look into that?

    21. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The way the EU has structured things, with incentives for relocation being illegal, seems far superior.

      And it's exactly that sort of control over your town's choices and economic life that makes many people absolutely recoil at the notion of EU-style nanny statism.

      And it's exactly that kind of completely wrong, knee jerk, asinine statement that makes anyone with any knowledge of how the EU works consider you a complete idiot.

      Having my council, out of my rates, barter for a corporation to set up here when they wont pay rates is completely pants on head retarded. If corporations want to set up in my borough, they can do so because we already offer something, not because they're offered my money to do it and having my council rates pushed up for the pleasure of it.

      You use words like "nanny" and "statism" when it's obvious you've got no idea what they mean because you've essentially argued in favour of higher taxes.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    22. Re: I don't understand why cities compete by HumanWiki · · Score: 1

      Well, places like Chicago, a lot of people already commute in from surrounding suburbs. So, we'd be most fine.

      The HQ2 site is actually in viewing distance from my office. So are 3 of our major commuter train stations and several local trains, plenty of busses and the 290/90/94/55 expressway interchange is next door.

      I think the tax issue will be a non event for Chicagoans in the city proper either.

    23. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      not because they're offered my money to do it

      And you're the one scolding other people for not understanding things?

      You have your town, with local residents and businesses paying their usual taxes. Along comes the possibility of a big new employer drawing in lots of local business activity, creating new jobs and a huge new wave of tax revenue collected from employees, property taxes, local business revenue from new employees, and the taxes on that new revenue. In order to encourage all of that into happening, the locals decide to offer to collect somewhat less of some particular taxes or fees than they might otherwise, knowing that the net result is a much larger new take of tax money and economic security. Somehow you think this is money being actually taken out of your pocket. That's exactly the sort of cognitive problem that results in someone thinking that bureaucrats in Belgium know best how to handle - with uniform policies - the activities in a Frankfurt factory and the operations of a goatherd on an island in Greece.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    24. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by quetwo · · Score: 1

      It depends on the area. It's not as much the population of an area requiring certain things (well, they do), but the class of people.

      If you have a bunch of tech workers move into an area, they will demand certain services. Things like parks, good schools, clean streets, local nightlife, baseball stadiums, etc. are all going to be demanded by people of a certain class, in addition to the basics of infrastructure, police, fire, etc. If you create 50,000 low-paying, blue-collar the demand will be much less since these people will be more worried about keeping taxes down. It's all those things that make a community "nice," raise the values of the homes and land in the area and make it more desirable.

      I watched this happen in the town I grew up in, in Illinois. Before we moved there is was painfully blue-collar. Nothing going on, tract housing, low income. The big employer there was a recycler. A few years after we had been there, a large DoD contractor built a location (they were doing R&D for missile propulsion systems) and with them came some very highly-educated, upper class citizens. Nearly overnight we started getting parks concerted efforts to make the school system better. Taxes went up for everybody. Roads expanded, and the town got bigger. Other companies moved in that were dealing in that space and the area changed more and more.

    25. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      It does? That exceeds that about of tax breaks subsidies? In reality the ROI is non existent. It's a very poor investment. Now if Amazon covered its own bills....

    26. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      The economies of scale are there, but cities have incentives to swallow long term maintenance costs in exchange for short term tax base infusions.
      It doesn't help that many if not most small towns are dominated by developers, realtor groups, and their sycophants.

    27. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Except that it never actually happens that way. The taxes paid by those new workers don't come anywhere close to the tax revenue that the city loses. Never has, never will.

      Sometimes the new revenue does bring in more money. Sometimes it doesn't. The "doesn't" cases get a lot more coverage since it's easy to cause outrage.

      Also, when considering new revenue you also have to add in the secondary, tertiary and beyond workers (ex. those new engineers buy food, leading to more restaurant and supermarket workers, and more truckers to supply those places, and so on).

      You also have to consider the reduced cost on policing and similar costs for some of these cities, as people who could not find legitimate work now can do so.

      So if Amazon actually comes through and builds and staffs this new HQ as described, it would increase revenue. If Amazon just pockets the tax incentives and never staffs the place up, then it's a costly boondoggle.

    28. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid of this coming to my community, which was selected as "best place to live" by Money magazine.

      I'm a renter, so I'm not going to make money on my house, and prices will go up fast if Amazon comes.
      The schools already can't keep up with student costs since the state government blew up the property tax base and refuses to invest in local schools.

      The local government is so in bed with developers I think we're already in trouble. Right now we have shiny new infrastructure, but I'm sure there is not a tax base sufficient to maintain and grow it. Best case we steal tax base from our next door neighbor community that is older and more established so both communities go downhill.

    29. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Precisely. Living in SE Florida, I am pulling for them to wind up in Miami. Not because I want to work for them, but because it will soak up the otherwise cheap entry level engineers that would otherwise be pulling down the average salary in my market slightly to the north.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    30. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by lgw · · Score: 1

      Why is it that Washington (state) and California have some of the highest taxes in the country

      There's no state income tax in WA. What was your point again?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    31. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by lgw · · Score: 1

      IMO there are 3 real criteria here:
      * Sufficient infrastructure
      * Some place developers would like to live
      * Existing tech community

      Toronto has all 3. In fact, the only 3 candidates I find credible are Toronto, Denver, and Austin.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    32. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by lgw · · Score: 1

      And that's fine - let's each do our own thing. Global homogeneity would be terrible. The US has a different approach than the EU. Both are objectively pretty good, so it gives some freedom to pick the one you like. Half the developers I knew when I was young live in the EU now, and most of the people I work with in the US are immigrants. Seems ideal to me.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    33. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by DetriusXii · · Score: 1

      Toronto also has "computer professional" overtime exemption laws, which basically says that programmers aren't allowed to receive overtime hours and are not even entitled to pay beyond the 40 hour base pay they receive. I'm happy that I work in Saskatchewan where I'm classified as a regular employee.

    34. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Both are objectively pretty good, so it gives some freedom to pick the one you like.

      No and no.

      Having your health damaged so that some politician can get paid is not "objectively good" in any meaningful sense, at least not for you.

      Most people don't have the freedom to pick the one they like, since they can't just emigrate if they don't like the situation in their country. In fact, the US and UK are currently trying really hard to stop people doing just that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      > All of those people making 100K+/year should easily increase my home price by 20% if not more.

      I live just outside of Toronto, and as the population grows the cost of housing grows, and both slowly migrate outwards from the core.

      When I retire, I'll be able to sell my house and live quite well in some semi-rural area... but my kids are going to be lucky if they get a cardboard box on the street corner anywhere within commuting distance of a real job.

    36. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I tried to have a similar conversation with a friend recently. He was very excited about an economic boom in his area that was all about natural resource extraction and how it was going to bring long term wealth to his area. He seemed to expect that the industry would be building constantly for decades and that those jobs weren't going to vanish at some point. And somehow the average Joe was going to be profiting off the sale of those natural resources.

    37. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by lgw · · Score: 1

      Having your health damaged so that some politician can get paid is not "objectively good" in any meaningful sense, at least not for you.

      Corruption is everywhere, but ignoring blatant health risks isn't the norm in either the US or the EU (which is why manufacture shit in China!). Not sure what your point is here.

      The US has a very high standard of living compared to the rest of the world, as do most EU nations. We're doing something right.

      Most people don't have the freedom to pick the one they like, since they can't just emigrate if they don't like the situation in their country.

      True, the US accepts far and away more people than most nations, and in any case it takes some combination of economic resources and determination to emigrate anywhere. But if everyone does things the same way, there's 0 such freedom for anyone.

      In fact, the US and UK are currently trying really hard to stop people doing just that.

      Well, in the US we'd like to limit it to people with something to contribute; can't speak for the UK.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    38. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Classist much? Your argument is that the "painfully" blue collar people don't care ( you left out the superbowl and beer references, btw), but the fine upstanding white collar workers care? You also incorrectly correlate increasing tax rates with nicer neighborhoods.

      I'd say it's simply a matter of the white collar jobs coming in paying more money, hence more tax base,

      I'm kind of hoping some painfully blue collar guy clocks you some day.

    39. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Why is it that Washington (state) and California have some of the highest taxes in the country

      There's no state income tax in WA.

      Well OP said "taxes," not "income taxes," so...

      What was your point again?

      Their point, obviously, is that individual tax burdens would be much lower if multi-billion dollar corporations were actually made to pay their fair share, rather than getting ridiculous breaks. I would throw on the addendum of pointing out corporations like GE get so many tax breaks, we end up owing them BILLIONS in rebates annually.

      Of course that would likely fall on deaf ears, as either A) you're being intentionally obtuse, or B) you're too dense to actually grasp the concepts being discussed.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    40. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by lgw · · Score: 1

      Income tax completely dominates state taxes. Sure, a few hundred in gas taxes etc, vs $5-10k in Cali income tax.

      So, again, the point fails.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    41. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      It brings in jobs, and the workers pay taxes. At least that's the theory.

      Robots don't pay income taxes or taxes for meals and movies and other essentials (medicare) and luxuries.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    42. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by drsquare · · Score: 1

      And it's exactly that sort of control over your town's choices and economic life that makes many people absolutely recoil at the notion of EU-style nanny statism.

      Not giving special welfare to corporations = nanny statism? My god, the way you right wing lunatics tie yourself in mental knots to justify your contradictory, hypocritical positions is hilarious.

    43. Re:I don't understand why cities compete by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Just because you fail to grasp the point, doesn't mean it fails.

      Of course, I think you understand the point just fine, but you disagree and are conflating your personal disagreement with some sort of empirical data that does not exist, or at least has not been referenced.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  2. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by hey! · · Score: 1

    Kinda jumping the gun on Texas there. Still a few more years before that flips.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  3. Considering none of them often work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Seattle Hundreds," this is going to be a disaster. I've lived in Austin, near Atlanta, Denver, and LA. The people in those cities are lazy and won't work much over sixty. I've also done extended contract work in Alexandria, VA, Nashville, and Baltimore. They worked even fewer hours.

    1. Re:Considering none of them often work... by greenwow · · Score: 2

      I agree. Those places probably won't even work the required 16 hours a day Mon-Thu much less the 12 hours required Fri-Sun.

    2. Re:Considering none of them often work... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      When I google Seattle hundreds, this is what I get
      http://seattlerefined.com/life...
      I don't see a problem with that at all.

  4. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder why? You red-state folks seem to [sic] warm and welcoming...

    In my experience, the people you meet in most red states are wildly more affable, warm, friendly, and polite than most you'll meet in the increasingly effete, shrill, divisive, identity-politics-obsessed wastelands of political-correctness-paralyzed lands of blue. Your comments is a sure sign that you never get out of your holier-than-thou bubble and echo chamber. Give it a try, you might be pleasantly surprised that the people you hate are actually a lot nicer than the people you feel you're supposed to like because they vote the way you do.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  5. Most of EU has parliments by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    which are much better systems of Democracy. Our system was built from the ground up to protect the interests of the wealthy (especially land owners, but mostly because at the time being wealthy meant owning lots of land). We're not really a democracy. We've got dozens and dozens of systems in place to make it so we look like one but at the end of the day the laws don't reflect popular opinion. Heck, our head of State lost the popular vote by 3 _million_.... And that's just one example. There's our Senate, built from the ground up as a buffer between the population and wealthy land and slave owners. There's Gerrymandering. There's all manner of flavors of voter suppression. I could go on but the depressions making me want to stop...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Most of EU has parliments by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      All systems of government protect the interests of the wealthy, just as all government is inherently corrupt. The privilege of a modern western democracy over every other sort of government in all eras is that you really can vote in the change, if you are able to galvanize the masses in great enough numbers. Malaise is your enemy, especially when the citizens enjoy decent, fruitful lives.

      The US is a representative republic, and though the popular vote doesn't always reflect the winner in the Presidential election, the electors still pretty much vote in lockstep with their State's respective popular votes.. and they don't have to.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Most of EU has parliments by Junta · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they *talked* about it, but that did not happen. No one wanted to be the fellow who wanted to throw their state's votes against the will of their voters. They wanted to grumble about what a terrible thing it was, but not actually have any consequences of those thoughts.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:Most of EU has parliments by spitzak · · Score: 1

      If the state's popular votes were 60% for candidate A and 40% for candidate B, but the electors then vote 100% for candidate A, then about 40% of them are not "voting in lockstep with the State's respective popular votes".

    4. Re:Most of EU has parliments by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Thank you, this is true. American's need to step up and vote, but they also need to serve in offices.
      https://www.npr.org/2017/11/04/561408611/when-election-day-comes-and-theres-only-one-candidate-on-the-ballot

      I favor mandatory voting with a fine, like Australia. Election day should be a holiday and if people work they should get double-time.

  6. That's the excuse by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the reason is bribes, which are essentially legal here in the form of Political Action Committees, campaign donations and jobs handed out after completion of a term in office. If we were sane we'd regulate PACs, only let people donate to candidates they can vote for and even then limit the amounts and give anyone who served a significant public office a pension for life and require them to retired without owning stock.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  7. Please, NOT Chicago! by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1

    Giving this to Chicago allows the politicians to claim their reckless spending is working (it isn't), and it means that the sales taxes we pay on items purchased from Amazon go from the low "state rate" to the outrageous Chicago/Cook County rates.

    1. Re: Please, NOT Chicago! by javaman235 · · Score: 1

      If central location to areas served is key, Chicago is gonna win. If pleasant and pretty place, Nashville. If angering Trump, Atlanta. If kissing federal butt, DC.

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
    2. Re:Please, NOT Chicago! by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Chicago proper, but McDonalds just vacated their ~80 acre campus in the Oak Brook. Looks like a pretty fancy place, but who knows if it'll be fancy enough for Amazon.

  8. Re:I don't understand why oceans compete by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    . . . I'm a little disappointed that they are choosing a city for their new HQ.

    I would have preferred something more obscenely, conspicuously techie, like on a floating barge in the middle of the Pacific Bermuda Triangle. Or at the bottom of an abandoned mine shaft, housing long term nuclear particle detection experiment.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  9. I'm Glad We Lost Out by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 1

    Native Detroiter here, and I'm glad we didn't make the cut. At first I was somewhat excited that we might possibly land the second HQ (our biggest strength was being close to Canada, make of that what you will), but the more I read about what cities who try and land these mega factories or HQs have to give up in return the more I thought it was a bad idea. Not only do you have to bend over backwards in tax breaks, but the jobs created never make up for what had to be given up. It's true that Amazon is far less likely to close up shop in 20 years than say the FoxConn factory that WI sold their souls for, but I honestly don't think the jobs brought in would have covered the additional costs. I also don't think Amazon would have been a good 'cultural fit' with the area. My money is on Austin or possibly Denver as the ultimate winners.

  10. Re:I don't understand why oceans compete by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

    but then walmart would develop their own mine shafts and there would be a min shaft gap

  11. Not a theory by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Informative

    It brings in jobs, and the workers pay taxes. At least that's the theory.

    As someone who pays state income and sales taxes, I assure you it is no theory.

    Even if you give a company a lot of tax breaks there is by necessity a TON of revenue brought to a region that has any large company. It's not just the workers, but all of the support that goes into a large office - construction, office supplies, cleaning, etc.

    On top of that a few larger businesses generally attract other businesses to the region as well. It has a halo effect when a large company someplace well enough to set up a large office there,

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not a theory by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It depends how badly they fleecy you. There are costs to hosting a large company. Infrastructure updates to cope with traffic, or time lost to traffic if not addressed, for example.

      It's okay if the benefits outweigh the costs, but the whole point of bidding processes like this is to create a race to the bottom where politicians lose sight of that and end up with a really bad deal that pretty much pays Amazon to build an HQ there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Not a theory by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      > There are costs to hosting a large company.
      > Infrastructure updates to cope with traffic, or time
      > lost to traffic if not addressed, for example.

      Those costs apply to any healthy and growing city & economy. Whether Amazon brings in 20,000 new jobs alone, or 200 startups create 100 new jobs each; that's still the same 20,000 more people using the infrastructure.So unless the preference is for your city to stagnate and wither like Detroit, I don't see the problem.

      Did you, per chance, ever visit Seattle and wander the south Lake Union area before Amazon got big? I did. It was bad; perhaps not to the point that you could call it "urban decay", but undeniably rundown and decrepit. And two years ago I had the occasion to go back and see the changes. And the improvement is so dramatic it's almost beyond words. I'd just encourage you to go look at pictures. Having see the before and after personally, I'd say that any city should be thrilled for Amazon to move in. I'm just bummed that they sign;t consider coming here to San Francisco.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    3. Re: Not a theory by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Each Walmart employee costs the local city, couny, and state government, combined, a very real US$100,000 per year.

      LOL -
      Since Walmart employees close to 2 million in the US, they are costing us 2 hundred million a year. Did you write that as anonymous because it empowers you to write obvious lies or do people believe this?

    4. Re: Not a theory by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Well, I heard it was $425,372.45 per employee, but I'm also just presenting those numbers without any citation, so there is that...

    5. Re: Not a theory by magarity · · Score: 1

      Each Walmart employee costs the local city, couny, and state government, combined, a very real US$100,000 per year.

      LOL -
      Since Walmart employees close to 2 million in the US, they are costing us 2 hundred million a year. Did you write that as anonymous because it empowers you to write obvious lies or do people believe this?

      You're off by several zeros; 200 billion is what you get if you multiply that out.

    6. Re: Not a theory by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Dunno about the exact numbers, but it's pretty well known that Walmart is a huge drag on the economy wherever it goes. It pays its workers less than a living wage, thereby effectively getting a subsidy from their host community. And uses its pricing power to drive local legitimate businesses into bankruptcy.

      Any vity that drives Walmart out of town will almost certainly see an improvement in their economy.

  12. one word: Stadiums by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    This is the same, lame argument that is used by politicians who want to build stadiums for their high-net-worth donors.

  13. Re: Go anywhere else by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    Why did Ottawa even apply? The city doesn't even respect the criteria set by Amazon.

  14. disgusting by Tom · · Score: 1

    Amazon said that it will now work with the candidate locations to examine their proposals more closely and request additional information to "evaluate

    In other words, it will pitch them against each other in a race to the bottom for tax breaks and other "incentives".

    It disgusts me so much when countries or counties think they are in a competition against each other. That mindset is what created 0.01% tax havens. There is just something the wrong way around when governments compete to please a corporation.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:disgusting by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Better Amazon than a sports stadium. But I'd rather have the money spent on infrastructure and then businesses choose based on the infrastructure. That way the whole population benefits from the improved roads, transit, education, water, parks, etc. Each city will concentrate on different things.

  15. Stay out of L.A. by losfromla · · Score: 1

    Please please please keep them out of Los Angeles! We already don't have housing for the people that live here.

    --
    Only I can judge you.
    1. Re:Stay out of L.A. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Yeah— it seems like a very odd list with more than half the locations completely unworkable. NY/Philly (3), DC (3), LA, Chicago, and even Denver seem almost impossible to work effectively. I see the logic of Dallas/Austin, and Atlanta. I think Indy would be a great city for it, as might Nashville— but my money would be on Columbus; it is the hub of their air operations.

      Or Toronto to piss off/on Trump.

    2. Re:Stay out of L.A. by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 1

      Denver native here, and while there is *STRONG* local opposition to bringing a fucking huge tax leech into our city, what exactly makes Denver 'unworkable'? We have like the 2nd or 3rd busiest airport in the country in terms of total flights, our politics are largely inoffensive to all but the most extreme on either side (and there's always Boulder and The Springs if you need to sate them) and there are likely sites to the North, East, and South of the city proper that allow for both the highly paid talent to live the high life and still have developing burbs for everyone else. Our public rail system is growing even as it sits virtually unused, and we've basically been increasing capacity of our roads for the last decade and a half. Our quality of life is highly regarded, whether you want to do stuff outdoors, or just eat/shop/shows/sports/nightlife. There's also the consideration that we are a *MAJOR* backbone, rail, and over-the-road hub, with minimal energy and water costs compared to 'big' cites like Chicago, NY, an LA, and we are pretty attractive from the insurance/DR side - no real earthquakes, minimal flooding, fires only really hit the mountains, and Tornadoes rarely get close to the city. The only thing we don't have is a Beach, and we're a 2-3 hour flight from either Coast if that's your thing...

      There's a reason we have laughable growth over the last decade, with rent prices that have made property ownership a virtual necessity for people wanting to stay here. There's quite a bit of speculation that if the state and city were willing to bribe them even a little it would be a done deal, but since that will *hopefully* never happen, maybe one of the more corrupt govts will be happy to sign up for a huge Company Store to take over their lives...

      --
      Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
  16. from that list by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    My money's on one of these: Austin, Boston, Denver, New York City, Northern Virginia, Toronto, Washington D.C.

    1. Re:from that list by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      Three of the "20" locations ARE Washington DC: Northern Virginia,, Washington D.C. and Montgomery County, Maryland. My money's there.

  17. Re:Killed Seattle by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    Seems like anyone who owned property pre-Amazon would benefit. You pay more in property tax as the value goes up, but it's also worth more. Also anyone working in tech or engineering prior to Amazon's arrival.

    By your logic, Seattle would benefit if every employer left town whose "product" is not directly tied to Seattle residents and whose workforce is disproportionately high-income. So, like, Detroit.

  18. Re: Go anywhere else by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    Ottawa itself doesn't have the population but with the city across the river, Gatineau, it passes the threshold. The two cities are known as the National Capital Region. If the Ottawa River wasn't the boundary between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec the two cities would probably be one city. Many people in one city work and live in the other. Ottawa also has a history of high-tech businesses. Many business are smaller now but Nortel and JDS Uniphase used to have a big presence in the city so we can handle large high-tech companies.

  19. Re: All in blue (or about to be blue) state shitho by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    Cities are blue, even in Texas. Mainly because that's where the brown people live. Suburbs are red. Slightly less red than the hinterlands because the populace is generally more educated, but still deeply red.

  20. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by MellowBob · · Score: 2

    Your comments is a sure sign that you never get out of your holier-than-thou bubble and echo chamber. Give it a try, you might be pleasantly surprised that the people you hate are actually a lot nicer than the people you feel you're supposed to like because they vote the way you do.

    And that's how you got Trump. We voted for him because of people like you.

  21. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    Another person who doesn't get out much.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  22. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by RyoShin · · Score: 1

    a lot nicer than the people you feel you're supposed to like

    As someone who grew up in small towns amongst different red-states, my experience has been that the politeness is because of societal pressure, not any desire from the people in general to be courteous. You greet every person and wave and say thanks not because you know the person or are happy to see them or appreciate something they did, but because it's the expectation. This is how you get phrases like "Bless your heart".

    It's also my experience that such politeness tends to fall away when you go into the denser cities even within red states.

    From what I've learned about external views of America, this "affable" mannerism is just a more pronounced form of general American politeness (again, as a nurtured habit not actual good will.) So in America we'll open conversations with strangers using the line "How are you today?" to which the expected reply is something brief like "Good" or "I've been better" and anything longer is often seen as ingratiating. I have heard first-hand accounts about how this greeting has confused people in other countries.

    I agree with people needing to get out of their bubble, though.

  23. Rather surprised by the list by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I was expecting to see Luxembourg, Monaco, Gibraltar, Nicosia, The Nobodyknowswheretheyare Islands ...

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  24. Not a Theory, Just Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As someone who pays state income and sales taxes, I assure you it is no theory.

    As someone who also pays state income and sales taxes and municipal property taxes I assure you the theory barely holds up in actual practice.

    For example, Wisconsin just gave Foxconn $4.5B in incentives to build a plant that will be largely lights-out - which means its almost fully automated with a minium support staff on hand just to keep the automation running. And on top of that, they gave foxconn special legal status that lets them unconstitutionally bypass most local courts.

    If these 20 cities were smart, their mayors would ban together and make a "no incentives" pact. Let Amazon come to them, instead of selling out their citizens for 30 pieces of silver.

    1. Re:Not a Theory, Just Bullshit by lgw · · Score: 2

      which means its almost fully automated with a minium support staff on hand just to keep the automation running

      Amazon pays its Seattle employees a total of $25 billion. That's a lot of taxes. Billions of dollars of new housing was built, so there's all that new property taxes as well. Seattle has certainly come off well from the Amazon HQ there, budget-wise. Plenty of people don't like Seattle as a big city, of course, and prefer its older, more quiet version, but in terms of dollars for the city there's no argument.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Not a Theory, Just Bullshit by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Then another 20 cities would pop up. And it's not just a US thing even though it's fun to act like it is. One of the reasons companies went to Ireland was due to taxes. One of the reason Hollywood moved to Canada is because of taxes.

  25. Re: All in blue (or about to be blue) state shitho by buddyglass · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No doubt the set of white people willing to live and work in an urban environment where there are brown people is self-selected to skew blue. But having a much higher concentration of non-white voters who skew blue doesn't hurt either. I can't vouch for the accuracy of this map, but, if accurate, then the only city in Texas where the whites voted Blue was Austin. Dallas and Houston, then, which went to Clinton, must have done so because of the brown vote.

  26. How did Toronto make the list? by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    They can't really offer tax breaks, Trump would go ballistic if Amazon chose a city outside of the USA and the income taxes are higher. Health care costs would be a lot lower and corporate tax is slightly lower that doesn't make up for the lack of other breaks and the higher income tax on employees. Plus it would be pretty brave of Amazon to choose a city outside of the USA and a real slap at Trump.

    1. Re:How did Toronto make the list? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      And given the bad blood between Bezos and President Zaius, that would be perfect. I can see it happening. I'd like to see it in Miami for my own selfish reasons but T.O. is a close second.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    2. Re:How did Toronto make the list? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      yet.

  27. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by cats-paw · · Score: 1

    than most you'll meet in the increasingly effete, shrill, divisive, identity-politics-obsessed wastelands of political-correctness-paralyzed lands of blue

    That may be, but apparently from your comment, you red state people also partake in the same generalizations about entire geographic regions of the US just like you think those awful blue state people do. So I guess we are at an impasse.

    Give it a try, you might be pleasantly surprised that the people you hate are actually a lot nicer than the people you feel you're supposed to like because they vote the way you do.

    Then why do they keep electing a preponderence of dickheads to office ?

    Hint. Trying to convince people how nice you are by being a holier-than-thou asshole about it doesn't work. You know, just like it didn't work for the person your objecting whose comments you didn't think were very nice.

    And BTW shrill yelling and screaming about liberals was the original shrill divisive politics that originated in the red states.

    Holy pot-kettle batman !

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
  28. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

    See? This is the sort of ignorant, political cheap shot the Left loves so much. They don't need to actually visit these places and talk to the people, they can just say things that they KNOW are true because they read it on the media. It's not going to get any better until the Left decides it has compassion for the little people, and I don't see that happening. It's just too satisfying to speak truth to the powerless.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  29. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Informative

    In my experience, the people you meet in most red states are wildly more affable, warm, friendly, and polite than most you'll meet in the increasingly effete, shrill, divisive, identity-politics-obsessed wastelands of political-correctness-paralyzed lands of blue.

    ...as long as your skin is the same color as theirs.

    It is interesting that you think that. My sister is very left wing. A few years ago she moved to Portland, Oregon, at least partly because it is such a left wing city. She was shocked to learn how racist the city is. I had to bite my tongue when she made that comment over a family dinner when she came home to visit, because anyone who studies the history of the progressive movement knows how racist it has always been.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  30. Red state hostility. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    I wonder why? You red-state folks seem to [sic] warm and welcoming...

    In my experience, the people you meet in most red states are wildly more affable, warm, friendly, and polite than most you'll meet in the increasingly effete, shrill, divisive, identity-politics-obsessed wastelands of political-correctness-paralyzed lands of blue.

    As long as you're not black, or Asian, or suspected Liberal, or foreign, or have a funny accent or use words with more than 2 syllables.

    As a foreigner, the warmest welcome's I've received have been from the least conservative cities and states. The worst people I've met are from dyed in the wool red state. I've met a few nice Texans... mostly from the Houston area but for every one of those I've met I've half a dozen complete wankers. Going through from Jacksonville to NOLA for work last year (with a truck of very valuable demo merchandise from the UK) we were treated with utter contempt from the moment we left Jacksonville to the moment we reached New Orleans because we had funny British (or in my case, Australian... not that they could tell the difference) accents. Once in NOLA we received some famous southern hospitality, up until then we only got infamous southern hostility.

    Hell, a black Londoner, who's family had been Londoners since before your country even existed was told to "go back to Africa, damn ni**er". It was a shock because to us he wasn't a black Londoner... to us he was just a Londoner. We here in the Evil UK just dont notice shit like that any more.

    And it's not like the logo of our company wasn't emblazoned on our lorries or jackets... its just that no-one there knew who this world famous vehicle manufacturer was (if they had of asked, they could have seen the supercars in the trucks).

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  31. Re: All in blue (or about to be blue) state shitho by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    that fear of non-whites which is at the core of the GOP

    Oh, please. If you really think that fear of non-whites is the core of what it means to not agree with Democrats on who should hold office and why, then you need to spend perhaps one or two minutes a day actually talking to people who aren't locked up on the Democrat plantation.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  32. Re: All in blue (or about to be blue) state shitho by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    I always love it when breathlessly race-fetishizing lefties lecture people about not being colorblind. Hilarious.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  33. Bunch of Hippies by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    Pay for it yourself Amazon! Bunch of free loading hippies, always wanting free stuff...funny how Capitalism requires Socialism (government subsidies) to work...

  34. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    In my experience, the fact that I don't go to church turns that affable, warm, friendly and polite welcome into icy stares and shunning.

    (They find out about my atheism because the 2nd or 3rd question upon meeting a new arrival is "What church do you go to?")

  35. One angle a lot of people seem to be missing by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    A lot of comments here seem to be missing one important angle: Recruiting.

    Your city could be quite lovely. But if nearby universities aren't pumping out the CS and IT graduates Amazon wants to hire for this HQ, and at a rate such that Amazon can get some for cheap, then that's going to put it lower on the list.

  36. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    It's amusing to me how conservatives ascribe every foible of their own to "blue state liberals". I live in a red state, near a blue city. I see first hand the hateful and divisive conservatives values.
    Sure, you can blend in and pretend your the same, but as soon as you challenge their assumptions or question the groupthink, the knives come out.

    And let's not pretend that red statists aren't masters at contorting their opinions and speech to mask the true intents behind their policies. This is probably the root of their hatred for "politically correct" speech.

  37. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    When a majority of people are more liberal and accepting, those who are not don't just disappear. The often dig in their heels, as evinced by our national dialogues.

  38. Re: All in blue (or about to be blue) state shitho by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

    No shit. I live in Texas, therefore I'm privy to many Republicans' views. By far the most worrying thing for them is the government taking the money they've earned and giving it to others they feel are less deserving of it.

  39. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

    I don't think it's fair that this modded flame bait. There are many people who are warm, friendly, and polite who hold loathsome world views enabled by shocking amounts of cognitive dissonance. It's not hard at all to like individuals and hate groups. I've seen plenty of people disparage entire ethic groups even while claiming to have "friends" in the group. Because they are "warm, friendly, and polite" they may never tell that person that they actually think quite poorly of the group. And they genuinely like the *individual*. They accomplish this by declaring the individual to be an *exception* to the general rule. i.e. "I like William. He's black, but he's not like most black people. But I would never tell William that I don't like black people." I have nothing against being polite or warm Just saying that they aren't the most important human traits.

  40. Toronto by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Prediction, Toronto wins. It is the only non-US option listed, and Jeff Bezos gets to stick it to Donald Trump.

    Trump wants Amazon to pay more taxes, pay more to use the US Mail service, accuses Amazon of being a monopoly, and has been highly critical of the Washington Post to which Bezos owns.

    Moving the Amazon HQ to Toronto not only thumbs the nose to Trump, but also sends a strong political message.

    Of course at the same time, at this scale, if Trump were to extend the olive branch and shuts the heck up about all those things above, Bezos being a businessman might decide to locate the HQ in some red state to which Trump can take credit for creating jobs etc... I'd say the likelihood of that happening is such that the HQ is probably going to be located in Toronto by the end of it.

    1. Re:Toronto by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >Prediction, Toronto wins. It is the only non-US option listed, and Jeff Bezos gets to stick it to Donald Trump.

      Some of the politicians involved on our side are actually saying, "Don't hold your breath, Trump will find a way to spike this".

      Bezos is ultimately a businessman, and if Trump can make it sufficiently unattractive to go outside the USA, he's likely to give up the ego gratification of 'sticking it to Trump' and accept the best net-profit solution.

  41. As a Canadian... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

    I'd have put Waterloo on the list, they've got a bit of a tech hub going there fed by University of Waterloo CS students, and literally down the street is Wilfred Laurier University turning out decent business grads. Cost of living for employees is significantly lower, and there's plenty of room for building as there's a lot of 'country' more or less immediately outside the already built-up areas.

    It's only an hour away from Pearson Airport (which... oddly enough, is sometimes less driving time than it takes to get to downtown Toronto), and Waterloo has a regional airport that could handle smaller aircraft directly if you want American execs to fly in. There's talk of putting in a high-speed rail corridor to Toronto by 2025, too.

    [And just prior to hitting 'submit', I see that the 'Toronto' proposal somehow includes Waterloo, and Waterloo doesn't expect to actually get it because of Trump]

  42. Re:Come to Dallas by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

    However, the city council here has zero interest in dealing with auto traffic, other than adding speed bumps to roads. There hasn't been a single road widening or improvement since 1995 on the major highways here, other than the state's toll roads.

    San Antonio is the same way. It's amazing how many times they shut down 1604 then reopen it a year later with the same number of lanes. Same with all the city roads. That, or they add a lane that doesn't even make it to the next exit.

    They tried to swtich us to toll roads but the city/state lost that fight. I feel like they are deliberately trying to make things worse hoping that we will beg for the toll roads.

  43. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

    That explanation would make sense except the examples of racism she gave were from the left wing political establishment of the city...you know those supposedly "more liberal and accepting" people who implement the policies so beloved by the left.

    My sister explicitly stated that her experience is that the majority in Portland are racist.

    It should come as no surprise that progressives are racist. They always have been. The KKK was founded as the militant arm of the Democratic Party. The founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist who spoke at KKK rallies and Planned Parenthood today has more clinics in minority neighborhoods than not. Woodrow Wilson resegregated the U.S. government and screened the movie "The Birth of a Nation" (the 1915 one) in the White House.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  44. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by houghi · · Score: 1

    The way you reacted maked me think you live in a blue state and are one of them.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  45. Not to be pedantic, but... by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    ...Stadiums is listed as one of the plural forms of Stadium in my "compact" OED, New Edition, 1991.

  46. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by robkeeney · · Score: 1

    Indiana is not blue and I hope they don't choose Indianapolis because I don't want the influx of "progressives" that it would bring and the resulting Californication.

  47. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    Give us some post civil rights era examples. You do realize that's what imploded the GOP. They embraced the racists fleeing from the Democratic party.

    My statement still stands. Nasty people are much louder about their hate and drown out other voices, cut urban areas can certainly be racist and espouse racist policies. Our job is to root them out and expose them to the light so they shrivel up and die.

  48. Re:Come to Dallas by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I grew up next to Dallas. Amazon correctly chose to drop them, and the remaining choice in Texas is the correct one.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  49. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by flink · · Score: 1

    Portland is very liberal, but it is also very white. This means you can be loudly racist and mostly get away with it because the people around you, while they might be disgusted, probably won't do anything to you. But if you act like that in a mixed race crowd you are more likely to have someone call you out on it or kick the crap out of you. This doesn't mean the percentage of racists is higher in northern, mostly white cities, or that liberals necessarily trend more racist, it just means racists are emboldened when they look around and see only people who look like them.

  50. They should just buy Detroit by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Buy a huge chunk of Detroit, put up a village ( Ala University of Southern California) and move in.

  51. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    Did you notice that Planned Parenthood has more clinics in minority neighborhoods than anywhere else? You know, the organization which was founded by a woman who spoke at KKK rallies performs a disproportionate number of its abortions on black women and I am supposed to think that is not because of race?
    Perhaps you have not heard about Senator Byrd? The KKK Senator?
    Perhaps you are unaware that it was Senator Ted Kennedy who sponsored the Immigration Act of 1965 which set up an immigration system which suppresses wages for African-Americans?
    Or, just look at Portland, one of the most leftwing and most racist cities in the United States.
    Or look at the results of Democratic policies in many of urban centers.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  52. Re:All in blue (or about to be blue) state shithol by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    Then why do I only see this racism among progressives?
    It is especially hard to buy your explanation when you look into the history of progressivism. This article discusses how progressives thought it pointless to give African-Americans academic training: https://www.edweek.org/ew/arti... Most of the key thinkers who laid the foundation for modern, progressive thought on education are listed as supporting this effort.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  53. Re:Killed Seattle by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    Leave town. If enough do, they'll have to pay more.

  54. Re: All in blue (or about to be blue) state shitho by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    For example, Dallas county is 67% white [census.gov] and went for Clinton 61/35 - obviously the 33% of the population that is non-white was not enough to get 67% of the vote.

    Granted. Urban white populations in Texas (and presumably other red states) are not "deeply red". Replace that with "somewhat red" or possibly "purple, leaning towards red".

  55. Re: All in blue (or about to be blue) state shitho by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    How am I ignoring the facts? The numbers you cited for Dallas County indicate white residents voted exactly as I described: "somewhat red" or "purple, leaning toward red". White people, in general, skew red. The ones that live in cities less so, but "red" still outweighs "blue" most places, even if only slightly. The reason you get cities like Dallas, Houston, and Austin going blue in deeply red Texas is a combination of 1. brown people, who are overwhelmingly blue, and 2. white people being only 60/40 red/blue instead of 80/20 like they are in rural settings.

  56. Translation: LET THE BIDDING COMMENCE! by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    This is the invitation for all these locales to submit their best and final offers. I'm guessing Bezos already has the spot picked out, but just wants to make sure he's gotten the sweetest deal they can be induced to cough up.

  57. Despite their best efforts, Missourians by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Despite the politicians' and bureaucrats' best efforts, Missourians will not be blessed with the costs of providing government services to Amazon while getting little or no tax money from Amazon to cover them.

    Sometimes, ineffectual pols and red tapers are just what we need.

    From all of us in the vicinities of St. Louis and Kansas City, thank you, thank you, thank you.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.