Amazon Threatens To Move Jobs Out of Seattle Over New Tax (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Amazon has threatened to move jobs out of its hometown of Seattle after the city council introduced a new tax to try to address the homelessness crisis. The world's second-biggest company has warned that the "hostile" tax, which will charge firms $275 per worker a year to fund homelessness outreach services and affordable housing, "forces us to question our growth here."

Amazon, which is Seattle's biggest private sector employer with more than 40,000 staff in the city, had halted construction work on a 17-storey office tower in protest against the tax. Pressure from Amazon and other big employers, including Starbucks and Expedia, had forced councillors to reduce the tax from an initial proposal of $500 per worker. The tax will only effect companies making revenue of more than $20 million-a-year. The tax is expected to raise between $45 million and $49 million a year, of which about $10 million would come from Amazon. The company said it would restart building work on the tower but may sublease another new office block to reduce its tax bill.

Comments

Homelessness

[JBMcB]

The problem with the homeless in Seattle is there is no cheap housing. The way to fix that is to rezone a whole lot of real estate to be multi-family / apartments. The way to NOT do that is to subsidize the expensive housing.

Re:Homelessness

[110010001000]

The cause of homelessness has nothing to do with the cost of housing.

Re:Homelessness

[PPH]

rezone a whole lot of real estate to be multi-family / apartments

That will play right into the hands of developers who will just build high rent units targeting the techie hipsters.

Seattle wants to build and operate their own subsidized housing.

Re:Homelessness

[ClickOnThis]

There are many reasons for homelessness, not just two. Contributing factors can include:

- poverty
- unemployment
- personal crisis
- mental illness
- substance abuse

The next time you see a homeless person, keep in mind that they might very well have been once like you, but reverses in life put them where they are now.

Re:Homelessness

[mishehu]

Personal crisis? Put on your big girl panties. Life is tough. Life is unfair. Get over it, deal with it, and quit expecting the almighty Hand Of Government to come to your rescue. Christ, if these limp-wristed wimps were all we had to work with back when Seattle was first being settled there would be no Seattle. They'd have been too terrified to head west.

A personal crisis can be many things, including things beyond the control of the individual. I've been rear-ended at a stop light. There was nothing I could do about it. I was lucky that I didn't have to spend months in recovery. It's not pretty when a Corolla gets slammed into by a Jeep Grand Cherokee traveling at highway speeds. Had I been in the hospital for an extended recovery or otherwise unable to work, how the hell would I pay my rent? And don't assume the other person had insurance - there's plenty out there without it. But thanks for your empathy and compassion.

Mental illness? Sure would mean a lot of crazies in Seattle which, come to think of it, may not be far off base given the composition of the city and state governments.

In other places too I've seen it: people who would otherwise have been treated in state-run mental institutions were let out on the streets instead because the gov't needed a quick way to save money.

Substance abuse? Sorry, not my problem, nor anyone else's except those who are abusing. Responsibility for your own actions comes along with being an adult. Apparently a lot of grown-up kids in Seattle.

You realize that some who are in poverty and unemployed or underemployed use drugs as a means of coping with their shitty situation right? Then try to get a job, as many entry level ones require a drug test. And consider how long THC will stay in one's body.

Cash Grab

[ArchieBunker]

You know the majority of that money will go towards slush funds and other private projects. Giving the government more money is like giving booze to an alcoholic.

Re:Cash Grab

[The Fat Bastard]

Starving government of tax revenues is like a husband who buys a new set of golf clubs and expects the wife to feed the kids and pay the bills on what little is leftover from the paycheck.

Re: Cash Grab

[Anonymous Coward]

Parents have an obligation to feed and house their children.

The government does not have an obligation to feed and house adults.

Do you really think your relationship to the government is analogous to the relationship between a child and his father?

Re: Cash Grab

[plopez]

You got the analogy wrong. Amazon is the abusive one spending all the money, refusing to hand over money for needed public services such as streets, mass transit, fire protection, schools, and assorted other services needed in a modern society which Amazon benefits from. Amazon has the money, but dumps the costs of the services it uses onto those who can't afford it. Amazon is a parasitic freeloader.

The logic is painfully twisted.

[BitterOak]

The reasoning behind this tax is the idea that big employers like Amazon are creating high salary jobs in the community which are driving up the price of housing. Therefore, the homelessness is, at least in part, Amazon's fault, and they should pay to "fix" the problem through a special tax, aimed exclusively at those businesses which are bringing so much money into the community.

With this kind of insane logic, the city will doom itself. Companies like Amazon should leave and set up shop elsewhere. We'll see if that fixes the problems in Seattle's economy.

Re:The logic is painfully twisted.

[un1nsp1red]

How do you figure? If that were the case, there'd be a lot bigger race for these companies to move there. Apparently some of these items are missing, or all of these Googles and Amazons would be moving to Mississippi. Apparently some of these states aren't very attractive, can't make moving to their state very attractive or something. I won't claim to know what these factors are, but there are clearly some advantages or all of these businesses wouldn't concentrate in specific locations.

Re:The logic is painfully twisted.

[admiralh]

Amazon has profited from the infrastructure that the Seattle taxpayers have provided for them over the years, including an education system that has provided the workers that have been the engine that has driven Amazon's wealth. And now that Seattle is asking Amazon to give a tiny percentage back to help the community that fostered them, they threaten to leave.

This is the kind of selfish short-term thinking that will destroy this country.

Re:The logic is painfully twisted.

[BitterOak]

Amazon has profited from the infrastructure that the Seattle taxpayers have provided for them over the years, including an education system that has provided the workers that have been the engine that has driven Amazon's wealth. And now that Seattle is asking Amazon to give a tiny percentage back to help the community that fostered them, they threaten to leave.

This is the kind of selfish short-term thinking that will destroy this country.

Amazon already pays taxes like everyone else. This is a new, special tax which punishes only the most successful companies, i.e. those that are bringing the most wealth into the community. I think its highly counter-productive.

Re:The logic is painfully twisted.

[steveha]

And now that Seattle is asking Amazon to give a tiny percentage back to help the community that fostered them, they threaten to leave.

This argument would be more compelling if Seattle didn't already collect taxes from Amazon. Amazon already pays quite a lot in taxes. The Seattle city government basically said "We've decided we need even more money, you have money, so hand it over."

When even the extremely liberal Starbucks is complaining, maybe Seattle has gone too far.

Amazon doesn't like this, but it's really going to hurt low-margin businesses like fast food hamburger restaurants. The iconic local hamburger chain, Dick's Drive-in, will never open another location in Seattle, according to the founder's grandson Saul Spady.

"This is a tax on high-volume, low-margin businesses, like restaurants, and that's where it's going to put the most pain. And it's making restaurants like Dick's Drive-ins think really strongly about do we make our workforce more efficient, do we give less money to charity, or maybe we just don't be a business in Seattle."

Spady cites Denver's head tax equivalent, the Occupational Privilege Tax, saying, "If the nearest, largest head tax in the country is $50 and [Seattle's is] six times the nearest head tax, how is that a compromise?"

But at least Seattle didn't already do something crazy like pass a $15 per hour minimum wage law! Oh wait... yes they did.

If a city council giving orders truly leads to prosperity and happiness, then Seattle will be prosperous and happy. I fear it doesn't work that way.

Causation

[JBMcB]

The median home price in Seattle is $722,000. I'd say, at the very least, it's a factor.

https://www.seattletimes.com/b...

Re:Causation

[110010001000]

People aren't wandering the streets because they can't afford a $722k house! Even if the houses were $10k it wouldn't make any difference in homelessness.

Re:Causation

[phantomfive]

Even if the houses were $10k it wouldn't make any difference in homelessness.

There are lots of reasons people are homeless but even so, if they were that cheap, it would make a large difference in homelessness.

Re:Causation

[ShanghaiBill]

if they were that cheap, it would make a large difference in homelessness.

When I first moved to Silicon Valley, I could not afford a home, and I was "homeless". I lived in a van, which was worth about $10k, in my employer's parking lot. I had a gym membership, and took showers there. I got a $200 a month bonus for being "on call" and in the machine room within 5 minutes of notification.

I lived this way for two years. So sure, if housing was $10k, I would not have been homeless. But when people talk about "homelessness" they are not talking about people like me. I was employed, earning good money, and had a clear (but not immediate) path out of my situation.

Money can make a difference for short term homelessness, caused by a job loss or healthcare issue. These are often families with a single (usually female) parent. These people just need a roof over their head and some groceries till they get back on their feet. They don't have the mental issues and substance abuse problems.

For hardcore homeless, usually adult males, living on the street, with no steady income, often with mental health and substance abuse issues, even $10k is out of reach. Even shared housing doesn't work, since they are often belligerent and uncooperative. Homelessness is a difficult problem, and there are no simple solutions. Almost any idea you can imagine has been tried, and nothing has worked.

Re:Causation

[rtb61]

Lets no lie, want to solve homelessness, it is all to easy, you just have to spend money. Social support should all be done on a federal basis and not by the state or local communities. Problem with states and local communities attempting it is, well, psychopaths, rather than trying to solve problems they just use law enforcers to drive people out and force them on other communities and on the tax base and social support services, overloading them, a real cunt act, no better way to put it.

So done on a federal basis, consider homelessness and mental disorder and pick those people up and put them in protected housing. Generally monitored and controlled one person studio style apartments, a controlled environment, where you can assist them with their problems or based upon their problems provide more controlled care and rehabilitation in an institution.

So the problem is solvable but be honest in the US, you don't want to really solve the problem, it feeds the ego of those better off to look down their noses at people in poverty, lets the better off pose before those in poverty, this kind of stuff https://www.rt.com/usa/403097-... is not a negative in the US economy, it is clearly seen an ego burnishing benefit. Poverty in the US because most Americans do not want it to end, they want to grind being a loser into the faces of the losers, that want the poseur opportunities and be honest, they want to do worse things than they already are.

Re: Causation

[AndyKron]

People don't stay in shelters because they don't want their shit stolen or infected with bugs.

Re:Causation

[ShanghaiBill]

pick those people up and put them in protected housing.

Good luck getting the courts to authorize you to compel innocent people into confinement. If you think the homeless will voluntarily go into your "shelters" then you know nothing about the history of homelessness policy.

Generally monitored and controlled one person studio style apartments

In what NIMBY free neighborhood will you place these studio apartments? Prepare for the political fight of your life. NOBODY will want these people anywhere near their homes. They don't want to deal with the drugs, broken glass from booze bottles, vomit, urine, etc., nor do they want their kids to have to walk past that on their way to school.

Also what are you going to do with the homeless guy that takes a claw hammer and smashes holes in all the walls to get the demons out? You could try to build the walls out of solid concrete instead of drywall, but good luck getting a building code variance for that.

Re:Causation

[llamalad]

Having heard hundreds of stories from a mental health professional who works with the homeless in a "transitional housing" facility... the real problem doesn't seem to be lack of federal social programs for homelessness.

There are a significant number of clients with "successful exits," meaning the client finds permanent housing, subsidized or otherwise.

The sticky part is the ones who are unable or unwilling to work on actually getting permanent housing. In a lot of cases it seems to be mental health or substance abuse issues that keep them from succeeding at stuff like keeping a job or not smoking meth.

I'm about as socially liberal as you'll find, but having the window I have into that world I really, really, really think that throwing money at it addresses only a symptom -no income- as opposed to the fundamental problems from which long-term no income situations arise.

I don't have firm numbers around it, but anecdotally psychosis, PTSD, and drug addiction seem to be the main reasons for unsuccessful exits. So if you want to fix homelessness, let's see better social programs to address these underlying causes.

Re:Let them leave...

[b0s0z0ku]

Amazon isn't going to actually leave. Low-tax states don't attract intelligent, educated people. When was the last time you heard someone saying that they really, really want to move to Oklahoma or Arkansas when they finish school. People actually like having amenities ... paid for by (OMG!) taxes. Funny how that works.

Some of it makes a difference

[SeattleLawGuy]

People aren't wandering the streets because they can't afford a $722k house! Even if the houses were $10k it wouldn't make any difference in homelessness.

Um. No.

There are many people who can make a $700-$800 payment monthly, but ask them to pay more or give them one bad medical problem or car accident plus recovery time and they can no longer do that. If the labor market doesn't provide a job that lets them earn enough to pay for local housing, or even if they can't find the job because of inefficiencies in the market, they become homeless.

Some programs mitigate that very slightly--emergency shelters are NOT great but it's cold outside in the winter, and subsidized housing can help if the list eventually gets to you--but there's nowhere near enough of it to match the need.

Addressing homelessness requires addressing numerous problems--actual physical health is one part of it. Mental health is one part of it. Training is one part of it. Having someplace you can take a shower, receive mail, and/or sleep while you try to get a job is one part of it.

So yes, plenty of people would still be homeless if the cost of a house was lower, because there are other issues involved in homelessness than just the cost of housing. But of course the two things are related, because people become homeless for the first time when they cannot pay for a home.