Slashdot Mirror


'Amazon's HQ2 Was a Con, Not a Contest' (recode.net)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Recode: To dozens of cities across the United States, Amazon's widely publicized search for a "second headquarters" looked like thousands of new jobs, up for grabs. To Pivot co-host Scott Galloway, it now looks like a "ruse." "I lease office space all the time for my businesses and I always tell my real estate agent, 'We can lease any office in the world as long as I can walk there from where I live,'" Galloway said on the latest episode. "Amazon is now talking about having three headquarters, Seattle, Crystal City and Long Island City. The Bezos's also own three homes, and the average distance from those three homes to a headquarters is 6.4 miles.

"This was never a contest," he added. "It was a con meant to induce ridiculous terms that they then took to the cites all along that they knew they were going to be in." In other words: By soliciting bids from lots of place where it was never going to move, Galloway alleges, Amazon was probably able to get more tax breaks from the pre-determined "winners." "I would bet, Kara, that when they pick two cities and they went to 2 and 3, they didn't say, 'Well, only half our headquarters is going there, so we're going to let you cut the tax subsidies and incentives in half,'" he explained. "This just has ill will written all over it, and I think people started to figure out what was going on ... It's the Olympics on steroids. A lot of high fives and ribbon cutting, and then 10 years later, we realize it was a bad idea."

147 comments

  1. And this is why Bezos runs Amazon by presidenteloco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and you don't.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:And this is why Bezos runs Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was obviously a charade from day 1. why are you saying shit about me?

    2. Re:And this is why Bezos runs Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon will need more than 3 headquarters after the government forces the company to break up into smaller units. Amazon does not have a serious competitor. The retail division alone has been swallowing it's competitors at a record pace. And Amazon has translated it's accumulated wealth into power to keep the government at bay.

    3. Re:And this is why Bezos runs Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fake news

  2. and it worked too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    didn't it?

    1. Re:and it worked too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep.

  3. They're a business, what do you expect? by kalpol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not the biggest fan of Amazon, but why should they leave money lying on the table? If they can negotiate concessions, they are perfectly within their rights and duties to do so. The cities obviously thought there was a net benefit somewhere or they would never have negotiated.

    --
    12:50 - press return.
    1. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not the biggest fan of Amazon, but why should they leave money lying on the table?

      From their perspective: They shouldn't.

      From the perspective of society: We should force them to. Because that money can pay for schools, hospitals, police, firefighters, roads, electricity, water and a hundred other useful things.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The notion of 'Leaving money on the table' is the shiny side of the same coin as 'race to the bottom'.

      Basically extracting as much from any given situation as possible; which just results in even greater concentrations of wealth; at the expense of people, suppliers, and society at large.

      In this case though, it's especially repugnant because those 'gibs' amazon was trying to cajole local governments into granting would have to be paid for by the citizens, who get absolutely no say in the matter.

      And for what? a few extra jobs (potentially!) that the bureaucrats can use for re-election fodder? Would the net tax base actually expand after all the concessions? Would Amazon's tricky bastard accountants figure out how to dodge them?

    3. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the perspective of society: We should force them to. Because that money can pay for schools, hospitals, police, firefighters, roads, electricity, water and a hundred other useful things.

      That's where politicians need to step up to the plate. Instead of bending over and competing to give the biggest tax concessions, they need to grow a pair and say no.

      Remember how some people predicted that Scott Walker's deal between Wisconsin and Foxconn would be bad for Wisconsin? Now it's come out that those predictions are true.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, please. As if. Been around a long time, and money on the table NEVER goes to those good causes instead.

    5. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's where politicians need to step up to the plate. Instead of bending over and competing to give the biggest tax concessions, they need to grow a pair and say no.
       
      How about as a consumer the people who think this way just don't fucking buy from all the abusive corporations they shit on through outlets like Slashdork and Facebitch? Seriously, step the fuck up and start voting with your dollars. Buy from only small independent businesses. Stop the two day shipping, stop the swinging on the Walmart nutsack, stop crying that you can't stream every fucking episode of the latest dorkfest on Netflix.
       
      Why is it you cunts cry that things should magically work some way and lean on the government to do your dirty work then turn around and piss and moan about how the government treats you like cattle?
       
      Put on your big boy underoos and stop sucking at the teat of society while simultaneously crying that society is fucked up and you hate it.

    6. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The notion of 'Leaving money on the table' is the shiny side of the same coin as 'race to the bottom'.

      Basically extracting as much from any given situation as possible; which just results in even greater concentrations of wealth; at the expense of people, suppliers, and society at large.

      In this case though, it's especially repugnant because those 'gibs' amazon was trying to cajole local governments into granting would have to be paid for by the citizens, who get absolutely no say in the matter.

      And for what? a few extra jobs (potentially!) that the bureaucrats can use for re-election fodder? Would the net tax base actually expand after all the concessions? Would Amazon's tricky bastard accountants figure out how to dodge them?

      It's a democracy, it can be changed. Once the idiots figure out that white privilege is a myth but wealth privilege isn't then we can move on to solving this race to the bottom. Anyone who actually believes white privilege is a useful idiot of the 1%.

    7. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dude, I got six pairs of "Made in China" tube socks for $0.99 from Walmart, and I'm not doing anything else until I cum in all of them. Thank you for your "tell it like it is" plain talk screed. Because of you, I only have three socks to go.

    8. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you believe wealth privilege isn't real, then you're a useful idiot for the 1%. If you believe white privilege isn't real, then you're a useful idiot for white supremacists.

      Solve all the problems, don't be a useful idiot for anyone.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you believe wealth privilege isn't real, then you're a useful idiot for the 1%. If you believe white privilege isn't real, then you're a useful idiot for white supremacists.

      Solve all the problems, don't be a useful idiot for anyone.

      Whoah there, put the cell phone away and step away from the propaganda.

    10. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me Gameboy. If white privilege is real, and I am white, why is that a problem for me? What incentive would I have to solve a 'problem' that gives me privileges I would cease to posses without it?

      The definition of white privilege ensures people that have the power to remove it ought to not do so while there is no scientific evidence of its existence.

      There is zero reason why any rational person would act on the concept of race privilege in a country where race is a legally protected class and no lawyer can prove systematic advantage.

    11. Re: They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always wondered where do I have to go to take advantage of my white privilege because I just don't feel like I'm getting it. Why isn't anyone treating me like I'm special???

    12. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Your incentive should be some sense of fairness or moral obligation to do good - admittedly a rare trait, especially among any privileged class.

      In the US, the median white family has nearly 10x the wealth of the median black family, and this gap has not been steadily decreasing. Broadly speaking there are only two possible explanations, one acknowledges racism (that slavery's legacy is still hurting people today and minorities are still discriminated against - IOW, white privilege is real) and the other is racist (that there is some inherent difference between races that produces this huge inequality independently of any possible societal biases). Choose one.

      HINT: Racist beliefs are ethically and scientifically wrong bullshit for dimwits.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re: They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you've figured out the game: Step 1: be a useless idiot to everyone
      Step 2: ???
      Step 3: profit!

      Why, you're practically an honorary Kardashian! Get a sex change, lots of artificial ass, and you'll be raking it in, I tell you what.

      P.S. and by "it" I mean dicks. Lots and lots of dicks. Veritable bushels of dicks.

    14. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL "white supremacists". Those two words hadn't been uttered and taken seriously for 2+ decades until it started being used as yet another crock of shit lie to tell about Trump and his supporters. You have zero credibility.

    15. Re: They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I can't say what benefits they are getting from the new cities they are expanding in, Amazon didn't make any attempts to get deals in Seattle and in fact choose to build their HQ essentially in the downtown assuring they ended up paying the highest possible property tax.

      For those who claim they strong armed the Seattle City Council on the head tax, to some degree they did, however the Seattle City Council has yet to find a way they can't waste money, and their plan to combat homelessness is essentially to burn money as fast as they can without a viable plan. Unfortunately there is no end in site for the Seattle City Councils incompetence, since if there was they could probably get Jeff to buy into an actual viable plan.

    16. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is it only takes one city to make a deal. Expecting one politician to grow a pair is optimistic, but expecting them all to is foolish. Corporate welfare needs to be illegal and nothing short of a constitutional amendment will get us there.

    17. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Third option: a culture that glorifies violence, is responsible for 70% of the shootings, 60% of the rapes, and 50% of the murders while constituting a tiny portion of the population which is predominantly a single race needs to be wiped out.

      Black people in the US without that culture do just as well as white people, but still not as good as Asians.

      Here's another comparison: The median conservative family is poorer and less educated than the median liberal family. Does that mean there is a systemic liberal privilege which liberal people need to eliminate through some sense of fairness or moral obligation to do good?

      Liberal privilege is just as real as white privilege. Asian privilege combines the two.

    18. Re: They're a business, what do you expect? by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      They aren't treating you like you are black.

      So they are, but you just take it for granted.

      The rich are just like you, but at a higher level of privilege.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    19. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Another believer that a smoking wasteland outside of the gated communities is the natural and inevitable order of things.

      "Gummint only does bad things with money..."

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    20. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you couldn't pause for one fucking second to think that maybe things have been fucked up for a long time. Just because you are old does not in any way make you wise. So shove your "oh please" directly up your ass. Be part of the solution or get the fuck outta the way.

    21. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The gap between the average and the top 1% is steadily increasing too, I wonder what effect this has on that metric considering the complexion of most of the worlds ultra rich.

      Whilst the above metric might be true, it can still solved by taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

      TBH I haven't witness any overt racism in many years, and most of what I have heard is from rich old white people. I suspect these metrics will disappear after 20-50 years once the older generations die.

    22. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 0

      The "legacy of slavery" theory would be a lot more convincing if it explained why blacks in the U.S. were steadily improving on lots of things like income, poverty, jobs, family stability, out of wedlock births, etc... from the civil war up until Johnson started his "War on Poverty".

      It's a lot more difficult to explain why slavery and resulting racism somehow has a worse effect on black prospects today than it did on them 60 or 70 years ago.

      Not to mention the differences in outcomes between native blacks and immigrant blacks with similar starting demographics and IQ. Do the evil racists take the time to figure out what country their victim is from before deciding to hold them back or not?

      It's primarily culture driven by "well-meaning" government-encouraged destruction of black families, not genetics, not racism.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    23. Re: They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Seattle HQ dates from a point before Amazon had the clout to do as you suggest that it decided not to do it. It's like me saying that I decided not to date Winona Ryder today.

    24. Re: They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Demand for labour, better labour representation securing rights and pay, a series of economic booms in which workers gained a proportion of the productivity gains.

    25. Re: They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Birth control. Roe vs. Wade. Multi-cultural politics. The War on Some Drugs. New Math. The loss of corporal punishment for children. The rise of "Ebonics" as a language to treasure rather than an idiom to avoid in polite speech. The list goes on, and on. The treasuring, rather than the disdain, for single motherhood.

      The list goes on and on.

    26. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because most of the people in prison are white. Gimme a break. This is the rich making us fight with one another. Cletus and Jamal have much more in common with each other than they do the rich. They have the same goals and values. You fanning the flames of race hate just helps to keep is divided.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    27. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From the perspective of society: We should force them to. Because that money can pay for schools, hospitals, police, firefighters, roads, electricity, water and a hundred other useful things.

      That's where politicians need to step up to the plate. Instead of bending over and competing to give the biggest tax concessions, they need to grow a pair and say no.

      Toronto (Canada) ended up on the final list--the only non-US city to do so--and I believe that they didn't offer any tax concessions. NYC didn't offer anything, but NY state did:

      * https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/01/hq2-hunger-games-meet-your-tributes/551000/

    28. Re: They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're going to have to show some evidence there, Adolph.

    29. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by Falos · · Score: 1

      >vote with your dollars
      I bet that magic spell has solved EA and Comcast by now.

      Unless this sound bite is fantasy bullshit, then they're probably as big as ever.

    30. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by Tom · · Score: 1

      and lean on the government to do your dirty work

      You might have missed a few centuries, but ever since we got rid of those kings and stuff, that is exactly what the purpose of the government is.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    31. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 0

      In the US, the median white family has nearly 10x the wealth of the median black family, and this gap has not been steadily decreasing. Broadly speaking there are only two possible explanations, one acknowledges racism (that slavery's legacy is still hurting people today and minorities are still discriminated against - IOW, white privilege is real) and the other is racist (that there is some inherent difference between races that produces this huge inequality independently of any possible societal biases). Choose one.

      HINT: Racist beliefs are ethically and scientifically wrong bullshit for dimwits.

      First off your either / or is wrong because it is a false dilemma. A few Bill Gates do a lot to pull up the average. This is why averages, even when true, are misleading. It's also true that while Bill Gates and other billionaires are white it helps me exactly zero. No privilege there. This is obvious. Your going to have to do better to prove your case about white privilege than just averages.

      Under your racial privilege paradigm Obama's daughters are far less privileged than a poor white child. Does that sound like reality to you? As an alternate, consider using wealth as the dominant privilege factor. Under my paradigm, Obama's daughters would be considered to have more privilege than a poor white kid. Now let's look more at the averages you love. On average blacks would get more perks, like college preference and such, than average white kids. So you can rejoice that on average your favored group is still benefiting more. Moreover by moving away from racist schemes towards economic schemes we can begin to seek justice for the 99%, which is far better than only attempting justice for the 11%.

    32. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      First, you need to learn the difference between median and mean. I didn't even ambiguously say "average," I said "median." So Bill Gates and the Obamas are not a factor here. Next, if you think a bit of college admission preference etc. is actually giving black people an overall advantage, you're kidding yourself and the numbers confirm it.

      I agree it's more beneficial to seek justice for the 99% than the 11%, but not if it comes at the cost of massively deferring or abandoning the 11% getting justice. If the alt-right is pursuing this tactic it could possibly even make sense to join forces with them on this goal and go back to fighting them tooth and nail after it's achieved. But you have to be very careful about joining forces with the worst people operating with the worst intentions.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    33. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The current estimate is ~50,000 jobs...just a bit more than "a few", and then you have to think about how much that will equate to in supporting jobs. In other words, if you open a 50,000 job business, someone is going to feed all of those people...those will be new jobs. Someone is going to teach those folks kids, those will be new jobs, etc., etc.

      Not sure how the GP's idea of forcing businesses into not doing this would work since businesses can move anywhere. If your city wants the jobs, then suck it up. Just don't suck it up such that you'll end up making less after all of the added income & property taxes & infrastructure are accounted for.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    34. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The problem I have with calling it "white privilege" is that there are plenty of underprivileged whites as well. Granted, the percentage of those is much lower, but those people get doubly screwed because they're told that they're privileged by the idiots who are claiming all whites are privileged. And at the other end, there are 1%er who are non-whites...should their children benefit from affirmative action, or other such programs? And yes, these are a small percentage of the total, but we need to get away from this overall stereotyping.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    35. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nearly half of the 1% are Jewish. Why are you being so anti-Semitic?

    36. Re:They're a business, what do you expect? by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      I agree it's more beneficial to seek justice for the 99% than the 11%, but not if it comes at the cost of massively deferring or abandoning the 11% getting justice. If the alt-right is pursuing this tactic it could possibly even make sense to join forces with them on this goal and go back to fighting them tooth and nail after it's achieved. But you have to be very careful about joining forces with the worst people operating with the worst intentions.

      I suspect that the definition of "alt-right" is as muddy as hacker these days. In any case the sooner the tactic of pitting one racial group against another, and thus fragmenting the 99%, the sooner we can get on with economic policies that actually do favor the 99%. There has been ~50 years of trying to get progress for minorities by way of special handouts. It hasn't worked. Two generations later that should be obvious. Let's get back to progress for the 99% and the 11% will by definition get progress as well.

  4. same thing with foxconn wisconsin by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Scott walker sold us works out and stuck them with the tax bill.

    1. Re:same thing with foxconn wisconsin by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      At least that asshole's out the door. I Love the irony of him signing that law banning a recount in an election decided by greater than 1% ( he lost by 1.1%).
       

    2. Re:same thing with foxconn wisconsin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would that be ironic? He lost and isn't crying about it. Besides, like we can currently see in Florida right now (unless you think CNN is a real news station) only Democrats like committing all their election fraud during ballot counting time.

  5. I regret reading TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Normally, like so many slashdotters, I skip the article and read the comments.

    This time I made the mistake of reading the article (as Chicago was one of the cities used in the ruse, I was interested in reading a detailed bit of journalism on Amazon's malfeasance. Instead I get an inane interview with someone who knows (or whose comments certainly indicate) he knows nothing about politics, has a superficial knowledge of other matters, and while I agree with his suspicions about Amazon, doesn't really offer up much insight.

    I expect the comments in slashdot, when they eventually arrive, will be far more information dense than the tripe in TFA. What a waste of time.

  6. really ? by Tom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And you woke up to that now?

    Is being retarded a requirement for holding a public office or does it just help a lot? Half of the times a large company is "searching for a cooperation partner" or some such, they already have a winner in mind. They just need to go through the motions for regulatory or political purposes. And it is quite common to make invitations to tender as a means to press the price of your favorites down somewhat. Even if they understand they are your preferred choice, the competition will force them into making a better offer.

    Been there, done that.

    The Amazon search was never an open-ended search and anyone with three working brain cells understood that. At best they had only favorites and it maybe might have been possible to sway them. More likely, two spots were already certain and one was a "maybe". Wouldn't be surprised if all of them were certain at the start.

    Seriously, to expect any kind of "fair play" behaviour from an international corporation only shows that whatever you are smoking needs to be made illegal. Profit is the only ethics of a corporation, because the entire system is set up like that.

    Simple way to stop it - don't allow externalities anymore. Put a price on pollution, on negative social impact, on any behaviour you want to discourage and companies will follow the money. They're like drug addicts. You could start by stopping to compete for company favors and make them compete for your grace again. I've always thought it absurd that counties or cities compete against each other to attract a company.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I bet, if I look through all the old stories about the HQ2 there won't be a single one with your braincells in it. Hindsight's 20/20 ay?

    2. Re:really ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      More commonly willing agents. I believe in win-win situations and I've made years of successful career manufacturing them.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:really ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't remember. But you know, you could have easily checked before posting that comment. Too much effort?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:really ? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Is being retarded a requirement for holding a public office or does it just help a lot?

      People are all too happy to assume incompetence rather than malice for politicians. Oh, politicians are such idiots! Yes, even the ones that graduated from a top school, convinced millions of people to vote for them, and their "mistake" seldom costs them any votes while being immensely beneficial to someone connected to them -- at the taxpayer's expense, not their own.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    5. Re:really ? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Most politicians are little more than the same type of people you elected as prom king and queen. They were the ones with charisma, life of the party, a great smile, etc. And, quite often, as dumb as a soap dish. But, they had friends, and sometimes those friends are smart enough to know that hoping on the bandwagon will also get them invited to the party.

      I'm not saying this is the majority, but certainly, it also isn't a tiny fraction of the whole.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  7. I wish they would just move out of Washington by ASCIIxTended · · Score: 0, Troll

    All the liberal idiots moving here from California and Oregon to work for them are really screwing up this state. Seattle is now a shithole just like San Francisco, LA, Portland and Chicago have become. I wish they would just go away.

    --
    I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
    1. Re:I wish they would just move out of Washington by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      I wish they'd leave Oregon as well. Of course there's eastern OR/WA (or west Idaho, depending on your outlook) -- But then again, apparently Boise is getting infested with them now too.

    2. Re:I wish they would just move out of Washington by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel the same way about the fuckwits from Texas moving here. I never knew a demographic could be so stupid until I met Texans. And we're a pretty red state.

    3. Re:I wish they would just move out of Washington by psycho12345 · · Score: 1

      Capitalism at its finest. People want to be left alone and stay in their quiet rural/suburban place, but tell me, would you, in a 1000 years, turn down someone offering you an awesome bonus because you have something they want? Would you turn down a job that was a 200% raise because someone felt your skills were perfect for what they need?

      Capitalism demands you improve or die. Steady state is another word for stagnation and sooner or later someone passes you by. Nothing wrong with this, just it leads to those "idiots" moving in their best interest.

    4. Re: I wish they would just move out of Washington by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what parasites do. Suck the life out of a host, then move on when all that's left is a rotting husk.

    5. Re:I wish they would just move out of Washington by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      Ah well. I've lived in silicon valley most of my adult life and I'm really hoping to move up to Oregon or Washington someday. Sorry to cramp your style.

      I remember back in 1994 at my first job an older woman lamenting the prices and traffic in the bay area and actually quitting and moving to Oregon with her husband. At the time I just didn't understand. But wow, 25 years later, a) it seems quaint to think that conditions in the bay area in 1994 were something even remotely worth getting away from given how much worse they have gotten since then, and b) I envy her for having the prescience to do it so long ago when it was probably a much better deal.

    6. Re: I wish they would just move out of Washington by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm from Eastern Oregon and, for my part, I've really appreciated a lot of the people who are moving in from your neck of the woods.

      It's annoying when people can't adapt to some of the realities (harsh weather, remote locations, wild animals, and an abundance of Preppers) or when they paint every local with the same brush (SO tired of hearing "your pals, the Bundys"), but it's really nice to have more neighbors with a technical background. We got a huge influx of OG Portlandians, thanks to high cost of living, about a decade ago and most of them have been valuable additions to the community/backup for the Dems and us younger RINOs.

      I wouldn't give up on that relocation. There's still good property in good towns for (comparatively) reasonable prices. I'd keep the search in the NE area, though, unless you're after rugged beauty, rodeo culture, and a pretty limited selection of goods and services.

    7. Re:I wish they would just move out of Washington by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I've turned down that kind of raise to do work I considered dangerous or immoral. But I had the resources to make that choice. Some of us have family or other obligations that force us to make such choices, choices like supporting family with enormous needs.

    8. Re: I wish they would just move out of Washington by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      I too grew up in eastern OR (umatilla county) and yeah, for someone from SV, there isn't much there that they'd enjoy.

      Well, I can see them moving a few miles north to Walla Walla and getting into the snobby wine scene, so there's that.

  8. People at Google knew long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Went there to talk about GCP and the topic of Amazon came up. A contractor there was involved with creating their badging system and, while they wouldn't name names, said it was down to two cities.

    This was over six months ago.

  9. And no one cared because everyone already knew.... by Joviex · · Score: 1

    No shit? news at 11,

  10. Lies by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    My offer included a sofa bed in my living room for him and I still apparently lost. Though I'm still holding out for these reports to be false.

  11. I think it has more to do by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    with the fact that he graduated from Princeton. Not that he isn't bright, but It's naive to think the contacts he got from going to an Ivy league school didn't help matters.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: I think it has more to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is this another of those Slashdot MBA rants where we all jealously explain that these people don't have any value and he only got where he is because of privilege? Sort of like Bill Gates dad but we willfully ignore the fact that millions of kids are like that and only 2 of them built Seattle into the city it is today.

    2. Re: I think it has more to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just reality. When you have connections and an idea, it is much easier to make things happen. An idea with no connections is just an idea.

    3. Re: I think it has more to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      150,000 Boeing employees would like to have a word with you about who built Seattle.

    4. Re: I think it has more to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rich pepole never ever catch a break? Good Lord, I can smell the victimhood complex through my screen...

  12. Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Informative

    One of the problems in Seattle's South Lake Union is that 2/3 of all the buildings are paying no taxes, so there are no funds to support infrastructure costs, so it ends up getting subsidized by the rest of the city.

    Every time I hear someone new say how great it is, I ask them where they live. Chances are they don't even live in Seattle, so they don't realize what the real impact is.

    By the way, we have no state or county or city income tax, or capital gains tax on stocks, so it's not like we get any real money to pay for all this.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by GregMmm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Tax exemptions are NOT almost always a bad thing. In fact they are a tool, unfortunately a tool in the hand of government. Lets face it, the people in government are not the sharpest tools in the shed. So they make bad deals. Try this: Before you offer tax exemptions to someone run simulations for the life of the exemptions and see if you can afford it. Did Seattle try this?

      And yes I'm a native Washingtonian. I've stumped the Amazon streets. You should know it's illegal according to our state constitution to have an income tax, so the politician knew about this. Also, why would you want capital gains tax on stocks? You want your 401K to be taxed for gains, or your pension? Almost everything would be impacted by a capital gains tax.

      Of course you missed the one source of income. Oh, right 40,000, each making over 6 figures running around Seattle spending money on goods which have one of the highest sales tax in the country. (~10.1%)

      I'm saying I totally disagree with your points, I just think our leadership has for so long not thought of our tax dollars like a business does. Run the numbers. Does this tax break offset the full cost, and what does the city/county/state get in return? Hope the new "HQs" are running these numbers. Let the dumb ones over bid. It's like in sports with the new free agent. You usually regret it as the contract goes on.

    2. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Lol, you don't even realize our State Constitution allows a flat single exemption state, county, or local income tax.

      come back when you actually read it.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm saying I totally disagree with your points, I just think our leadership has for so long not thought of our tax dollars like a business does. Run the numbers. Does this tax break offset the full cost, and what does the city/county/state get in return?

      I often wish this logic was applied to illegal immigration. Is it a good idea to let in millions of people with few skills who don't speak the language? They cost the state tons of money, a smart person would minimize the hell out of that demographic.

    4. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They come because they are cheap labor. Question, if there was a fine (think 1K, 2K, 4K, 8K...) for each illegal immigrant you hire, how long do you think it would take for a biz to stop hiring? Question, ever have a roof redone? Think any were US born? Ever seen houses constructed, US born? Ever go to a restaurant? The problem is not that illegals are a burden, the problem is they work harder than the citizens for less money, and don't complain if they get the shaft.

    5. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      " Also, why would you want capital gains tax on stocks? You want your 401K to be taxed for gains, or your pension?"

      Just to answer this nugget: anyone who proposes fairer or better tax structures is implicitly agreeing that taxing everyone (including themselves) for the common good (including themselves) is the right call.

      So yes, if it's fair and beneficial to the state as a whole, I would support a tax on my 401k and/or pension.

      I'm not saying one way or another whether these particular taxes are justified; I am speaking more to the sentiment you seem to be raising where it doesn't make sense for anyone to decide that taxes which would affect their own assets are a good idea.

      It is the inability of lots of people to understand and accept a common sacrifice that is the heart of alot of social problems we have.

      Of course, it's also the spend-whatever-you-can-and-then-ask-for-more attitude of most government that is at the heart of alot of other social problems we have.

      A sensibly run government intelligently taxing the right amount to get the best bang-for-buck and do the most with the least possible? A pipe dream for sure ... but what a dream ...

    6. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're all a bunch of fools. You think the politicians are just bad at business? They are doing just fine themselves, probably millionaires.

      And you think they are getting conned.

      This is why you idiots keep voting for them.

    7. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apparently, your personal biases are more important to you than facts:


      Aviva Chomsky, a professor at Salem State College, states that "Early studies in California and in the Southwest and in the Southeast...have come to the same conclusions. Immigrants, legal and illegal, are more likely to pay taxes than they are to use public services. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for most public services and live in fear of revealing themselves to government authorities. Households headed by illegal immigrants use less than half the amount of federal services that households headed by documented immigrants or citizens make use of."[36]

      National Public Radio (NPR) wrote in 2006: "Supporters of a crackdown argue that the U.S. economy would benefit if illegal immigrants were to leave, because U.S. employers would be forced to raise wages to attract American workers. Critics of this approach say the loss of illegal immigrants would stall the U.S. economy, saying illegal workers do many jobs few native-born Americans will do."[26]

      Professor of Law Francine Lipman writes that the belief that illegal migrants are exploiting the US economy and that they cost more in services than they contribute to the economy is "undeniably false".[37] Lipman asserts that "illegal immigrants actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services" and "contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    8. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess if you're going to believe in fairy tales, you really should go all the way.

    9. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      And if there were no tax breaks, those buildings wouldn't be there in the first place. You prefer bare land? Sheesh, I swear you people can't see past the end of your nose.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The buildings will always be somewhere. I dont get tax breaks because "hey he paid $5, thats better than nothing!"

    11. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Not if their goal is demographic war. Just because right-wing paranoids noticed that first does not make it untrue.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    12. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do they though? The only natural experiment we've had was during the Reagan years when he allowed amnesty. The influx of immigrants actually stimulated the economy. Because it's not like you have a population moving in, sucking up government resources, and never spending a thin dime. That's assuming they get state resources, which isn't a given when you don't speak the language. Ever try navigating a bureaucratic form? Try doing that in a language you don't speak. So what money they do make, such as getting paid for shit doing some horrible manual labor job, does return to the economy in some amount.

    13. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheap labor for that one business owner, burden for the community and the public sector employees that have to support them.

      I'm all for sustainable immigration and the "American melting pot", but things are being run right now exactly like an awfully-thought-out tax subsidy for a few asshole business owners.

    14. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when are you going to stop taking advantage of the things that your taxes pay for?
       
       

      • When will you stop using the publicly funded roads?
      • When will you stop employing people who attended publicly funded schools?
      • When will you stop drinking water that was purified by the public water infrastructure?
      • When will you stop relying on public safety to keep you safe?

      There are other countries you could move to where you won't get these things from the government. If you stop paying taxes but you continue to take advantage of these then you are just a thief, plain and simple.

    15. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      I disagree. The thieves are people who are voting for government officials that promise them these things "for free", or rather at the expense of others, who are in fact forced to give up part of their income/wealth.

    16. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're just going to continue being a total hypocrite, then. You will continue to take advantage of things that are paid for by taxes, while spouting bullshit about how government shouldn't provide any of those things that taxes pay for. Can you even find a government official who is promising things - as you said - "for free"? That's a fun meme to recite but can you actually show it to have come from someone in government? It's pretty well understood that taxes cover these things. If you don't want to pay taxes, feel free to go live somewhere else - I've heard Somalia is very nice this time of year.

    17. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Once again, for the especially gifted, politicians win elections on the promise of something for nothing. Those who vote for them understand that they will not be the ones paying the taxes, it's always someone else who pays the taxes so that the voters can get their free stuff.

      By very definition, if people just paid for what they use, they wouldn't need to create a system of taxes in the first place, they would pay for goods and services out of pocket instead.

      The entire concept of taxes is the concept of taking away from the minority so that the voting majority can have their free stuff.

    18. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again, for the especially gifted, politicians win elections on the promise of something for nothing.

      You were asked to provide an example. You notably did not provide one. Please provide an example of a politician giving a "promise of something for nothing". It is well understood in the western world that government programs are funded by taxes.
       
       

      Those who vote for them understand that they will not be the ones paying the taxes, it's always someone else who pays the taxes so that the voters can get their free stuff.

      That is a sweeping generalization there. Can you support it? So far you have shown the answer to that request to be a resounding no. Here is another chance though, if you'd like to try.
       
       

      By very definition, if people just paid for what they use, they wouldn't need to create a system of taxes in the first place, they would pay for goods and services out of pocket instead.

      That works if you think serfdom is a good idea. You should think that through though, as capitalism falls apart completely at that point. A consumer culture is not possible without at least basic infrastructure provided by a centralized government of some sort (even at a village level).
       
       

      The entire concept of taxes is the concept of taking away from the minority so that the voting majority can have their free stuff.

      No, it is not. That might make a great sound bite, but it does not reflect reality in the least. You're notably ignoring the fact that everyone benefits from at least some of the programs provided by taxes. If you really feel so strongly about taxes though you are free to move to another country where you are taxed less, and try to survive on what is provided there in return.

    19. Re:Tax exemptions are almost always a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      roman spouts off his religious beliefs without questioning whether or not they are supported by reality. don't expect him to come back when you have challenged him, he already believes he has won because his lord and savior tells him so. you'll get a more meaningful dialogue with a wall.

  13. Are we ever going to let companies and the 1% by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    stop doing this to us? There's plenty of ways to stop them, and we can debate which are the best, but we're not even trying. In fact I'll wager a good number of people on this forum consider this kind of behavior praiseworthy as opposed to the anti-social and outright destructive policy it is.

    True fact: Scott Adam's of Dilbert fame cracked jokes about a CEO moving the headquarters to be near his parents home for free babysitting. It's even more ironic when you realize Adam's would now (given his political views) probably side with Bezos.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Are we ever going to let companies and the 1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame you aren't running things so you learn you can't control entities with more power and reach than the government ever had. They simply buy your opposition if you look like being effective, or route around the restrictions some other way. See those tax sandwiches? There's always one country/entity that'll lowball just to get the little that's better than none. No exceptions, and no particular partisan half of the uniparty has had the least bit of effect on this historically no matter who held power.
      It might be more interesting to hear what you think those "plenty of ways are" so we can red-team them. Bet they're more full of holes than a pastafarian hat. And it only takes one.

    2. Re:Are we ever going to let companies and the 1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... buy your opposition if you look like being effective ...

      This is the real issue: Americans are easily manipulated into voting "fuck you, I've got mine" even when government is giving more to the voters.

      ... no particular partisan half of the uni-party has had the least bit of effect ...

      Because people want to believe the lie that "(corporate) greed is good (for everyone)".

  14. And there's the Wisconsin Foxconn factory by Streetlight · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There was a promised $3 billion cash subsidy that's now at $4.1 billion, the cost to the community of additional infrastructure such as roads, utilities, etc., 13,000 jobs that are now many fewer, a change in what's produced, and a governor who's soon to be out of office as a result of the recent election. I wonder if that project will be decommissioned.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  15. I hope you're parroting the Dunald. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And not just involuntarily mimicking that logician.

  16. Personal And Corporate Tax Benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So he'll be able to fly from one house to another (I mean from one HQ to another) whenever he wants and Amazon will pay for the travel. As an extra bonus, Amazon can deduct the travel costs from their taxes and his family gets mileage awards. In other words, you'll be paying for his cross-state commutes and vacation trips. Isn't it nice when you own a multi-state business and have substandard morals? At least he doesn't park illegally like Steve Jobs did.

  17. a more relevant plot against job applicants by swell · · Score: 1

    Isn't it interesting that after this story many Slashdotters are eager to tell us that they knew it all along? Where were they yesterday with all their insight?

    But there's another, similar, scam more relevant to Slashdot: When governments (and certain corporations) advertise a job opening- beware. There is often a policy that requires HR to give at least three interviews before hiring. This is ostensibly a way to assure that they don't just hire the first applicant. But in reality, it is almost always misused.

    HR *will* do 3 interviews, but someone in the company or agency has already decided who they will hire. It will be a friend or relative of a current employee. Or it could be that they need to make their quota of women, minorities or robotic workers. As a result HR is wasting time and money, and the applicants are wasting time and money, and the two who get an interview with no chance of being hired are an especially sad case.

    I've been there many times. I usually rated at the top of qualifications testing, and so they were required to interview me. Sometimes I could see it in the interviewer's eyes and body language that they were just going through the motions in our interview. Sometimes I could see the guilt in their expressions, knowing that they were leading me on when I had no chance. But usually I got my hopes up only to be disappointed when rejected a week or two later.

    I'm beyond all that now, but maybe a discussion here could find a solution to this frustrating system that can dash hopes and crush self-esteem.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re: a more relevant plot against job applicants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I never had that problem. And Iâ(TM)m a white guy with expensive salary requirements. But then again, I network, I work on my soft skills, my resume shows quantifiable value delivered, etc.

      Perhaps you just suck? Maybe you show up to interviews fat, dressed incorrectly and with no soft skills?

    2. Re:a more relevant plot against job applicants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So other candidates keep getting hired in preference to you, but you "know in your heart" that you are the best. Because reasons.

      Okay, buddy. I'm sure you're right.

    3. Re: a more relevant plot against job applicants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LMAO, look at dudes post history and you find this. I wonder why he never gets hired.

      https://m.slashdot.org/thread/57576524

    4. Re:a more relevant plot against job applicants by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Or it could be that they need to make their quota of women, minorities or robotic workers.

      Or, it could be that they have somebody like me in mind. I'm a senior citizen, i'm a veteran and I'm partially disabled, allowing me to fill three quotas all by myself. And, if there's a quota for people who's disability is service connected, that's a fourth, right there. If I weren't also retired, I could probably hold down a good job doing nothing more than filling quotas.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  18. Alt title: Galloway duped by Amazon Ruse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No shit, buddy. Do you think cities like Indianapolis or Columbus EVER had a chance? Fuck no.

    The movie studios and other companies do this all the time, and Amazon just followed their lead.

  19. Ha Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what the cities get for subsidizing big business, suckers.

  20. it's like the board game of Life... by rmdingler · · Score: 2

    If you graduate from high school, you're statistically likely to be a better earner than someone who doesn't, a college graduate is probably going to earn more than a high school graduate, and an Ivy league graduate is going to do better, financially, than a graduate of community college. It's no secret; there is an incremental improvement in potential outcome for each helping step up. Each step up implies one's network of friends, colleagues, and acquaintances also have improved potential outcomes. So, it matters.

    State and Municipal subsidies to attract corporations are a tool of elected officials to get reelected... whether or not they make good fiscal sense, they create voting capital. Thus, they are here to stay.

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

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re: it's like the board game of Life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each step up also came with a lot of extra work (think getting into an Ivy is easy and that no personality traits that would be helpful in the long run were present?).

      So your âimpliedâ(TM) comment is made up and not based on any real data.

    2. Re:it's like the board game of Life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you graduate from high school, you're statistically likely to be a better earner than someone who doesn't, a college graduate is probably going to earn more than a high school graduate, and an Ivy league graduate is going to do better, financially, than a graduate of community college. It's no secret; there is an incremental improvement in potential outcome for each helping step up. Each step up implies one's network of friends, colleagues, and acquaintances also have improved potential outcomes. So, it matters.

      State and Municipal subsidies to attract corporations are a tool of elected officials to get reelected... whether or not they make good fiscal sense, they create voting capital. Thus, they are here to stay.

      As I recall, in the board game you were better off if you skipped college entirely.

      I wasn't a very accurate game.

    3. Re: it's like the board game of Life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting into an Ivy League school is no harder than getting into a good public university. You just need to come from a much richer and much better connected family even to be considered.

      Trust me, I've seen how the admissions process works at MIT. If you don't come from the "right" background, it doesn't matter how smart & studious you are. Your application goes straight into the trash.

    4. Re:it's like the board game of Life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each step up implies one's network of friends, colleagues, and acquaintances also have improved potential outcomes. So, it matters.

      It should be noted that the incremental increase in value may not be worth the incremental increase in cost that is associated with each step up, depending on the degree one gets and/or how much student loan debt (if any) is acquired.

    5. Re: it's like the board game of Life... by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Each step up also came with a lot of extra work (think getting into an Ivy is easy and that no personality traits that would be helpful in the long run were present?).

      So your âimpliedâ(TM) comment is made up and not based on any real data.

      Wealth helps out with that too. Private tutors, the benefit of having accessible successful role models, the means to have kids shuffled from one after-school activity to another, even personality coaches. Even if the parents aren't good parents, the kid is probably surrounded by people whose job it is to help them be successful. The wealthy have a huge leg up on getting into top schools.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  21. Give proportional handouts to ALL businesses by DogDude · · Score: 1

    How cities and states can get away with handing piles of tax money to only particular businesses is beyond me. Why are smaller businesses not given the same handouts, on a per-tax-dollar generated, or a per-employee basis? How is this even legal?

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Give proportional handouts to ALL businesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "crony capitalism", and it comes in many forms: tax exemptions, quid-pro-quo relationships with gov't regulators, cooperating to pass onerous laws that big corps can ignore but crush small businesses, bailouts and Federal Reserve rescue operations (only for friends of the gov't), the list goes on.

      The crony companies win, the politicians win because they get to brag about "creating jobs" or passing new laws, and the taxpayer foots the bill through taxes and payments to rent-seeking businesses.

      And the economic policies of both mainstream political parties are dictated by Goldman Sachs employees, so regardless of who you vote for, it's going to be more of the same.

    2. Re:Give proportional handouts to ALL businesses by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      no

      throw your imagined "fairness" in the trash, those tiny businesses are a gnats fart in a hurricane for employment and tax revenue.

      your idea would just piss away money

      the adult world doesn't work by your "every should get a blue ribbon" rules

  22. really? by Alyks · · Score: 1

    well that's a total surprise for me.

  23. that's how you run a company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good business sense is what it is.

  24. Re: Socialists: your failed system doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Youâ(TM)re partly right, but what will happen in practice is people wonâ(TM)t pay for some services thinking they never need them and then you get shit like this.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-no-spray-firefighters-let-home-burn/

    So you need some base level of community services to keep insurance costs (self or paid) down. But you certainly donâ(TM)t need mass bloat.

  25. of course it was, duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole point was to have cities competing with each other to get it because otherwise any place that picked would by nimby-whined to death. Now people can't pretend they didn't want it.

  26. Bezos and Bezos chose the same cities! by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bezos chose a couple cities where he wanted to buy a house for himself.

    Later, Bezos chose a couple cities where he'd like to put his business. I'm SHOCKED that Bezos chose the same place that Bezos chose.

    Hopefully the people negotiating with him in those cities realized that Bezos already had a house there, so clearly he likes that city. Therefore they wouldn't need to negotiate quite as much as another city might.

    1. Re:Bezos and Bezos chose the same cities! by NaCh0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hopefully the people negotiating with him in those cities realized that Bezos already had a house there, so clearly he likes that city. Therefore they wouldn't need to negotiate quite as much as another city might.

      HAHAHAHAHA

      Right.

      Meanwhile in reality, government negotiators are so dumb, they probably threw in perks for Bezo's personal real estate to sweeten the deal of moving his business headquarters there.

    2. Re:Bezos and Bezos chose the same cities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several cities offered packages worth far more than what NYC and VA offered.

      Baltimore and Maryland (run by complete fucking idiots) offered 8 billion in free money. It's next door to Crystal City, which offered less than $400 million. How does he justify effectively losing 7.6 billion? Because he doesn't own a house there...

  27. didn't get deals by hdyoung · · Score: 1

    My suspicion: it was all for the drama and press. The "competition" was just another form of reality entertainment to generate headlines and click counts.

    They chose the government center of the country, and the financial center of the country, and divided the headquarters between the two. Yes, it's now obvious that it was the plan all along. They wanted a presence in the corridors of power, and now they have it.

    But I seriously doubt they got any sweet financial deals. NYC and DC don't give out painful tax breaks to attract business. Companies come to them. Not vice versa. Not even for outfits the size of Amazon.

  28. A Con? No. A strategy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One that would make the President proud.

  29. Like getting a blood transfusion from yourself by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

    Put yourself in a politician's shoes. You love the power. How do you keep it? You make your constituents lives better and make sure they know about it. But cut to the chase even further - really, you only need to make your constituents think you're making their lives better. If you are, it's secondary. The most important thing is making them think that. That's how you get the precious votes.

    Cue a sports stadium or a megacorp like Amazon. Big headline jobs numbers, construction spending, infrastructure spending. But how do you pay for it? Taxes, redeploying money from other priorities, and bond sales. Maryland for example, created a nearly 9 billion dollar subsidy/incentive package for Amazon. Baltimore, in Maryland, has two spectacular stadiums at the gateway to the city. But the rest of the city is a mess, with the highest murder rate of any large city in the country, on a par with Ciudad Juarez, a cartel war zone in a semi-failed state.

    Who really knows for sure what the net economic benefit will be? I suspect it's a lot like sports stadiums. Realize that the economy is a competition for resources and Amazon is a very successful competitor. And that politicians are not spending their own money, only trying to make their constituents think they are making those constituents' lives better.

    Ultimately I think it's like a blood transfusion to yourself - diverting resources away from other priorities and taking on debt to pay for the shiny now. Ultimately, the source of wealth is creating things that people value. Does Amazon create value? I guess so. But they are also very good at retaining that value for themselves. Think of the WalMart effect. Or Facebook lights-out datacenters. These competitors are much better at retaining value they generate than any politician, whose primary skills like in raising money and getting votes. And they're also quite good at sloughing off costs on others, like the environmental polluters of yore. But this is "financial pollution" - company keeps the profits and socializes the losses, like WalMart and foodstamps. Or most famously, Wall Street after the financial crisis and bailouts.

    Don't get me wrong, technology increases the productivity of people, which leads to the "Consolidation of the production of value." It's been going on since before the Industrial Revolution, but it leaps forward with the various technological revolutions. But just because a company is big doesn't mean that landing in your area is going to bring a prosperity windfall, and should get vast subsidies in anticipation of such.

  30. Nothing new by hambone142 · · Score: 2

    What was once HP (after the founders died) played the same game with their manufacturing.

    The end game was they pulled all manufacturing out of California.

    The deal was made in Houston and it all went there.

    California (however) is a very business-unfriendly state.

  31. I'm OK with the notion that I can't say bye by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    to corporate welfare, but I want us workers to get some of it too. Start with Single Payer healthcare. Then a $15/hr min wage with yearly inflation adjustment. Then a Jobs Guarantee and infrastructure spending. End the 8 bloody wars we're fighting too while we're at it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  32. We can't even agree climate change is a real thing by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    It's a damn shame citizens of the modern day Rome cannot gain the political capital to force universal healthcare... many of us actually spend more annually our god damn pets' medical welfare.

    $15 per hour and a job guarantee assures the replacement of our entry-level employees with entry-stage robotic replacements, and infrastructure investment only stands a chance if the voters/political donors deem it an important plank of one of two political parties... thus, little chance at all.

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

    Ernest Hemingway

  33. Mod FUNNY. Wins internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This right here wins the Internet

  34. Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just relieved that Amazon isn't coming to Boston. And I'm proud that we've managed to scare off 2 world class sleazeballs in the past couple of years: Amazon and the International Olympic Committee. Anyone who wants to move here should move as a good citizen, not a parasite.

    It surprises me that so many mayors and governors around the country have boasted about what they're willing to give to Amazon in order to get the HQ. Cuomo half joked he'd be willing to change his name to Amazon Cuomo in order to get the HQ. I feel embarassed for him and I pity his constituents.

    1. Re: Good riddance by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Cuomo is a tool and a crook. He never met a suitcase full of cash he didn't like.

  35. Man up by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    seriously. We don't solve problems by immediately giving up. What the hell happened to this country? To this world? Mother loving Gen-Xers. There's a point when healthy skepticism gives way to cynicism, defeatism and borderline cowardice.

    The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but it's a price we can pay pretty easily. We can close the loop holes but raising the top marginal rates back to 90%. We can elect politicians who won't be bought by demanding ones that refuse corporate PAC money and passing Liz Warren's anti-corruption law. We can combat ignorance with education. We can win. But you have to at least try. You don't even have to try very hard. But right now you're not even trying.

    Stand up and be counted.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  36. If Crystal City and Long Island City don't like it by ayesnymous · · Score: 2

    they can just withdraw their bids.

  37. Well, Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't it apparent to anyone with half of a brain that this was taken from the same playbook (all puns intended) as major-league teams in their 'negotiations' (extortions) with major cities regarding big stadiums and the supposed revenue hubs that each would provide?

  38. Local transport infrastructure by Colourspace · · Score: 1

    Was a monorail part of the deal?

  39. They deserve it by reanjr · · Score: 1

    Communities who elect leadership that sells them out for corporate tax breaks deserve what they get. People are ignorant. Everyone with half a brain knows using tax breaks to attract business is a sucker's game.

  40. Color me happy by h8sg8s · · Score: 1

    Happy they didn't chose Dallas or the DFW suburbs. Too much traffic already with all the new HQs located here. No thanks, Amazon..

    --
    Organization? You must be joking..
  41. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Letâ(TM)s not forget that they havenâ(TM)t actually announced a decision yet. This is all just hearsay.

  42. Consistent with a study on corporate moves that by Kogun · · Score: 1

    showed that a large percentage of corporate moves resulted in a location that was closer to the CEO's house. I recall this at the time (approx year 2002) because the small company I worked for had moved twice in 4 years, and each move was closer to the CEO's house. Could not find a reference, unfortunately.

  43. Amdahl made $Million coffee mugs like that by mileshigh · · Score: 2

    Amdahl used to help its prospects pull the same maneuver on IBM, way back. They made IBM-compatible mainframes, back when mainframes were really expensive and IBM owned the market. Cheaper and faster drop-in replacements, but most IT execs didn't take them seriously.

    An Amdahl sales team would worm their way into getting a meeting when they got wind that someone was eyeing a new mainframe, knowing they didn't stand a chance. They'd leave the IT manager an Amdahl-logo coffee mug worth a million dollars. "How can this be worth more than $10!?" he prospects would ask. "It's magic. Make sure it's on your desk the next time IBM comes around. Just watch what happens!" Sure enough, the IBM rep would come calling and notice the mug. He'd get nervous, excuse himself to make a phone call to HQ, and within minutes offer a $million discount on an IBM mainframe!

    Seeing that, the customers would conclude that IBM clearly took Amdahl very seriously... and maybe they should too. Maybe Amdahl got that sale, maybe they didn't, but they definitely got invited to bid on the next one.

  44. My God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How will we ever survive in a world where people may engage in consensual dealings with one another?

  45. Cities fell for it by trevc · · Score: 1

    The job of the people that run Amazon is to deliver value to their stockholders. If they hadn't done this, there would be complaints.If the people that run cities fell for it that's their problem!

    1. Re:Cities fell for it by susansm65 · · Score: 1

      They also waived the ecological assessment, foxconn went from promising 13,000 jobs to less than 3-6,000 and they're exempting them from state environmental protections. run 3 free

  46. Re:If Crystal City and Long Island City don't like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who lives nearby, I hope they do.

  47. Don't Californicate Oregon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oregonians feel pretty strongly about californians moving in. Been that way a long time.