Slashdot Mirror
Prominent New Yorkers Are Trying To Get Amazon To Bring Back HQ2 (cnet.com)
The New York Times reported Thursday that an open letter will be published in the Times on Friday that asks Amazon to reconsider its decision to walk away from its plan to build a 25,000-employee campus in Long Island City, Queens. The company pulled the plug on the project, dubbed HQ2, following vocal and persistent opposition to the plan after it was announced three months ago. CNET reports: The letter was signed by the CEOs of Mastercard, Warby Parker, Goldman Sachs, Tishman Speyer and Jetblue, among others. The presidents of the Building & Construction Trades Council of Greater New York and state AFL-CIO, which were expecting thousands of construction jobs to come from the project, also signed, as did U.S. Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Carolyn Maloney. "We know the public debate that followed the announcement of the Long Island City project was rough and not very welcoming," the letter stated. "Opinions are strong in New York -- sometimes strident. We consider it part of the New York charm! But when we commit to a project as important as this, we figure out how to get it done in a way that works for everyone."
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has also had several conversations with Amazon, including CEO Jeff Bezos, about bringing back the project, the Times said. The letter and Cuomo's behind-the-scenes efforts are part of the latest fallout since Amazon abandoned HQ2 in New York. The opposition has celebrated the exit as a victory for grassroots campaigns and a stand against lavish government incentives for new development plans. Amazon was slated to get about $3 billion in tax breaks for building the project. Supporters, who weren't as vocal during the run-up to Amazon leaving, expressed shock and consternation about Amazon's decision and worried that New York would appear unfriendly to new businesses. While the business community was broadly seen as in favor of the project, the letter shows how both the camps supporting and opposing HQ2 included unions and Democratic U.S. congress members.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has also had several conversations with Amazon, including CEO Jeff Bezos, about bringing back the project, the Times said. The letter and Cuomo's behind-the-scenes efforts are part of the latest fallout since Amazon abandoned HQ2 in New York. The opposition has celebrated the exit as a victory for grassroots campaigns and a stand against lavish government incentives for new development plans. Amazon was slated to get about $3 billion in tax breaks for building the project. Supporters, who weren't as vocal during the run-up to Amazon leaving, expressed shock and consternation about Amazon's decision and worried that New York would appear unfriendly to new businesses. While the business community was broadly seen as in favor of the project, the letter shows how both the camps supporting and opposing HQ2 included unions and Democratic U.S. congress members.
I am a prominent New Yorker, and I want these imbeciles to stay away from New York
They have the right to locate their business in NYC on the same terms as any other company: Unsubsidized and paying their fair share of taxes.
Right or wrong AGW alarmists are fundamentally neo-Luddites. That's why they don't promote nuclear or hydro-electric, even though we know how to do those and they are totally carbon free. Even if (yea, big if) this could be proven to be safe and effective they would reject it. The only solutions that they will accept is ones that involve reducing standards of living and human population because those are the only ones that mesh with their underlying philosophy.
They were going to pay $27 billion instead of $30 billion.
Now they will pay $0 billion.
You fucking moron.
That location is too unstable and the cost of doing business is too stupid.
Get rid of occasional cortex and amazon might think about it again.
They were going to pay $27 billion instead of $30 billion. Now they will pay $0 billion.
Good. Now the land and labor is available to businesses willing to operate with subsidies.
Instead of a $3B giveaway to one business, NYC should be spending the money to improve their infrastructure, and remove the bureaucratic barriers to commerce. That will help all businesses in the city, rather than just one.
Are you Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in disguise? $3B in tax incentives is not the same thing as a $3B tax credit. There's a huge difference between writing a $3B check and not sending a $3B invoice in the first place. In one case you're spending money, in the other you're just not getting the money to spend. See, the $3B invoice you don't send still nets you $27B in paid invoices, so you end up with a huge net positive. It's no different than a 10% discount for a big customer that gives you lots of bulk work. You can't spend the discounted money because you don't fucking have the money in the first place.
I swear to dog, anyone who thinks that the money "lost" in a discount "can be spent on something else" needs a severe beating with a clue-by-four.
they just have to pay their taxes, same as everybody else. Also, they're not going to be getting that helipad or the $500 million in grants. Anymore than I would if I was setting up shop there.
No more economic terrorism. No more race to the bottom. Time to stop letting these companies bully us. We're the God Damned US of A. We're better than that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Are you Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in disguise?
AOC would not be advocating for less bureaucracy.
In one case you're spending money, in the other you're just not getting the money to spend.
People that believe this should not have credit cards.
See, the $3B invoice you don't send still nets you $27B in paid invoices, so you end up with a huge net positive.
No you don't. Those 25,000 highly skilled workers are not going to sit at home unemployed. NYC has record low unemployment. They are going to work for other companies that will pay the full $30B in taxes.
But they'd provide the jobs without the subsidies because they have to run their business somewhere. The only reason it can be argued to "create jobs" is because they provided the sweetest bribe instead of actually being the best city to locate. Why not just outlaw such bribes, and then governments won't have to endure the problems of a prisoner's dilemma.
And let's cut the bullshit, the companies are getting a better deal than the workers already, so "jobs" as an argument can fuck right off.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The subsidies have to come from somewhere. If you tax the town residents 10% of their income to subsidize the nickel smelter, that is equivalent to giving the smelter NO subsidy, and them just paying their workers 10% less, and then those workers will have 10% less to spend on other goods and services in the town.
The result is the same, except without the overhead and inefficiency of the government collecting the taxes and paying the subsidies.
Without the subsidies, it would also be easier for other business to locate in the town and offer alternative jobs that didn't require a subsidy. A big problem with subsidies, is that once they are in place, they come to be seen as entitlements, and are politically difficult to turn off.
Maybe Amazon had their fill of this New York charm they speak of. Why would any company want to establish an HQ somewhere where they'll be constantly attacked, be it by a vocal minority who would rather be uneducated and unemployed than have someone make money on their work. Too many negative sensational headlines and people who don't read past the headline. In the today's age of social outrage, the negative publicity is not worth it for a global company. They'd rather stay out of the headlines and continue to sell to New Yorkers as customers.
Without the subsidies, the businesses just clump together and nobody benefits but the already-rich.
I see. So corporate welfare is actually a way to keep the rich in line. Thanks for clarifying that.
Your link says: "Opportunity costs represent the benefits an individual, investor or business misses out on when choosing one alternative over another." The burden of proof that a better alternative exists is on you. List the businesses that are lining up to come to New York that'll a bring better deal in aggregate than Amazon was going to bring to the table. You're the second person now to show up and spout "muh opportunity cost" with nothing to show for it. Opportunity cost doesn't matter if there is no other opportunity to consider. With zero evidence presented that Amazon would have killed off other opportunities that have greater overall value, it seems that you're the armchair economist here. Perhaps you could try harder and actually enlighten us plebs instead of linking to Investopedia and expecting everyone to think you're smart because of it.
On top of your failure to provide any evidence to back your assertions of an opportunity cost mattering, you also fail to understand that you can't "commit" $3B that you don't have in the first place. For someone who is so authoritative in their tone, you sure don't seem to understand that you can't spent money you don't even have. Not sending a bill is different from giving away money. You'll find that out when you don't have anyone to send a bill to. In the absence of proof of a better set of investments (you know...that thing you didn't provide) it all falls back on a very simple concept that anyone with half a brain can understand: "something" is greater than "nothing." Oh, and unrealized hypothetical possibilities don't pay the bills either.
What alternative investment opportunities would be lost if Amazon HQ2 comes to New York that exceed the value brought by Amazon HQ2? Provide verifiable sources. We'll wait.
They were going to pay $27 billion instead of $30 billion.
Now they will pay $0 billion.
And while Amazon is busy not paying $27 billion, other companies are free to move in, use that land and those people, and pay $30 billion.
Oh, wait, they're not doing that because it's too expensive and difficult to move a business to Queens? Huh. Perhaps someone ought to fix that general problem instead of giving Amazon a special break because they're a large visible deal instead of many small, invisible deals.
(Disclosure: I don't live in Queens, I never have, and how NYC wants to structure their taxes is none of my business. Go ahead and make it difficult, that's good for me personally.)