Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Prominent New Yorkers Are Trying To Get Amazon To Bring Back HQ2 (cnet.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the behind-the-scenes-efforts dept.

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.

9 of 275 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Actually, Beau, no we are NOT by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. money-mouth by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is there any evidence that any of these big subsidy deals to bring companies, sport franchises, etc have ever worked out to the benefit of the population of the municipality?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:money-mouth by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:money-mouth by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is there any evidence that any of these big subsidy deals to bring companies, sport franchises, etc have ever worked out to the benefit of the population of the municipality?

      It is hard to say because each scheme is different, and you can't roll the experiment forward and then roll it back and try it again without the subsidy. Reality only has one timeline.

      But we can say that on average they are a net loss. Amazon was going to expand no matter what. Without the subsidy they would have chosen the location based on the best business efficiency. So all the subsidy did was pay to pull the potential HQ from one city to another.

      These subsidies are a Prisoner's Dilemma. Each city feels compelled to offer subsidies because the other cities are doing the same. But they would be collectively better off if none of them did so.

    3. Re:money-mouth by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:money-mouth by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here in Finland...

      Oh boy.

      pretty much all of the large nickel etc smelters we have in small regions in Lapland. They're literally the main reason some small townships exist any more.

      Yeah see, the difference is that New York is going to exist whether or not Amazon goes there. Queens, NYC is not exactly Lapland.

      Also, subsidies for nickel smelters in Lapland are part of a sensible industrial/economic policy that includes free (or nearly free) education, universal health care, etc etc. Finland is actually a civilized place and would be a wonderful place to live if it wasn't dark for six months of the year.

      The situation is very different in the US. Every time...EVERY TIME...a company promises 10,000 high-paying jobs for an area if they just let them not pay taxes, it really turns out to be 100 high-paying jobs and 9,900 shit jobs and 8000 of those get laid off within three years. The entire thing is nothing but a late-stage capitalist boondoggle.

      And it's not even that the companies coming into US municipalities are allowed to not pay a certain amount of taxes. It's much worse than that. The companies still collect the state taxes from their employees, but then don't have to pass the money onto the state. They literally are allowed to keep the state taxes they withheld from their employees' paychecks as tax-free income. Pure profit. On the backs of the employees. And guess what? Now somebody else has to cover the shortfall.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. They can come back by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/
  4. Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re: Actually, Beau, no we are NOT by nctritech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.