Amazon Picks HQ Locations

[Jtalk4456]

Not really that exciting, but here it is

https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-picks-new-york-arlington-virginia-for-hq2/

Quote

 

It's official. Amazon on Tuesday announced New York City and Arlington, Virginia, as the locations for new headquarters. The company plans to employee more than 25,000 people at each location.

More specifically, the locations are Long Island City in New York City's Queens borough and National Landing (a rebranded name for the Crystal City neighborhood) in Arlington, Virginia.

Amazon also said it'll open an Operations Center of Excellence, which will handle the company's customer fulfillment, transportation and supply chain, in Nashville. The center will create more than 5,000 jobs, Amazon said in a blog post.

 

I think for me the interesting part is the Operations Center they're adding in Nashville. While I have personally has nothing but perfect customer service and shipping from them, I have heard multiple horror stories with their shipping and CS. Now if only they would spend money on employee satisfaction...

 

Quote

 

Amazon's HQ2 gained attention as one of the biggest corporate projects in the US, with the e-retailer planning to hire 50,000 workers and spend $5 billion. The company fueled excitement about its plans by inviting cities to pitch themselves as sites for the development.

It was reported earlier this month that Amazon was examining the option of creating two separate 25,000-person campuses, in part due to the need to hire enough tech talent and partly to ease housing and traffic concerns. Two HQ2 projects would also ensure that Seattle remains Amazon's definitive headquarters.

 

 

Can I just say how bonkers it is that a company is large enough and rich enough to have 3 headquarters?! And were not talking international headquarters or regional offices here, full blown 3 headquarters!

Not much else to say here.

 

[rawrdaysgoby]

Looks like I will be getting my products hopefully much much sooner now

[JoostinOnline]

I'm sleepy and originally read this as "Amazon picks HQ locks".

[The Benjamins]

42 minutes ago, rawrdaysgoby said:

Looks like I will be getting my products hopefully much much sooner now

why?

The HQ is not a shipping hub, and amazon already has shipping hubs in those locations.

[poochyena]

I'm more interested to hear what those cities promised Amazon as a way to get them to host their HQ there.

[mr moose]

40 minutes ago, poochyena said:

I'm more interested to hear what those cities promised Amazon as a way to get them to host their HQ there.

The only thing they can,  low or no taxes and maybe subsidized utilities.

[rawrdaysgoby]

2 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

why?

The HQ is not a shipping hub, and amazon already has shipping hubs in those locations.

Then why even bother having 2 HQ? maybe to organize things better on the East side better so things run smoother? Anyways the influence of things being done might be affected

[The Benjamins]

10 minutes ago, rawrdaysgoby said:

Then why even bother having 2 HQ? maybe to organize things better on the East side better so things run smoother? Anyways the influence of things being done might be affected

Amazon biggest sector is not the online store, it is servers.

 

They will have 3 HQs, and it is to have staff and groups work on projects for different areas. They can manage all the data centers from different areas if any HQ has a issue (hurricane, wildfire, WMD).

The other reason is Taxes, they can save in some areas and leverage the threat of moving to keep taxes as low as possible. It will also be easier to not have over 50,000 people on one huge campus.

[Amazonsucks]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

I'm more interested to hear what those cities promised Amazon as a way to get them to host their HQ there.

Lots of corporate welfare at taxpayer expense as usual. People are conned into thinking its a boon to have Amazon come to their city but its really a plague.

[Misanthrope]

7 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

Can I just say how bonkers it is that a company is large enough and rich enough to have 3 headquarters?!

 

Given the analogy of "head" in "Headquartes" I think they should start calling it 'Hydra Quarters' and just as the mythological creature: If you try to tax one of the "headquarters" it gets destroyed and 2 more magically appear on some tax heaven off shores.

 

Also Hydraquarters sounds pretty damn badass.

[Donut417]

A little salty they didnt choose Detroit or Ann Arbor. But they wanted public transit and we dont believe in Public Transit here in Michgian. 

[SansVarnic]

-= Thread Cleaned =-

 

There is a reason political discussion is not allowed. Please keep comments on topic.

[Unclescar]

On 11/13/2018 at 1:06 PM, mr moose said:

The only thing they can,  low or no taxes and maybe subsidized utilities.

This is exactly it.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, Unclescar said:

This is exactly it.

And it's not necessarily a bad thing.  Even if the company pays no tax (like apple did in Ireland) the fact they employ so many people means cash flow and income tax revenue.  It also equates to higher turnover in related industries and services.   So the benefits many times out weigh the loss of a corporate tax revenue they never actually had in the first place.

[Amazonsucks]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And it's not necessarily a bad thing.  Even if the company pays no tax (like apple did in Ireland) the fact they employ so many people means cash flow and income tax revenue.  It also equates to higher turnover in related industries and services.   So the benefits many times out weigh the loss of a corporate tax revenue they never actually had in the first place.

Interesting that you'd quantify it by saying "many times". How many times does it outweigh it by or are you just pulling that statistic out? 

 

Because really, it destroys the local economy, displaces residents and distorts the real estate market.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-hq2-why-cities-dont-want-2018-4

 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/08/07/landing-amazon-hq2-isnt-the-right-way-for-a-city-to-create-jobs-heres-what-works-instead/

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/why-amazon-s-new-5-billion-headquarters-may-ruin-your-n811411

 

https://qz.com/1175659/the-darker-side-to-winning-the-amazon-amzn-hq2-sweepstakes/

 

But please do show us the "many times" more benefits that an area gets from hosting the world's largest retail economic parasite, since apparently its easily quantifiable.

[mr moose]

47 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Interesting that you'd quantify it by saying "many times". How many times does it outweigh it by or are you just pulling that statistic out? 

 

Because really, it destroys the local economy, displaces residents and distorts the real estate market.

Righto.

47 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-hq2-why-cities-dont-want-2018-4

Yep, increased land value, rent and traffic are all signs of a growing economy.    The more demand the higher the price.  That's basic economics.

The rest of this article doesn't actually provide and causality or statistics to support their insinuation that Amazon has caused any of their woes.  Other than the boom in construction and related industries.

 

They claim this:
 

Quote

 

Several restaurants have gone out of business in the Seattle neighbourhood of South Lake Union, where Amazon’s headquarters is located, because diners didn’t turn out as expected

 

Anyone with half a brain can see the issue is not doing your homework before growing/opening your business. A lack of customers is not because of amazon, it's becasue the dickhead in charge of the business assumed he would have more custromers.

 

47 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/08/07/landing-amazon-hq2-isnt-the-right-way-for-a-city-to-create-jobs-heres-what-works-instead/

This does not specifically say amazon head quarters will be a bad thing, it just compares the differences in economics between getting a large company to headquarter in a state versus other programs and strategies to grow the economy.     In fact it starts of the article listing the positives:

 

Quote

 

To start, it’s easy to understand why local leaders pursue these business attraction deals: economic development is routinely mayors’ top policy priority, as new jobs can boost local employment rates, raise residents’ incomes, stabilize city budgets, and revitalize distressed neighborhoods. Landing a flashy new business headquarters is great PR, a highly visible way to show that leaders are directly helping local economies. This leads state and local governments to spend an estimated $45 billion on economic development subsidies and incentives each year, even when they rarely factor into corporations’ final decisions.

 

 

So no, this article does not say its bad to get a big company to open up, it just says their are other ways to grow the economy as well. Sometimes they are better, but that doesn't mean there is a net negative to large corporations moving in. .

 

47 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/why-amazon-s-new-5-billion-headquarters-may-ruin-your-n811411

Again, another article that points to the common issues of all economic growth. It doesn't matter if it is amazon, MS, google, apple or anyone, growth leads to more traffic, house price inflation etc etc.  It's all due to economic growth and will occur when you create more jobs in an area.

 

47 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

https://qz.com/1175659/the-darker-side-to-winning-the-amazon-amzn-hq2-sweepstakes/

This is basically a rubber stamp of thee last two articles. 

47 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

But please do show us the "many times" more benefits that an area gets from hosting the world's largest retail economic parasite, since apparently its easily quantifiable.

 

Open your eyes and look outside.  you can see the effects of big business on an area anywhere that it exists.  When its good its golden, when the business collapses it fails.  that's just life. 

 

 

[Amazonsucks]

42 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Righto.

Yep, increased land value, rent and traffic are all signs of a growing economy.    The more demand the higher the price.  That's basic economics.

The rest of this article doesn't actually provide and causality or statistics to support their insinuation that Amazon has caused any of their woes.  Other than the boom in construction and related industries.

 

They claim this:
 

Anyone with half a brain can see the issue is not doing your homework before growing/opening your business. A lack of customers is not because of amazon, it's becasue the dickhead in charge of the business assumed he would have more custromers.

 

This does not specifically say amazon head quarters will be a bad thing, it just compares the differences in economics between getting a large company to headquarter in a state versus other programs and strategies to grow the economy.     In fact it starts of the article listing the positives:

 

So no, this article does not say its bad to get a big company to open up, it just says their are other ways to grow the economy as well. Sometimes they are better, but that doesn't mean there is a net negative to large corporations moving in. .

 

Again, another article that points to the common issues of all economic growth. It doesn't matter if it is amazon, MS, google, apple or anyone, growth leads to more traffic, house price inflation etc etc.  It's all due to economic growth and will occur when you create more jobs in an area.

 

This is basically a rubber stamp of thee last two articles. 

 

Open your eyes and look outside.  you can see the effects of big business on an area anywhere that it exists.  When its good its golden, when the business collapses it fails.  that's just life. 

 

 

No you are the one quantifying it as "many times" in specific reference to Amazon's benefits outweighing the detriments, despite it being obviously a very mixed bag leaning towards a net negative.

 

So i am asking how many times better is it? How did you get the numbers for "many times" and what specifically are said numbers? I am genuinely curious how you came to the conclusion that its "many times" more beneficial than it is detrimental...

 

And i suppose that you think increased real estate value is always a positive economic indicator? Forget about 2008 much? Little thing called the real estate bubble popped then. Or how about what's happening in Canada and parts of your own country right now,thanks to a bunch of wealthy Chinese nationals buying up real estate and driving the prices up to the point that citizens of those countries cant afford to buy property in those areas? 

 

Surely those point to sustainable and ethical businesses enriching the population right? Of course not, but you can data dredge the housing and real estate value numbers and frame it in a way that says "growth" even if its not actual growth at all.

[mr moose]

No, what you are trying to do is make it sound like there is some intrinsic link with amazon headquarters and a net damage to the economy where it is placed.

That is not reflected in the articles you posted, it is not reflected anywhere in the world, and you want me to prove it by pointing to evidence above and beyond looking at the business world and seeing that there isn't that many places that have suffered economically because a business has setup HQ there.

 

 

[Amazonsucks]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

No, what you are trying to do is make it sound like there is some intrinsic link with amazon headquarters and a net damage to the economy where it is placed.

That is not reflected in the articles you posted, it is not reflected anywhere in the world, and you want me to prove it by pointing to evidence above and beyond looking at the business world and seeing that there isn't that many places that have suffered economically because a business has setup HQ there.

 

 

There arent many places that suffer economically? I suppose it depends on who you ask.

 

If youre the taxpayer subsidizing a monopolistic government colluding company like Amazon, Walmart etc then youd suffer.

 

If youre a corrupt local official looking to kiss Jeff Bezos ass to line your own pockets while screwing your constituents, then youre benefitting off those who youre making suffer.

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

There arent many places that suffer economically? I suppose it depends on who you ask.

 

If youre the taxpayer subsidizing a monopolistic government colluding company like Amazon, Walmart etc then youd suffer.

 

If youre a corrupt local politicial looking to kiss Jeff Bezos ass to pine your own pockets while screwing your constituents, then youre benefitting off those who youre making suffer.

Small business is supposedly the back bone of the US economy,  I don't know if that's true or not,  but that is the rhetoric.  You have government committees for small business but you don't have them for large business.   The US has been the worlds Largest economy since 18 something.  You have multinational headquarters in many cities and states, The economy is yet to flail in those states and cities.  So either small business plays no role in the economic growth of the nation or big business has little to no effect on small business.  Which one is it? 

 

 

 

 

[Amazonsucks]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Small business is supposedly the back bone of the US economy,  I don't know if that's true or not,  but that is the rhetoric.  You have government committees for small business but you don't have them for large business.   The US has been the worlds Largest economy since 18 something.  You have multinational headquarters in many cities and states, The economy is yet to flail in those states and cities.  So either small business plays no role in the economic growth of the nation or big business has little to now effect on small business.  Which one is it? 

 

 

 

 

Not all businesses get corporate welfare like Amazon, which allows them to compete on an uneven playing field. For example, Amazon can operate at a loss in order to drive smaller businesses out of the market thanks to the government subsidies they get.

 

Or did you really not know that Amazon operated at a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars a year in order to become dominant?

 

Think most small to medium businesses have the kind of governmrnt backing and corporate welfare that Amazon has? They cant operate at a loss for years without going bankrupt.

 

And large businesses already colluding with the government dont need intermediary committes. They simply buy off the politicians directly by lobbying them.

 

Before you say "well those smaller businesses should have adapted", its not about adapting. Its about playing by a different set of rules than everyone else. 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

But which one is it? I don't ask you about government funding of big business or the ability to run at a loss.  

[Amazonsucks]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

But which one is it? I don't ask you about government funding of big business or the ability to run at a loss.  

You didnt ask me anything of substance though. You created a false dichotomy of "either corrupt shit companies like Amazon are the lifeblood of the US economy or the small businesses they crush are".

 

The USA and the world would be much better off without Amazon. Its an economic parasite that causes a positive feedback loop of destructive perverse incentives, in a typical race to the bottom scenario.

 

 

[mr moose]

28 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

You didnt ask me anything of substance though. You created a false dichotomy of "either corrupt shit companies like Amazon are the lifeblood of the US economy or the small businesses they crush are".

 

The USA and the world would be much better off without Amazon. Its an economic parasite that causes a positive feedback loop of destructive perverse incentives, in a typical race to the bottom scenario.

 

 

So you don't know.  Which is fine, economies are complex things,  but that just leaves us with a whole heap of unsubstantiated claims of parasitic and damaging behaviour that can't be quantified or evidenced in the data.

[leadeater]

48 minutes ago, mr moose said:

But which one is it? I don't ask you about government funding of big business or the ability to run at a loss.  

Wasn't the original point related to how the new HQ would be a detriment, should get that answered first before accepting rail roading comments about the business as a whole.

 

If the best example is a business going under because of bad forecasting of business prospects then that has nothing to do with the HQ at all.