Amazon Picks HQ Locations

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Wasn't the original point related to how the new HQ would be a detriment, should get that answered first before accepting railing 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.

Seems neither question is answerable anyway.    

[Amazonsucks]

51 minutes ago, leadeater said:

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.

Oh how about the fact that they are building it in one of the richest parts of the state of NY for a nice >$3 billion in subsidies at the taxpayers' expense. If they gave a shit about creating jobs or benefitting anyone other than Bezos, Cuomo and de Blasio they would have built it in a place that needs the jobs.

 

There's plenty of NY living in poverty, yet Cuomo and de Blasio are giving Amazon >$3 billion in welfare to go into one of the richest parts of the state instead?

 

How about the fact that both sides of the aisle have come together against Amazon for their corporate welfare and economic destruction:

 

https://www.fastcompany.com/90266892/new-york-got-played-by-amazon

 

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/11/14/18095799/amazon-hq2-long-island-city-rally-critics

 

And in Virginia, Amazon will even get warned when someone submits a FOIA request on them. Talk about corrupt af!

 

 

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/152217/amazon-will-rake-nearly-3-billion-new-headquarters-operation-center

 

"Under agreement between Amazon and Virginia, the commonwealth will give the company written notice about any FOIA requests "to allow the
Company to seek a protective order or other appropriate remedy"

 

Yes they need to "remedy"(silence) anyone using LEGAL means to find out just how corrupt they are.

 

[Amazonsucks]

47 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Seems neither question is answerable anyway.    

I answered your post in the answer to leadeater rather than reply to your attempts to create an echo chamber and the appearance of consensus individually.

[mr moose]

Just now, Amazonsucks said:

I answered your post in the answer to leadeater rather than reply to your attempts to create an echo chamber and the appearance of consensus individually.

Fine:

4 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Oh how about the fact that they are building it in one of the richest parts of the state of NY for a nice >$3 billion in subsidies at the taxpayers' expense. If they gave a shit about creating jobs or benefitting anyone other than Bezos, Cuomo and de Blasio.

 

How about the fact that both sides of the aisle have come together against Amazon for their corporate welfare and economic destruction.

 

https://www.fastcompany.com/90266892/new-york-got-played-by-amazon

 

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/11/14/18095799/amazon-hq2-long-island-city-rally-critics

 

And in Virginia, Amazon will even get warned when someone submits a FOIA request on them. Talk about corrupt af!

 

 

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/152217/amazon-will-rake-nearly-3-billion-new-headquarters-operation-center

 

"Under agreement between Amazon and Virginia, the commonwealth will give the company written notice about any FOIA requests "to allow the
Company to seek a protective order or other appropriate remedy"

 

Yes they need to "remedy"(silence) anyone using LEGAL means to find out just how corrupt they are.

I see no answers here. 

[Amazonsucks]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Fine:

I see no answers here. 

Yeah i figured as much. Im sure you totally read through all those articles in the literally 2 minutes it took for you to reply to me.

 

I, and a couple other users, gave more detailed explanations earlier and yesterday but they were "cleaned" so i'm not going to write a summary of brief news articles for you. You can surely read them yourself.

 

 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Yeah i figured as much. Im sure you totally read through all those articles in the literally 2 minutes it took for you to reply to me.

 

I, and a couple other users, gave more detailed explanations earlier and yesterday but they were "cleaned" so i'm not going to write a summary of brief news articles for you. You can surely read them yourself.

 

 

You don't need to link to articles to answer the question.    Besides, you've already linked to 4 or 5 articles that didn't support your notion.

 

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

  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]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

  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? 

I already told you that neither of those options is true. Do you know what a false dichotomy is? You apparently know how to fabricate one.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

I already told you that neither of those options is true. Do you know what a false dichotomy is? You apparently know how to fabricate one.

I'll ask a different way:

 

do you believe small business is a major part of the US economy?

Do you believe that the head quarters of a large company kills small business?

[suicidalfranco]

Why do they always pick the already wealthy cities, why never go for the ones that actually would benefit from the exposure of such major corporations, even if those poorer cities can't offer as large tax breaks or funds

[Amazonsucks]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'll ask a different way:

 

do you believe small business is a major part of the US economy?

Do you believe that the head quarters of a large company kills small business?

https://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/

 

You can easily find the numbers for yourself. That took a few seconds to google up.

 

The headquarters itself is directly screwing the taxpaying citizens of NY while being placed in an already wealthy area, and not bringing the promised jobs to the people who need them the most.

 

Amazon overall is what kills small businesses. Billions of taxpayer funded corporate welfare is just adding insult to injury because Amazon is using monopolistic tactics to drive other businesses under: like operating at a loss and getting billions in corporate welfare to destroy the competition.

 

The headquarters is a huge tax burden which is economically detrimental to those who cant afford it, while simultaneously benefitting the well connected elite corporatists like Cuomo and de Blasio, and of course Bezos himself, the richest welfare queen in the world.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

https://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/

 

You can easily find the numbers for yourself. That took a few seconds to google up.

 

The headquarters itself is directly screwing the taxpaying citizens of NY while being placed in an already wealthy area, and not bringing the promised jobs to the people who need them the most.

 

Amazon overall is what kills small businesses. Billions of taxpayer funded corporate welfare is just adding insult to injury because Amazon is using monopolistic tactics to drive other businesses under: like operating at a loss and getting billions in corporate welfare to destroy the competition.

 

The headquarters is a huge tax burden which is economically detrimental to those who cant afford it, while simultaneously benefitting the well connected elite corporatists like Cuomo and de Blasio, and of course Bezos himself, the richest welfare queen in the world.

so think small business is the backbone of the country and that large corporate headquarters are killing small business. 

 

Wasn't so hard to answer was it.

 

here's some more information, seeing as you have referenced an industry group you shouldn't have too much trouble accepting the information contained here:

 

http://www.aei.org/publication/big-business-the-other-engine-of-economic-growth/

 

 

So it seems as a matter of perspective, we have yet to evidence that a corporate headquarters actually causes a decline in the economy or damages small business by it's presence.   You see, large corporations have been around for quite sometime now, in fact well long enough that we have over a 100 years of financial data.   Yet some of the "experts" who "predict" a downfall due to such corporate presences do so on projected data, why not use the data we already have?  Because the existence of a corporate headquarters has yet to ruin an economy. that's why.

 

 

Now if you sell speakers or gadgets and amazon moves in next door offering all your clients cheaper goods, then you are shit out of luck, but if you own a restaurant or sell a local service and you can't maintain your business with the influx of demand, then that is not amazons fault, that is yours.

 

[Amazonsucks]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

so think small business is the backbone of the country and that large corporate headquarters are killing small business. 

 

Wasn't so hard to answer was it.

 

here's some more information, seeing as you have referenced an industry group you shouldn't have too much trouble accepting the information contained here:

 

http://www.aei.org/publication/big-business-the-other-engine-of-economic-growth/

 

 

So it seems as a matter of perspective, we have yet to evidence that a corporate headquarters actually causes a decline in the economy or damages small business by it's presence.   You see, large corporations have been around for quite sometime now, in fact well long enough that we have over a 100 years of financial data.   Yet some of the "experts" who "predict" a downfall due to such corporate presences do so on projected data, why not use the data we already have?  Because the existence of a corporate headquarters has yet to ruin an economy. that's why.

 

 

Now if you sell speakers or gadgets and amazon moves in next door offering all your clients cheaper goods, then you are shit out of luck, but if you own a restaurant or sell a local service and you can't maintain your business with the influx of demand, then that is not amazons fault, that is yours.

 

I never said that big businesses dont drive the economy as well, though. Not sure why you seem to think its an either or scenario like that.

 

And you dont think an additional $3 or 4 billion in tax burden to benefit the richest part of the state while leaving the rest shit out of luck is economically detrimental in itself? That isnt even accounting for the negative downstream effects.

 

And you think its only electronics or gadget retailers Amazon is driving out of business? Bezos bought an ruined Whole Foods just to infiltrate the grocery market. Amazon seeks to be as pervasive as possible. And since they have the unlimited looted tax dollars to back them, they will drive anyone out of business they see fit to.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Amazonsucks said:

I never said that big businesses dont drive the economy as well, though. Not sure why you seem to think its an either or scenario like that.

 

 

no, you just said:

 

On 11/14/2018 at 8:55 AM, Amazonsucks said:

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.

and:

7 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

 

 

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

 

 

Not sure how you want to backpedal from this, but I'm happy just to let it slide of your happy not to keep conflating issues.

[Amazonsucks]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

no, you just said:

 

and:

 

Not sure how you want to backpedal from this, but I'm happy just to let it slide of your happy not to keep conflating issues.

Amazon does not equal all the big businesses in the world. Not all big companies are a plague and an economic parasite like Amazon is.

 

Not sure why you'd assume that because Amazon is an unethical shitty company that all of them are. I never said they were so you can stop constructing that strawman half way through.

 

Not all companies get propped up by billions in taxpayer funded corporate welfare like Amazon. Not all big companies burden the local taxpayers while simultaneously distorting their real estate market and burdening their already crumbling infrastructure.

 

So it really depends on what company is building what and where. Amazon building a HQ in a wealthy area of NY at the expense of all the NY taxpayers who wont benefit but will suffer from it does nothing but hurt the majority of taxpayers while lining the pockets of dickheads like Cuomo and de Blasio. 

 

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Amazonsucks said:

Amazon does not equal all the big businesses in the world. Not all big companies are a plague and an economic parasite like Amazon is.

 

Not sure why you'd assume that because Amazon is an unethical shitty company that all of them are. I never said they were so you can stop constructing that strawman half way through.

 

Not all companies get propped up by billions in taxpayer funded corporate welfare like Amazon. Not all big companies burden the local taxpayers while simultaneously distorting their real estate market and burdening their already crumbling infrastructure.

 

So it really depends on what company is building what and where. Amazon building a HQ in a wealthy area of NY at the expense of all the NY taxpayers who wont benefit but will suffer from it does nothing but hurt the majority of taxpayers while lining the pockets of dickheads like Cuomo and de Blasio. 

 

 

ok

[Jtalk4456]

11 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

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.

that was due to bad lending practices, not inflated land value from increased jobs in an area

6 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

The headquarters itself is directly screwing the taxpaying citizens of NY while being placed in an already wealthy area, and not bringing the promised jobs to the people who need them the most.

i think there's a fallacy here assuming that the jobs will only go to wealthy citizens. Most wealthy people are wealthy because of a job they already have and won't just suddenly be relocating their talents to Amazon. The people in NYC needing job will still be able to apply to this and just commute to work, which lets face it is already a common state of affairs in NYC. And realistically the poorer areas of NYC are going to be more densely populated and have less general space to put a HQ. This means that placing it in a poorer area might have the opposite effect you are wanting in which the actual building  of the headquarters might displace those poorer citizens you are wanting to get the jobs. It is common practice and smart practice to put a HQ in a nice part of town with more land area to use and less displaced residential neighborhoods

 

I'm not arguing against your distaste of Amazon, but leveling the debate field by pointing out some fallacies that other assumptions and opinions are being based on.

[Unclescar]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

And it's not necessarily a bad thing

sure, that's at least partially true and I didn't try imply that it wasn't. It is, however, incredibly hypocritical that heavily democrat areas (who usually hate big corporations and private businesses, and tax breaks) are offering millions (billions) of dollars in tax breaks to one of the biggest businesses in the world.
I don't like government helping private businesses, at all. If I want a business to have my money I will give that business my money by using their product or service, I don't want it happening through taxes. If you are going to do tax breaks for businesses, do it for ALL businesses and leave it as an open incentive for everyone, not just hand selected businesses. This is not capitalism (as often gets blamed), this is corruption.

[jasonvp]

11 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

Why do they always pick the already wealthy cities, why never go for the ones that actually would benefit from the exposure of such major corporations, even if those poorer cities can't offer as large tax breaks or funds

Simple: they're going where the people already are, or want to be.  And they're going to places that can offer things such as public transportation to get around.

 

Let's step back for a moment and acknowledge something: northern Virginia is the East Coast's silicon valley.  It's been that way since the early 90s.  There is a LOT of geek brain power here in the area.  And not only because it's the most Internet-connected area of the world, either.  There are or were so many tech companies in this section of the country that we were literally driving Internet tech for a very long time.

 

A lot of folks around the country don't realize that.  But it's simple fact.  ALL of the major ISPs have or had HQs here.  Love them or hate them, AOL not only created a bunch of young 20-something millionaires in the 90s and early 2000s, but it invented tech that (pssst.... Amazon...) companies are still using today.

 

The point being: there are geeks here.  Lots of 'em.  TONS of them.  And that's part of what Amazon is after.  People.  People that they won't have to relocate.  People that can hop on a metro train or bus and ride to/from work every day.  We have all of that here; NYC has all of that up there, too:  techie people and facilities.

 

From my own perspective: I pretty much knew this area was going to be chosen by Amazon; there was never any doubt in my mind.  What I dislike is the actual location.  Arlington is a pile... of... um... something not so nice.  The Crystal City part of it is even worse.  As the crow flies, my house is like 25(ish) miles from the area they're going to build their HQ.  To drive that on a day to day basis would be suicidal.  To ride the trains would take... oh... about 1.5 hours one way.  Which is silly.  But: that's what they wanted.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Unclescar said:

sure, that's at least partially true and I didn't try imply that it wasn't. It is, however, incredibly hypocritical that heavily democrat areas (who usually hate big corporations and private businesses, and tax breaks) are offering millions (billions) of dollars in tax breaks to one of the biggest businesses in the world.
I don't like government helping private businesses, at all. If I want a business to have my money I will give that business my money by using their product or service, I don't want it happening through taxes. If you are going to do tax breaks for businesses, do it for ALL businesses and leave it as an open incentive for everyone, not just hand selected businesses. This is not capitalism (as often gets blamed), this is corruption.

I wasn't saying you were wrong. I was just furthering my opinion on the matter.  I personally don't believe when it comes to things like this that it really matters if the area or government are of a political color, money is money and that's what they are after.   With regards to tax breaks,  think of it more as an incentive for those companies to move to your area and create jobs and cash flow rather than a tax they could apply but likely won't get if the company doesn't move there.  It's really not that different to state income taxes varying, depending on what is important to each state (who/how many they want to live and work there etc).

[3 Lions]

Well at least these are sensible locations. Where I live they are building a new warehouse but of course our council just wanted the money and didn't realize that it's literally going to stop the flow of traffic in the town at peak times, we only have a single carriage way ring-road and the town center is already busy as it is without the added traffic of Amazon been here. I know it creates jobs but for god sake can't it be built in a more sensible area. (rant over). 

Edited November 15, 2018 by LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo

[Amazonsucks]

7 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

that was due to bad lending practices, not inflated land value from increased jobs in an area

i think there's a fallacy here assuming that the jobs will only go to wealthy citizens. Most wealthy people are wealthy because of a job they already have and won't just suddenly be relocating their talents to Amazon. The people in NYC needing job will still be able to apply to this and just commute to work, which lets face it is already a common state of affairs in NYC. And realistically the poorer areas of NYC are going to be more densely populated and have less general space to put a HQ. This means that placing it in a poorer area might have the opposite effect you are wanting in which the actual building  of the headquarters might displace those poorer citizens you are wanting to get the jobs. It is common practice and smart practice to put a HQ in a nice part of town with more land area to use and less displaced residential neighborhoods

 

I'm not arguing against your distaste of Amazon, but leveling the debate field by pointing out some fallacies that other assumptions and opinions are being based on.

I was actually pointing out the fallacy of his argument that increased real estate values are an indicator of good underlying economic conditions.

 

And suburbs are way less dense than metropolitan areas. Real estate in NY is some of the most expensive in the world, which is why, like many  other metropolitan cities, its full of skyscrapers.

 

Placing it closer to the dying parts of NY would have helped revitalize them according to the people in NY currently holding the protests for one thing. Im not saying wealthy people need jobs at Amazon. Theyll go to people who can afford to live close enough to work there, not all those poor people who "need" them. 

 

Amazon and Cuomo both delayed the announcement until after Cuomo got reelected. I wonder why. Could it be that they knew how pissed off so many people would be at their decision to put the HQ where they did, AFTER screwing the taxpayers for >$3 billion in NY alone?

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Amazonsucks said:

I was actually pointing out the fallacy of his argument that increased real estate values are an indicator of good underlying economic conditions.

 

Please show me how it is common for the economy to boom but real estate to  remain the same.  Every article I read says the link between property price and economy is very real.  Higher property value equals more spending which equals economic growth.

[Amazonsucks]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Please show me how it is common for the economy to boom but real estate to  remain the same.  Every article I read says the link between property price and economy is very real.  Higher property value equals more spending which equals economic growth.

Higher property values as the result of a bubble created by sub prime loans or other such financial fiction = economic growth to you?

 

I also never said that real estate prices dont fluctuate because of "the economy"(which is too vague anyway).

 

I said that real estate prices can go up based on bad underlying fundamentals: like sub prime mortgage scandals for example. 

 

And your last sentence is about as absurd as government spending being included in GDP calculations. So if i go buy a new Lexus, i just made $50,000 dollars right? Oops.

 

 

[mr moose]

34 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Higher property values as the result of a bubble created by sub prime loans or other such financial fiction = economic growth to you?

 

I also never said that real estate prices dont fluctuate because of "the economy"(which is too vague anyway).

 

I said that real estate prices can go up based on bad underlying fundamentals: like sub prime mortgage scandals for example. 

 

And your last sentence is about as absurd as government spending being included in GDP calculations. So if i go buy a new Lexus, i just made $50,000 dollars right? Oops.

 

 

haha, absurd?

Glad to know you think you are smarter than economists.

 

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/21636/housing/how-the-housing-market-affects-the-economy/

 

No, you see the problem is you tried to equate amazon headquarters with a damaging increase in house prices. You have yet to provide any evidence that amazon HQ would cause that let alone the introduction of any economy increasing establishment.

 

 

 

 

[Amazonsucks]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

haha, absurd?

Glad to know you think you are smarter than economists.

 

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/21636/housing/how-the-housing-market-affects-the-economy/

 

No, you see the problem is you tried to equate amazon headquarters with a damaging increase in house prices. You have yet to provide any evidence that amazon HQ would cause that let alone the introduction of any economy increasing establishment.

 

 

 

 

Not sure if more purposeful conflation or if you really dont get it. 

 

The underlying, fundamentals of the economy are what i am talking about. If the housing market and spending(incursion of debt) rises for the wrong reasons, you end up with a financial meltdown like 2008. That is a much more complex system than "house price go up, me make money".

 

You are oversimplifying in order to omit the messy nature of real estate prices and the financial collapse of 2008. Before that happened, real estate and consumer spending were on the rise. By your logic, that means the economy was healthy right? Except that it was a bubble that ended up popping because of what was really going on under the surface.

 

And i mentioned that the influx of renters/buyers can and does drive up the price of real estate to the point where locals are displaced. 

 

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

 

"HOUSING BOOM — OR BUST

For some homeowners, when big technology companies move into town, it can be like winning the jackpot as housing prices skyrocket.

Home values in Seattle, the site of Amazon's sprawling and still expanding original headquarters, have jumped more than 11 percent in the last year compared to a 6.9 percent annual average, according to Zillow.

But for renters, the housing boom can be a nightmare, driving lower income people farther outside of town.

Seattle rents jumped 7.2 percent, according to the same index, well above the national average of 1.2 percent.

It's something Silicon Valley is also being forced to consider. In the tech-focused San Francisco Bay area, many police officers, teachers, firefighters, and other professionals essential to keeping a city safe and thriving have already been priced outand are instead forced to commute into the city where they work."