OT*-Who do you think should get the Amazon headquarters?

[MattTuck]

Originally Posted by brownhound

I mostly disagree that the current winners are a result of policy. I do agree that the current winners are places where places employees want to live (which is what I figured you meant by "leave at the end of the day"). Rapidly growing places like Portland or Seattle or Denver or Austin have the accident of geography, just like 19th century growth helped places like Cincinnati.

My point was, if a city does not have those natural advantages (accident of geography) of good climate, good work force, good quality of life, ample opportunities, good connection with schools, network effects, etc., the only levers remaining are those of policy choices.

I'd argue that the leaders of such cities/regions/states should focus on policies and investments that have general broad appeal to businesses and increase the probability that ANY company operating there is successful. That is hard policy work, that takes years and years to make a big impact. Trying to win the amazon contract is a short cut to big job growth, but if you don't have the accompanying general policies to benefit all high growth companies equally across the board, why would any other company locate there without exacting similar tax incentives to what Amazon got.

[brownhound]

Originally Posted by Kirk007

So my bet is a community that offers lifestyle amenities like Seattle.

On the other hand, and the fear of some up here: Seattle's local government has been taken over by decidedly business unfriendly trends that smack of inexperienced idealistic foolishness that combined with an inability to deal with real world problems, like infrastructure, traffic will make this a move of the Amazon center of the universe elsewhere...This sentiment, which is very anti-amazon, google etc., could be a big part of Amazon's thinking and that could drive them to a place that was more business friendly even it it lacked some amenities.

I think you've got the right idea - a balance of Seattle amenities (and culture, to some extent) and business-friendly policies. The places with the former generally don't have the latter and vice versa.

Maybe Utah or Denver? If in the Midwest or East, then perhaps a Nashville? Or Austin?

Most of the currently successful business-friendly locations aren't exactly brimming with Seattle amenities: Houston, Atlanta, etc.

[Mikej]

OR, is this A2 all just a ploy to get Seattle and Washington to realize this guy is serious, so we better start forking over incentives?

[brownhound]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

I'd argue that the leaders of such cities/regions/states should focus on policies and investments that have general broad appeal to businesses and increase the probability that ANY company operating there is successful. That is hard policy work, that takes years and years to make a big impact. Trying to win the amazon contract is a short cut to big job growth, but if you don't have the accompanying general policies to benefit all high growth companies equally across the board, why would any other company locate there without exacting similar tax incentives to what Amazon got.

Don't all of them try? Every city, metro area and State has an economic development department. Of course, each company has different needs, so it's hard to know what will be successful. For example, lax environmental policies and aggressive anti-union activities will be favored by some (manufacturers), but to an Amazon or similar it's anathema.

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by ColonelJLloyd

Yep. When fifty thousand jobs come to a city the economic impact ends with their salaries and the (income, sales and property) taxes that company does or does not pay. Offering incentives to a company to locate to your city based on detailed economic models with varied scenarios, you know. . . a long view approach. . . is dumb. Totally with you on that.

Except the research indicates these kinds of incentive races to the bottom in smokestack chasing don't often make back the incentives given, and ignore the policy choice of trying to encourage and develop local businesses which really make up the vast bulk of any regions jobs.

Its not like Amazon needs the tax abatement after all. And all the cities folks are naming here are ones that already have healthy, diverse economies with notable local companies as stable employers and a local base of talent to pull from.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-...often-off-base

[benb]

You can't incentivize yourself to having a small army of software developers... all the other stuff can be solved with money.

IMO it's going to be Boston or Austin or someplace that is already overflowing with engineers. There's good stuff going on all over the the place but Silicon Valley, Boston, Seattle, Austin, RTP, NYC are the biggest areas. Then you gotta factor in whether the area already has enough other jobs that the engineers aren't going to want to quit and work at Amazon. Amazon does NOT have a good reputation in the industry, and it's a giant company, so the perceived upside is not as big as working at a smaller (probably private) company. In reality working a place like Amazon is probably a better bet in terms of stock, etc.. but the maximum upside is lower and Amazon backloads vesting and does some other stuff that people feel is unsavory.

Amazon has been trying to recruit me for jobs in Seattle for 10+ years. I did interview when they opened their Boston office for Boston positions but didn't get an offer... it was also one of those processes (like when I interviewed at Google) that made me think I didn't want to work there anyway. Big giant company, weird cult feeling, strange/obnoxious interview process, office location inconvenient for my lifestyle. (Having a family, wanting to be a cyclist, etc..) Google has left me alone ever since then (I think I actually requested that they leave me alone) but Amazon sends a recruiter my way once a month. One of the big things that makes these companies obnoxious as F is they don't actually let you know what you're interviewing for unless you're some kind of celebrity developer that they want to keep working on your celebrity thing or they're buying your startup and want you to keep working on that.

[ORMojo]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

we need a pool..pick location and time it's announced...winner gets a paceline cap..

Gonna be a big pool, they received 238 proposals.

"Amazon did not list which cities or metro areas applied, but said the proposals came from 43 U.S. states, as well as Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico, three Mexican states and six Canadian provinces. In a tweet, the company said it was 'excited to review each of them.'

The seven U.S. states that Amazon said did not apply were: Arkansas, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming."

[FastforaSlowGuy]

Originally Posted by ORMojo

Gonna be a big pool, they received 238 proposals.

"Amazon did not list which cities or metro areas applied, but said the proposals came from 43 U.S. states, as well as Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico, three Mexican states and six Canadian provinces. In a tweet, the company said it was 'excited to review each of them.'

The seven U.S. states that Amazon said did not apply were: Arkansas, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming."

And the next step in the selection isn't happening for a long time (mid-2018, as I understand it). Something like this doesn't move fast.

[unterhausen]

that's an interesting list of the 7 states.

[Idris Icabod]

Down to the round of 20:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42727017

"Toronto was the only non-US city to make it to the list.

The others are Atlanta, Georgia; Austin, Texas; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Columbus, Ohio; Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Indianapolis, Indiana; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; Montgomery County, Maryland; Nashville, Tennessee; Newark, New Jersey; New York City; Northern Virginia; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Raleigh, North Carolina; and Washington DC."

[texbike]

Originally Posted by Idris Icabod

Down to the round of 20:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42727017

"Toronto was the only non-US city to make it to the list.

The others are Atlanta, Georgia; Austin, Texas; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Columbus, Ohio; Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Indianapolis, Indiana; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; Montgomery County, Maryland; Nashville, Tennessee; Newark, New Jersey; New York City; Northern Virginia; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Raleigh, North Carolina; and Washington DC."

Both Dallas and Austin made the list. I personally think that Dallas would be the perfect spot and feel that it'll be one of the final contenders if not the ultimate choice. However, I wonder if the HQ for Whole Foods being in Austin would influence the decision our way?

Denver would be interesting, but not far enough East?

Texbike

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by texbike

Both Dallas and Austin made the list. I personally think that Dallas would be the perfect spot and feel that it'll be one of the final contenders if not the ultimate choice. However, I wonder if the HQ for Whole Foods being in Austin would influence the decision our way?

Denver would be interesting, but not far enough East?

Texbike

Dallas's heyday is passed. Everyones moving to Plano.

edit: why do you say Dallas is the perfect spot tex?

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by texbike

Both Dallas and Austin made the list. I personally think that Dallas would be the perfect spot and feel that it'll be one of the final contenders if not the ultimate choice. However, I wonder if the HQ for Whole Foods being in Austin would influence the decision our way?

Denver would be interesting, but not far enough East?

Texbike

They sure don't seem to place it somewhere where it would help the area, like Detroit or New Orleans..Not Denver, take a drive thru the mousttrap any day of the week and that'll show ya Denver is a bad idea..unless it's way out by DIA...

[fignon's barber]

Originally Posted by Idris Icabod

Down to the round of 20:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42727017

"Toronto was the only non-US city to make it to the list.

The others are Atlanta, Georgia; Austin, Texas; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Columbus, Ohio; Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Indianapolis, Indiana; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; Montgomery County, Maryland; Nashville, Tennessee; Newark, New Jersey; New York City; Northern Virginia; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Raleigh, North Carolina; and Washington DC."

Predictably strategic list. Of the 20 there are probably around 4 real considerations, while the rest are somewhat desperate municipalities willing to leverage everything and therefore jacking up the bidding for the contenders.

[echelon_john]

The fact that DC, NOVA and Montgomery County, MD are all on the list, to me, shows there is strong interest in that neck of the woods. East coast, proximity to federal government.

Don't forget that the retail side of Amazon is only a portion of their business. Their cloud offerings are HUUUGE and growing. So the needs for HQ2 are very different from how we think of Amazon a lot, i.e. distribution centers, logistics, etc.

Originally Posted by fignon's barber

Predictably strategic list. Of the 20 there are probably around 4 real considerations, while the rest are somewhat desperate municipalities willing to leverage everything and therefore jacking up the bidding for the contenders.