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

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by 54ny77

I'll take a guess it ends up somewhere in one of the coastal (east or west) regions in FL. Favorable biz climate, no state income tax, lifestyle attraction for the workforce. Major companies have been moving backoffice operations in the Jacksonville and Tampa metro areas for the past several years.

Lotsa USAF and USN wives looking for jobs at those 2 places too

[marsh]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

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

I bet Chicago gets it, they will probably be given the land and pay no taxes.
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illin...mazon-for-hq2/

Rahm will tout it as a huge win, it will do nothing for the areas of Chicago that really need investment that the tax money could help provide.

[brownhound]

Should get? A struggling city where HQ2 would be transformative for the local economy, a boost to help establish it as relevant in the global economy. These places are big enough to soak up 50,000 families and have infrastructure that can serve a big company.

Examples: Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore, St. Louis, Memphis, Buffalo, maybe even Philly.

Will get? A large city with the wind blowing at its back already. Companies move places where the CEO wants to live, and it'll be this way now, whether it makes local sense or not.

Examples: Denver, Austin, DFW, Minneapolis, Charlotte, Boston, maybe even Chicago.

[cmg]

Who's really paying those high salaries if the HQ2 is demanding tax incentives, free land with infrastructure, and school tax abatements? $8-10 million in incentives can really offset a lot of $100K salaries. Sorry go somewhere else, corporate welfare be damned.

[ColonelJLloyd]

Originally Posted by cmg

Who's really paying those high salaries if the HQ2 is demanding tax incentives, free land with infrastructure, and school tax abatements? $8-10 million in incentives can really offset a lot of $100K salaries. Sorry go somewhere else, corporate welfare be damned.

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.

[Mikej]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Lotsa USAF and USN wives looking for jobs at those 2 places too

Most military is transient, I don't think AMAZON wants to retrain constantly.

I'd vote South East WI, but we are in talks to shell out 3.5 billion to FOXCONN to make apple phone screens....for 3500 jobs, but maybe, JUST MAYBE, we can expand, for another n+ $$$$

[MattTuck]

Originally Posted by brownhound

Should get? A struggling city where HQ2 would be transformative for the local economy, a boost to help establish it as relevant in the global economy. These places are big enough to soak up 50,000 families and have infrastructure that can serve a big company.

Examples: Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore, St. Louis, Memphis, Buffalo, maybe even Philly.

Will get? A large city with the wind blowing at its back already. Companies move places where the CEO wants to live, and it'll be this way now, whether it makes local sense or not.

Examples: Denver, Austin, DFW, Minneapolis, Charlotte, Boston, maybe even Chicago.

Perhaps the idea of a city "with the wind blowing at its back already" is a city with a well educated population that has made good investments and had good policies in the past. Getting a big employer like this is not a panacea. If struggling cities want to emerge as resilient and relevant players in the world of tomorrow, their time would be better spent on policies that shape the city into places that people want to live and do business -- not on winning a highly speculative beauty contest to hook Amazon.

Historically, there were obviously some cities that were simply endowed with better natural benefits than others. I'm thinking of some of the mill towns near rivers that could be harnessed for power back in the 1800's. Seaports, river access, quarries or other sources of natural resources, etc. that made commerce easier. Today, the most valuable asset most high growth companies have are the ones that leave at the end of the day. You can have adequate infrastructure (roads, airport, public transit, etc.) but the main differentiation today is innovation and talent, and that is nearly 100% people. So if you don't have a ready supply of high talent people, or can't get people to come and live somewhere, you're not going to locate important functions there.

[charliedid]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

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

Maybe

However I don't know if Detroit needs another Company to own the town again.

Chicago is aggressive, has the infrastructure, the Universities, the population, the housing and the (good, bad or otherwise) willingness to do what it takes in terms of the "offer" and incentives.

It would be a great thing for Chicago IMO and it would just add to a dynamic, albeit somewhat struggling city and state but not reinvent it and be it's new identity. I think that is important.

Send me my cap ;-)

[PepeM]

I'll just drop a few things here:

https://www.goodjobsfirst.org/news/a...cket-megadeals

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/d...-subsidies.pdf

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...poly-movement/

Have a good day.

[brownhound]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

Perhaps the idea of a city "with the wind blowing at its back already" is a city with a well educated population that has made good investments and had good policies in the past. Getting a big employer like this is not a panacea. If struggling cities want to emerge as resilient and relevant players in the world of tomorrow, their time would be better spent on policies that shape the city into places that people want to live and do business -- not on winning a highly speculative beauty contest to hook Amazon.

Historically, there were obviously some cities that were simply endowed with better natural benefits than others. I'm thinking of some of the mill towns near rivers that could be harnessed for power back in the 1800's. Seaports, river access, quarries or other sources of natural resources, etc. that made commerce easier. Today, the most valuable asset most high growth companies have are the ones that leave at the end of the day. You can have adequate infrastructure (roads, airport, public transit, etc.) but the main differentiation today is innovation and talent, and that is nearly 100% people. So if you don't have a ready supply of high talent people, or can't get people to come and live somewhere, you're not going to locate important functions there.

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.

Whatever "smart" policy someplace like Cleveland would take, it isn't going to replicate Nashville or whatever winner you want to point to. It can't overcome the natural trends. And I agree that Amazon will select some place where people want to "come and live", which is why it'll be somewhere already popular and growing. It would take a lot of guts to choose Detroit, and I don't think Amazon has that kind of guts. Almost no company does.

[Mikej]

So, what if current employers in the "golden choices" areas, Austin, Chicago, etc. lobby politicians for no because it could cause people to jump ship or cause higher demand therefore higher wages?

[brownhound]

^^^
Yes, what if?

NIMBYism could extend to a corporate HQ with well compensated, white-collar workers too. I could see someplace small like Boulder doing it, but it's hard to imagine in a larger city turning away (or declining to participate in) Amazon. Economic development is one of the primary goals of local government.

Do you really want to be, say, the Governor when Amazon says they chose to send 50,000 jobs elsewhere because the Governor isn't "open for business"?

[charliedid]

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.

Whatever "smart" policy someplace like Cleveland would take, it isn't going to replicate Nashville or whatever winner you want to point to. It can't overcome the natural trends. And I agree that Amazon will select some place where people want to "come and live", which is why it'll be somewhere already popular and growing. It would take a lot of guts to choose Detroit, and I don't think Amazon has that kind of guts. Almost no company does.

You make a good point, and the geography (lifestyle) part is where Chicago will never stand up to Denver or Portland or other cities where that is an ideal/accidental feature and or benefit.

That said, Chicago is a hard working town and Amazon is a hard working Co. and the friends I know who work for them talk about the culture being work centric and not nearly as relaxed as some other employers who tout the life/work balance as key to their culture. I think that is changing a little but...

[charliedid]

Originally Posted by Mikej

So, what if current employers in the "golden choices" areas, Austin, Chicago, etc. lobby politicians for no because it could cause people to jump ship or cause higher demand therefore higher wages?

Yes please!

[Kirk007]

Jeff Bezos has been in Seattle since the beginning and what Seattle is, then and now I think will have to translate into the decision. How many Corp. Execs in Seattle would be enthused to relocate to Detroit - I'm guessing zero absent a huge $$ increase. 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. Now our socialist trending city council members and many self entitled residents who seem to think the world owes them, and that it is the job of business and anyone who has worked their asses off to accumulate even a modicum of assets, to fork it over. It's like a scene from history with youngsters running around the streets with "tax the rich" placards. No pitchforks as they wouldn't have a clue what a pitchfork is for. 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.

p.s. This is not the rant of a lifelong fiscal, social conservative. I run a conservation ngo and have been on the left side of the spectrum all my life, but things have jumped the shark in this town, so much so I just left for Kitsap County.