
Closed-door meetings on unions preceded Amazon's withdrawal - save_ferris
https://www.newsday.com/news/region-state/amazon-labor-1.27345235
======
chasd00
I admit I was pretty shocked. Many people do not realize that Amazon leaving
doesn't mean +$3B in their pocket it means $0 and even less than zero in the
long term.

Also, Amazon wasn't forced to leave by the people, they chose to leave because
of a toxic minority voice. The majority of voters wanted Amazon's development.

I wouldn't say this toxic minority is scary but they're certainly something to
think about going g forward.

Finally, seems like I remember tech. on the East Coast was always a losing
deal because of unions, taxes, and red tape. Isn't that why silicon valley
started in the first place?

~~~
geofft
> _Many people do not realize that Amazon leaving doesn 't mean +$3B in their
> pocket it means $0 and even less than zero in the long term._

I don't think that logic makes sense. The absence of Amazon doesn't mean that
the land is razed and the earth salted. It means other companies, without the
$3B in concessions, can grow there instead. They could be other giant tech
companies, they could be small businesses, they could be anything, but
_someone_ is likely to move forward with the land. It may or may not be $3B,
but it certainly will be more than zero in the short term and the long term.

~~~
ardy42
It might even be better for us in the long run. Instead of Amazon sucking up
more talent in the NYC area, that talent is available to some other company
(or companies) that can compete (nationally) with Amazon for it.

The land isn't either barren or occupied by Amazon crabgrass. Different things
can grow there.

~~~
nerfhammer
Reducing the number of employers is better for existing employers, yes. Less
competition for labor. They will be able to get better talent and pay them
less. That would be great, for them.

~~~
kjksf
If talent was forbidden from leaving NY, that would be the case.

But talent is a plane ticket away from SF or Seattle so if SF or Seattle
company pays more than NY company, the talent will move there.

If there are 10 thousand jobs created in Seattle instead of NY, the talent
will leave NY for Seattle. Seattle will gain 10 thousand highly paid residents
and NY (and other areas) will loose them.

That's the magic of a positive feedback loop: more employers mean more
employees which means more employers.

Yes, it does create a more competitive market for both jobs and people.

Programmer A has to compete with programmer B for that great job.

Company A has to compete with company B for that great programmer.

Counter-intuitively, it leads to more stronger companies and programmers in a
given area.

This is great for the overall ecosystem, less great if you're a weak
programmer or company.

~~~
grogenaut
Yeah it's super easy to move your family to the other side of the country and
lose all your friends and what not. Not a hard decision at all

~~~
geofft
A good amount of hiring in these sectors is for people straight out of
college, who generally have no family and are expecting to make new friends
anyway.

Also, if that's your argument, it makes a lot more sense for Amazon to open
several small new offices through the country instead of a single new HQ in
one city. (In fact another commenter is trying to argue against me on the
grounds that people would be _moving to_ NYC to take these jobs, and the lack
of such moves is harming the NYC labor market. Perhaps the two of you should
argue with each other.)

~~~
grogenaut
Amazon actually has quite a few local offices now. 2k+ SF, 400+ in Irvine,
150+ in Denver, STL, Chicago, etc.

Many of them went in as soon as Amazon figured out how to charge local sales
tax in those states and happened in 2014-2015.

Of Amazon's total dev population about 25% is college age. Much more is 5+10
years out of college and where Amazon is looking to recruit.

~~~
jjeaff
>figure out how to charge local sales tax

That's laughable. Charging local sales tax was always a trivial excercise for
Amazon. They fought it until they knew they couldn't win any more and then
embraced it knowing that they would want to try to control the discussion and
try to force any smaller competitors to comply as well to eliminate any
advantage for their competition.

In other words, they never would have started charging local sales tax if they
thought they could get away with it.

------
wolframhempel
There seems to be some confusion between Tax-breaks and subsidies. The three
Billion that AOC and Co suggest will now be available for other investments
would not have been money given to Amazon, it would have been money that
Amazon would have paid less in taxes, while still paying a reduced tax rate.
No Amazon = 0 Taxes.

(It is worth noting that Amazon would still have claimed other subsidies made
available to all companies in the state of NY - however now claiming a plus of
3 Billion is simply incorrect. More so, even with the 3 Billion tax break I
don't think there is an argument that Amazon would have been a net-negative -
quite the opposite in fact)

~~~
CPLX
This keeps getting repeated but it’s nonsense.

1) There was $300-500 million in the deal that was just straight up cash to
help them build the HQ area. That’s cold hard taxpayer money that can now be
spent on subways or housing or anything else.

2) The idea that there will now be “0” taxes is ridiculous. First of all
Amazon itself will likely still expand in NYC anyways, since there were
clearly reasons why increasing their presence here was in their interest. And
regardless, this is New York, we’re not short of development. Other businesses
will just take over that area instead, like they do in every corner and
crevice of this densely packed city, and they’ll pay their share of taxes
instead.

~~~
yostrovs
You obviously didn't live in LIC or Williamsburg in the 1990s or early 2000s.
Those places were crap for many years without real development. I didn't like
the offer Amazon was given but you're wrong to simply assume that someone else
will replace Amazon.

~~~
subpixel
I lived in Williamsburg in the 90s and can tell you it was an amazing place to
live then. It lacked for nothing. In my opinion it is utter crap now, thanks
to what you call ‘real’ development.

~~~
yostrovs
I did too. You couldn't get a meal in the neighborhood, save for awful Chinese
or PR food.

~~~
subpixel
Other than Frost, Peter Luger, or Bamontes, and then the original Planet
Thailand on N 7th - still the best basil beef I have ever had.

I grant that the Chinese food was very bad.

~~~
yostrovs
Those three aren't exactly everyday places. Everyday food was pretty bad.

------
spenrose
[https://twitter.com/ritholtz/status/1096449884180434945](https://twitter.com/ritholtz/status/1096449884180434945)

The whole thread is worth reading (note he links to a counter-argument at the
end).

------
futureastronaut
They never would have backed out if Cuomo changed his first name to Amazon as
he suggested.

------
onetimemanytime
I don't get it...the politicians in power wanted it and so did the people
[https://news.yahoo.com/poll-majority-yorkers-supported-
amazo...](https://news.yahoo.com/poll-majority-yorkers-supported-
amazon-140324398.html) . Of course Amazon wasn't expecting a 100% "please come
here" vote.

~~~
rmrfrmrf
The thing about polls is that you can throw out the ones you don't like.

------
freewizard
I guess even in November, this was probably a stretchy decision for Amazon to
have 2 HQ2s and one in NYC to begin with, hence not a surprise it changes
decision once it sensed more friction politically and the overall economy
trend is great since Nov anyway.

------
timwis
This website blocks visitors from Europe because of GDPR...

~~~
segfaultbuserr
Use web.archive.org

[https://web.archive.org/web/20190216180058/https://www.newsd...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190216180058/https://www.newsday.com/news/region-
state/amazon-labor-1.27345235)

------
jorblumesea
I think it's ironic that Bezos is a Libertarian, with a capital L, and his
company and values very much reflect this. But, then they try to lean on local
and state governments for hand outs and incentives. Then his company throws a
fit when they don't get everything they want, despite apparently espousing
free market tenants and ideas.

It just feels very hypocritical to the extreme, from a political/philosophical
standpoint.

It also feels like they just want the system to always work in their favor,
wherever, whenever. Which seems unrealistic and borderline childish.

