4 ms·

That comment makes no sense in the context of HQ2. The choice of NY/DC strongly suggests that these are places Amazon was expanding to anyway, for business reas

by koboll 8y ago

That comment makes no sense in the context of HQ2. The choice of NY/DC strongly suggests that these are places Amazon was expanding to anyway, for business reasons (execs nearer business/defense higher-ups they are selling to). If you're trying to move to the cheapest possible place, you would never choose these locations.

tyingq 8y ago
The context is the article suggestion to outlaw local and state tax incentives.
- moate 8y ago
  Right, and if that's done on a national level creating a level playing field, then everything is fine. The businesses can't just leave the US at this point. These companies still need headquarters in the US. They just no longer get to balance their finances on the back of tax breaks. They'll have to, gasp, make money selling their products. As much as the boogieman of "teh globalizations" gets thrown out any time anyone suggests any attempts to regulate domestic markets, you can't just move everything away from the US. The labor force is needed. The consumer market is needed. The infrastructure is needed. The proximity to other companies is needed. The real estate is needed.
  - sdinsn 8y ago
    > The businesses can't just leave the US at this point. That's where you are wrong.
    - koboll 8y ago
      Yes, of course, they can. But what you're suggesting is they'll do that absent tax breaks, which suggests cost of a location is a primary factor in HQ openings, which seems obviously wrong given the choice of NY/DC. And it's not like Amazon is alone here. Despite NY/California being, uh, not known for tax friendliness, most major companies in fields concentrated in those areas still put their headquarters there.
      - sdinsn 8y ago
        > Despite NY/California being, uh, not known for tax friendliness, most major companies in fields concentrated in those areas still put their headquarters there. They put their HQ there, but they are incorporated in Delaware.

by koboll 8y ago

tyingq 8y ago

The context is the article suggestion to outlaw local and state tax incentives.

moate 8y ago
Right, and if that's done on a national level creating a level playing field, then everything is fine. The businesses can't just leave the US at this point. These companies still need headquarters in the US. They just no longer get to balance their finances on the back of tax breaks. They'll have to, gasp, make money selling their products. As much as the boogieman of "teh globalizations" gets thrown out any time anyone suggests any attempts to regulate domestic markets, you can't just move everything away from the US. The labor force is needed. The consumer market is needed. The infrastructure is needed. The proximity to other companies is needed. The real estate is needed.
- sdinsn 8y ago
  > The businesses can't just leave the US at this point. That's where you are wrong.
  - koboll 8y ago
    Yes, of course, they can. But what you're suggesting is they'll do that absent tax breaks, which suggests cost of a location is a primary factor in HQ openings, which seems obviously wrong given the choice of NY/DC. And it's not like Amazon is alone here. Despite NY/California being, uh, not known for tax friendliness, most major companies in fields concentrated in those areas still put their headquarters there.
    - sdinsn 8y ago
      > Despite NY/California being, uh, not known for tax friendliness, most major companies in fields concentrated in those areas still put their headquarters there. They put their HQ there, but they are incorporated in Delaware.