3 ms·

I didn't see Bezos pointing a gun at anyone's head to force their city to bid. This is 100% on them, if they thought it would be a waste of money, they could've

I didn't see Bezos pointing a gun at anyone's head to force their city to bid. This is 100% on them, if they thought it would be a waste of money, they could've opted to spend nothing. "Running roughshod all over our desperate cities", while a fun turn of phrase, completely and utterly misrepresents what happened here. Don't blame Amazon for the actions of local governments, though I know it's the easy/lazy way of approaching the problem.

hamburga 8y ago
There was still lots of local pressure from Chambers of Commerce type folks to get cities involved. And if they didn't apply, civic leaders would be accused of being anti-jobs. So a lot of pressure to get involved even if not straight from Mr. Bezos.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  That's life in government, I guess. It's as if they were elected precisely for the purpose of making tough decisions that affect everyone.
scott_s 8y ago
That's rather the point: when all actors are behaving rationally, yet the outcome is not something that is good for society, we need to change the rules to change behavior.
- tedunangst 8y ago
  One might make the case that the cities were not acting rationally.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    Its rational to not entertain amazon's offer only if you know for certain nobody else will either. The first one to defect gets everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality
    - tedunangst 8y ago
      This is like paying Tom sawyer to paint the fence. It's okay to let the other kids outbid you.
      - clarky07 8y ago
        I'm not sure I'd agree with that. For instance, I think the Nashville deal is fantastic for my city/state. we are getting 20% of the jobs (5k vs 25k) for "only" about 100 million compared to several billion from NY and VA. It will easily make that back in benefits to the local economy and increased tax revenues.
- mortenjorck 8y ago
  Indeed, it’s a little disappointing how reliably the tired argument of “no one is forcing them to” comes out on HN, as if generations of social reforms addressing such arguments as “no one is forcing impoverished families to send their children to the factories” never happened. Your observation is an excellent encapsulation: All actors are behaving rationally, to a net social loss, and thus the rules need to change.
- resalisbury 8y ago
  "when all actors are behaving rationally, yet the outcome is not something that is good for society, we need to change the rules to change behavior." +1!

hamburga 8y ago

There was still lots of local pressure from Chambers of Commerce type folks to get cities involved. And if they didn't apply, civic leaders would be accused of being anti-jobs. So a lot of pressure to get involved even if not straight from Mr. Bezos.

CamperBob2 8y ago
That's life in government, I guess. It's as if they were elected precisely for the purpose of making tough decisions that affect everyone.

scott_s 8y ago

That's rather the point: when all actors are behaving rationally, yet the outcome is not something that is good for society, we need to change the rules to change behavior.

tedunangst 8y ago
One might make the case that the cities were not acting rationally.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Its rational to not entertain amazon's offer only if you know for certain nobody else will either. The first one to defect gets everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality
  - tedunangst 8y ago
    This is like paying Tom sawyer to paint the fence. It's okay to let the other kids outbid you.
    - clarky07 8y ago
      I'm not sure I'd agree with that. For instance, I think the Nashville deal is fantastic for my city/state. we are getting 20% of the jobs (5k vs 25k) for "only" about 100 million compared to several billion from NY and VA. It will easily make that back in benefits to the local economy and increased tax revenues.
mortenjorck 8y ago
Indeed, it’s a little disappointing how reliably the tired argument of “no one is forcing them to” comes out on HN, as if generations of social reforms addressing such arguments as “no one is forcing impoverished families to send their children to the factories” never happened. Your observation is an excellent encapsulation: All actors are behaving rationally, to a net social loss, and thus the rules need to change.
resalisbury 8y ago
"when all actors are behaving rationally, yet the outcome is not something that is good for society, we need to change the rules to change behavior." +1!