4 ms·

> Please tell me what about this is bad. A trillion dollar company is getting subsidies, when they should be helping to build and grow the society that created

by grecy 8y ago

> Please tell me what about this is bad. A trillion dollar company is getting subsidies, when they should be helping to build and grow the society that created them. Healthcare in America is disgraceful. Absolutely the worst in the developed world. Tens of millions of people in your country live on food stamps. Tens of millions work multiple jobs and are still considered "in poverty". Higher education is so expensive it's prohibitive or puts people in crushing debt for a very long time. General infrastructure is horrendously bad. The whole point of a society is that everyone contributes to make it better for everyone. When a trillion dollar company gets to pay less that they're supposed to, it makes society worse, not better. The goal of the society should be to make life better for everyone living in it NOT to raise the stock price of what is already one of the biggest companies in existence.

smsm42 8y ago
Most of your screed about how US sucks has nothing to do with Amazon or why Amazon deal is bad. > When a trillion dollar company gets to pay less that they're supposed to, it makes society worse, not better. That's where you went wrong. A trillion dollar company is not supposed to pay anything to New York. The minimum NY was getting is $0. That's the starting point. Amazon is free to locate HQ in any other place and NY gets $0 from it. Now, NY can negotiate and get more than $0 - or not, and get $0. It's not like Amazon has already build headquarters and paid taxes and then NY decided to give them back a lot of money just out of the blue. It's like Amazon said "I can bring this much money to the table, but what you can do for us so that we choose you? Lower taxes? Better regulations? Something else?" and NYC considered how much Amazon brings to the table and how much they can do to make NYC their choice and they negotiated. Now you may want to say "if lower taxes makes the city or state competitive and improves outcomes, how comes not everybody gets low taxes?" Good question. Probably the same reason not everybody gets paid six-figure salaries. Some companies (or people) have more economic clout than others and can demand better compensation in exchange for good their bring to the table. If the city (or employer) doesn't want the goods, they are free to refuse the deal.
- grecy 8y ago
  > A trillion dollar company is not supposed to pay anything to New York. The minimum NY was getting is $0. That's the starting point. Your entire post just described, by definition, a race to the bottom. Obviously the US is winning that race relative to other developed countries, but I'm staggered you think it's a good thing. It's absurd to think Amazon is doing NY a favor by bringing more than $0. That's like if I walk into McDonald's looking for a job and they say to me "Well, you currently earn nothing, so you should be mighty thankful we'll pay you even $1/hr". There are laws against paying people $1/hr for a very good reason - because if they could corporations would do that to maximize profits. All the employees would suffer. The corporation would make more money. Which is exactly what's happening with Amazon/NY. You are right that NY will get more money now that if Amazon had not come, but that's also true that my life would be better getting $1/hr than $0/hr. But is that a good thing? Do we want people to get paid $1/hr? Does that make for a happy and healthy society? Of course it doesn't, and letting Amazon pay less than they should is exactly the same, and has the same outcomes.
  - throwaway98121 8y ago
    How is Amazons deal in any way equal to your $1 an hour analogy? This is a serious question. Amazon will bring high paying jobs to the area. Those workers will pay taxes. They will also patronize local businesses. Yes, real estate will go nuts and infrastructure will have a tough time scaling, but your $1 an hour analogy is dishonest. I grew up in Seattle. I know what Amazon will do, but again, your $1 analogy needs a citation. This is beyond hyperbole.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    > Your entire post just described, by definition, a race to the bottom. Every negotiation is "race to the bottom" for the side that is paying - they want to pay as little as possible. However, there is the natural bottom for it - as soon as the deal costs more than it brings in - in fact, as soon as the deal costs more that what it brings in, including reasonable profit - the side that is dissatisfied would refuse to make a deal. What would be the point? > It's absurd to think Amazon is doing NY a favor by bringing more than $0. Why is it absurd? If Amazon is doing NY a disfavor, why NY wants it? Do they hate themselves? Are they gluttons for punishment? Were they forced into the deal by a secret Amazon ninja army? No, I don't think so - I think they want the deal because the think the deal is good for them. Of course, you know better, but I think for most people your argument is not exactly obvious. Or correct. > they say to me "Well, you currently earn nothing, so you should be mighty thankful we'll pay you even $1/hr". They can. And you can say "go fish, I won't work for $1". And then they'd say "well, how about $10 - would you work for $10?" And you'd say "now you're talking!" > The corporation would make more money. No they won't - people wouldn't work for them, and corporation rarely are able to make money when having no employees. That's why only about 2% of the workforce earns minimum wage. One would expect the greedy corporations to pay absolute minimum, right? But they pay way more. You'd have to find a theory that accounts for that. I have one, but looks like you do not. > Do we want people to get paid $1/hr? We want people to get paid whatever they can get paid. As we can see, it's in about 98% of cases more than both $1 and minimum wage. > and letting Amazon pay less than they should is exactly the same, and has the same outcomes. No it does not. I welcome you to consider why business-to-business transaction is different from person-to-employer relationship (hint: people can go hungry and sick, but corporations rarely die from not being able to locate headquarters in New York). It's a business transaction, one that NY made voluntarily, and one that they expect would be very profitable for them. Of course, as everything in life, they might be wrong - sometimes business transactions go bad - but declaring this transaction is wrong because you could've gotten everything and more for free makes no sense. You couldn't have gotten it for free, and dreaming about it doesn't make current transaction destructive for society, quite the opposite - it brings jobs and investment.

by grecy 8y ago

smsm42 8y ago

Most of your screed about how US sucks has nothing to do with Amazon or why Amazon deal is bad. > When a trillion dollar company gets to pay less that they're supposed to, it makes society worse, not better. That's where you went wrong. A trillion dollar company is not supposed to pay anything to New York. The minimum NY was getting is $0. That's the starting point. Amazon is free to locate HQ in any other place and NY gets $0 from it. Now, NY can negotiate and get more than $0 - or not, and get $0. It's not like Amazon has already build headquarters and paid taxes and then NY decided to give them back a lot of money just out of the blue. It's like Amazon said "I can bring this much money to the table, but what you can do for us so that we choose you? Lower taxes? Better regulations? Something else?" and NYC considered how much Amazon brings to the table and how much they can do to make NYC their choice and they negotiated. Now you may want to say "if lower taxes makes the city or state competitive and improves outcomes, how comes not everybody gets low taxes?" Good question. Probably the same reason not everybody gets paid six-figure salaries. Some companies (or people) have more economic clout than others and can demand better compensation in exchange for good their bring to the table. If the city (or employer) doesn't want the goods, they are free to refuse the deal.

grecy 8y ago
> A trillion dollar company is not supposed to pay anything to New York. The minimum NY was getting is $0. That's the starting point. Your entire post just described, by definition, a race to the bottom. Obviously the US is winning that race relative to other developed countries, but I'm staggered you think it's a good thing. It's absurd to think Amazon is doing NY a favor by bringing more than $0. That's like if I walk into McDonald's looking for a job and they say to me "Well, you currently earn nothing, so you should be mighty thankful we'll pay you even $1/hr". There are laws against paying people $1/hr for a very good reason - because if they could corporations would do that to maximize profits. All the employees would suffer. The corporation would make more money. Which is exactly what's happening with Amazon/NY. You are right that NY will get more money now that if Amazon had not come, but that's also true that my life would be better getting $1/hr than $0/hr. But is that a good thing? Do we want people to get paid $1/hr? Does that make for a happy and healthy society? Of course it doesn't, and letting Amazon pay less than they should is exactly the same, and has the same outcomes.
- throwaway98121 8y ago
  How is Amazons deal in any way equal to your $1 an hour analogy? This is a serious question. Amazon will bring high paying jobs to the area. Those workers will pay taxes. They will also patronize local businesses. Yes, real estate will go nuts and infrastructure will have a tough time scaling, but your $1 an hour analogy is dishonest. I grew up in Seattle. I know what Amazon will do, but again, your $1 analogy needs a citation. This is beyond hyperbole.
- smsm42 8y ago
  > Your entire post just described, by definition, a race to the bottom. Every negotiation is "race to the bottom" for the side that is paying - they want to pay as little as possible. However, there is the natural bottom for it - as soon as the deal costs more than it brings in - in fact, as soon as the deal costs more that what it brings in, including reasonable profit - the side that is dissatisfied would refuse to make a deal. What would be the point? > It's absurd to think Amazon is doing NY a favor by bringing more than $0. Why is it absurd? If Amazon is doing NY a disfavor, why NY wants it? Do they hate themselves? Are they gluttons for punishment? Were they forced into the deal by a secret Amazon ninja army? No, I don't think so - I think they want the deal because the think the deal is good for them. Of course, you know better, but I think for most people your argument is not exactly obvious. Or correct. > they say to me "Well, you currently earn nothing, so you should be mighty thankful we'll pay you even $1/hr". They can. And you can say "go fish, I won't work for $1". And then they'd say "well, how about $10 - would you work for $10?" And you'd say "now you're talking!" > The corporation would make more money. No they won't - people wouldn't work for them, and corporation rarely are able to make money when having no employees. That's why only about 2% of the workforce earns minimum wage. One would expect the greedy corporations to pay absolute minimum, right? But they pay way more. You'd have to find a theory that accounts for that. I have one, but looks like you do not. > Do we want people to get paid $1/hr? We want people to get paid whatever they can get paid. As we can see, it's in about 98% of cases more than both $1 and minimum wage. > and letting Amazon pay less than they should is exactly the same, and has the same outcomes. No it does not. I welcome you to consider why business-to-business transaction is different from person-to-employer relationship (hint: people can go hungry and sick, but corporations rarely die from not being able to locate headquarters in New York). It's a business transaction, one that NY made voluntarily, and one that they expect would be very profitable for them. Of course, as everything in life, they might be wrong - sometimes business transactions go bad - but declaring this transaction is wrong because you could've gotten everything and more for free makes no sense. You couldn't have gotten it for free, and dreaming about it doesn't make current transaction destructive for society, quite the opposite - it brings jobs and investment.