8 ms·

Of all the places, why did NYC offer Amazon subsidies? NYC actually has too many good jobs for the amount of space... I am also proud of my cantankerous fello

Of all the places, why did NYC offer Amazon subsidies? NYC actually has too many good jobs for the amount of space... I am also proud of my cantankerous fellow New Yorkers who fought this.

melling 8y ago
You won!
- melling 8y ago
  Was I too snarky? How about a little more? The planet is sad because 25,000 people won't be taking the subway to work.
  - kjsbfkjbf 8y ago
    Hopefully the planet understands that 25000 people can find other jobs in NYC and still take the subway to work? Your math is way off.
  - chc 8y ago
    If you want to support the environment, putting an Amazon campus in New York is about the least impactful way you could possibly go about it.
barry-cotter 8y ago
Stupid as the subsidies were your attitude is vile. We have a technology for increasing housing, they’re called apartments. New York does not lack space, it lacks enough housing. If this kind of crap goes on New York will get as bad as California where every municipality wants to build offices and nowhere wants to build housing. This delight in pulling up the ladder after you and making it harder for people to get jobs is odious.
- kerbalspacepro 8y ago
  New York becoming like California? Isn't the problem that California is becoming like New York???
- OldFatCactus 8y ago
  There is not a shortage of Software jobs here. You're also misrepresenting the intent of his comment.
  - djsumdog 8y ago
    So if anything, Amazon will make the market worse for all other companies by sucking up a lot of the talent and causing a rise in wages. It might be good short term for software devs, but like Seattle and The Valley, it hurts absolutely every other industry. The person in your IGA or Starbucks often has to commute via bus or train or (god forbid) car over an hour out just so they can afford to barely make it, while tech people can pay the $2k ~ $4k a month for a 1 bedroom within 15 minutes of work. New York doesn't need that too.
    - magduf 8y ago
      Highly-paid professionals need service people, so bringing more of them into your city creates more demand for other careers to support them. If there isn't enough affordable housing for those lower-paid people, that's a failure by the local politicians. Don't blame the highly-paid professionals; they're not the ones controlling zoning and development.
      - ggggtez 8y ago
        I think most people on this thread are in agreement. It's not the tech people who are "to blame", it's the companies and politicians for not developing a sustainable growth strategy that includes housing for all the jobs that support those tech workers. Suddenly bringing in 25k high paid workers without a concrete plan on how to support that growth (including not giving gigantic tax breaks which would impact the necessary schools/police/transportation/etc of the area) is the root cause of the housing and traffic issues in Silicon Valley. I think local politicians are becoming a bit wiser to that kind of thing after seeing how gentrification is causing issues in other cities. NYC local politicians are probably the most aware, given NYC's history.
        8y ago
- asnyder 8y ago
  What are you talking about? In my area of downtown Brooklyn there's a glut of luxury residential towers recently completed or still going up. As far as I know there's so much supply now that prices are actually decreasing, but again this is a decrease on luxury apartments so whether it's $4400 a month for a two bedroom, or $4000 a month, that's not very helpful to most people. What we need are new non-luxury buildings where normal middle-income earners can afford to live (ex. $2000 for a 2 bedroom). Amazon would've just led to the filling of luxury towers in LIC and encourage developers to build even more luxury towers for the new Amazon transplants.
pastor_elm 8y ago
They didn't. NY State offers a 'package' to all companies that move in. That's all they really got in terms of tax breaks. NYC only allowed it to bypass some building reviews/regulations.
untog 8y ago
A clarification: NYC didn't offer Amazon subsidies. New York State did. That's really the core of the tension - the whole deal was negotiated in secret then announced to the world as a finished product. That tends not to earn you goodwill with city politicians you deliberately excluded from the process.
- nerdb4itwascool 8y ago
  agreed. the drive to squash this deal was mainly driven from <butt hurt> local politicians who were whining that they were cut out of the process.
  - untog 8y ago
    As an NYC resident I'm glad my elected officials are "butt hurt" at not being involved in a political process that would affect the city in a large way. If they weren't "butt hurt" they really shouldn't be in their jobs.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      NYC by virtue of political clout gets to meddle in all sorts of issues that affect upstate and warp them for it's own benefit. This time the state cut a deal that NYC wasn't in on and NYC didn't like it but at the end of the day it's still getting what it wants. Having self government on a local level but then getting constantly steamrolled by a state government that is dominated by some other city really sucks. NYC (and Boston, and Chicago, and a whole load of other cities that dominate their state government) should try it sometime. On one hand I'm annoyed that an opportunity for part of NYC to feel what that's like was missed by this > < much. On the other hand the deal that NYS cut with Amazon was a boondoggle load of crap that set a terrible precedent so I'm glad it's not happening.
      - untog 8y ago
        I assure you, we know exactly what that is like when we watch things like MTA funds being reassigned to save upstate ski resorts. And gobs and gobs of money being spent on the East Side Access train tunnel, at the expense of our failing subway system. New York State has plenty of control over things that matter to the city, and doesn't hesitate to prioritize state concerns.
legitster 8y ago
The subsidies were very contingent on Amazon delivering all of their promised uplift. But I think people scoffed at the top-line best case subsidies. I forget where, but I remember seeing someone dig into the details of the offer and Amazon was not actually getting that much better of a deal than any other NYC business.
- jhall1468 8y ago
  They were getting very near the same deal that any other company can get through a common tax-reduction program in NY. The difference was scale: 25k jobs was vastly, vastly more than any other company had used for this. The sheer number of people from NY saying they are "proud" of this shows just how far removed people are from reality.
  - bokan 8y ago
    If this is true (I don't know either way, I've only followed this casually), why go through the whole dog and pony show in the first place? In that case, Amazon seems to have shot themselves in the foot here by playing a carnival game with the campus selection process. They gave everyone the _appearance_ that they got a sweetheart deal while basically not getting anything special?
    - jahlove 8y ago
      and wasted the time and resources of tons of municipalities across the country who placed a bid on HQ2 with the false impression that they had a shot at winning it.
  - taurath 8y ago
    There are plenty of valid reasons why people who live in NY would not want Amazon dropping in - to say that they're removed from reality demonstrates quite a lack of empathy. Rents going up, people being displaced, an area that traditionally has fewer high income people all getting pushed out. People are still reeling from the push of affordability out of Brooklyn; now Bed-Stuy even is getting heavily gentrified. To many people, its a complete net negative for a tech company to move in - those who can't take advantage of it.
adrianmonk 8y ago
As an outsider (to both Amazon and NYC), I always assumed NYC's motivation was wanting to diversify its industry. Right now it seems heavy in the financial sector to me. Arguably tech is a big part of the economic future, so one view is that it would be smart to have some of that. It's my understanding that while NYC isn't really a tech hub, the startup / tech scene there has grown stronger in recent years. So I pretty much assumed they were trying to capitalize on this momentum and do a big push to achieve something like critical mass. Whether that's a worthy goal is very much for debate, but it seemed like that's what they thought they were getting in exchange for the sweet deal they were offering.
rsj_hn 8y ago
I think NYC (or SF or any high cost of living area) is a crazy place to put HQ2. In terms of subsidies, while it's easy to dunk on Amazon, and no business should be getting subsidies IMO, there is a real issue here: Cost of Living in NY is higher and Amazon will have to pay higher wages if it puts jobs there rather than a place like Nashville. That's higher wages for the same job. Pretty much every company has a cost of living multiplier and pays different wages for the same position based on where you live. So given that Amazon has a choice to locate in the low wage or high wage area, it seems reasonable for the high wage area to offer to offset some of those extra costs. Otherwise why would AMZN even consider a high cost of living area like NYC? Now to me it's clear that the market signal is that they should open the new office in a lower cost of living area, which is what's going to happen now. A small victory for reason. This means more Amazon workers will be able to afford to buy a house and Amazon will be able to pay them less. Good news.
- frontloadpro 8y ago
  Less pay sounds good until you see the talent that comes with less pay. Junior devs and low performing seniors. Amazon claimed my city didn't have enough talent. What they meant is that 6 figures is too much to pay per programmer.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago
    ...Amazon pays substantially more than 100k per programmer in the US.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  There's a reason you get superstar hubs, instead of companies and employees equalizing to somewhere else as soon as one metro gets a bit more expensive. Network/ecosystem effects are a real thing. Google already has some dev offices in cheaper areas, like Pittsburgh, where office space is cheaper and the salaries they pay slightly lower. And yet, they still choose to double their headcount in NYC. Just saying, "well I guess Google is just being irrational for no reason" would be simplistic, childish thinking. Google doesn't choose sites or increase headcount on a whim. They're going to do it because there are real advantages to the major tech hubs. Educated guess, as someone who works at Google now and used to work at Amazon: it's easier to attract people to major tech hubs, because they offer more career stability in the form of having lots of other tech companies around. Being in Kansas City making a Google salary might sound great, until you realize that if you lost that job for some reason, there's nothing around in the same tier. Also, the kind of person who wants to live in a cheaper city, with a big house for their family, is also the kind of person who's going to be reluctant to move from wherever they currently live anyway. That demographic is going to be hard to convince.

Of all the places, why did NYC offer Amazon subsidies? NYC actually has too many good jobs for the amount of space... I am also proud of my cantankerous fellow New Yorkers who fought this.

melling 8y ago

You won!

melling 8y ago
Was I too snarky? How about a little more? The planet is sad because 25,000 people won't be taking the subway to work.
- kjsbfkjbf 8y ago
  Hopefully the planet understands that 25000 people can find other jobs in NYC and still take the subway to work? Your math is way off.
- chc 8y ago
  If you want to support the environment, putting an Amazon campus in New York is about the least impactful way you could possibly go about it.

barry-cotter 8y ago

Stupid as the subsidies were your attitude is vile. We have a technology for increasing housing, they’re called apartments. New York does not lack space, it lacks enough housing. If this kind of crap goes on New York will get as bad as California where every municipality wants to build offices and nowhere wants to build housing. This delight in pulling up the ladder after you and making it harder for people to get jobs is odious.

kerbalspacepro 8y ago
New York becoming like California? Isn't the problem that California is becoming like New York???
OldFatCactus 8y ago
There is not a shortage of Software jobs here. You're also misrepresenting the intent of his comment.
- djsumdog 8y ago
  So if anything, Amazon will make the market worse for all other companies by sucking up a lot of the talent and causing a rise in wages. It might be good short term for software devs, but like Seattle and The Valley, it hurts absolutely every other industry. The person in your IGA or Starbucks often has to commute via bus or train or (god forbid) car over an hour out just so they can afford to barely make it, while tech people can pay the $2k ~ $4k a month for a 1 bedroom within 15 minutes of work. New York doesn't need that too.
  - magduf 8y ago
    Highly-paid professionals need service people, so bringing more of them into your city creates more demand for other careers to support them. If there isn't enough affordable housing for those lower-paid people, that's a failure by the local politicians. Don't blame the highly-paid professionals; they're not the ones controlling zoning and development.
    - ggggtez 8y ago
      I think most people on this thread are in agreement. It's not the tech people who are "to blame", it's the companies and politicians for not developing a sustainable growth strategy that includes housing for all the jobs that support those tech workers. Suddenly bringing in 25k high paid workers without a concrete plan on how to support that growth (including not giving gigantic tax breaks which would impact the necessary schools/police/transportation/etc of the area) is the root cause of the housing and traffic issues in Silicon Valley. I think local politicians are becoming a bit wiser to that kind of thing after seeing how gentrification is causing issues in other cities. NYC local politicians are probably the most aware, given NYC's history.
      - 8y ago
asnyder 8y ago
What are you talking about? In my area of downtown Brooklyn there's a glut of luxury residential towers recently completed or still going up. As far as I know there's so much supply now that prices are actually decreasing, but again this is a decrease on luxury apartments so whether it's $4400 a month for a two bedroom, or $4000 a month, that's not very helpful to most people. What we need are new non-luxury buildings where normal middle-income earners can afford to live (ex. $2000 for a 2 bedroom). Amazon would've just led to the filling of luxury towers in LIC and encourage developers to build even more luxury towers for the new Amazon transplants.

pastor_elm 8y ago

They didn't. NY State offers a 'package' to all companies that move in. That's all they really got in terms of tax breaks. NYC only allowed it to bypass some building reviews/regulations.

untog 8y ago

A clarification: NYC didn't offer Amazon subsidies. New York State did. That's really the core of the tension - the whole deal was negotiated in secret then announced to the world as a finished product. That tends not to earn you goodwill with city politicians you deliberately excluded from the process.

nerdb4itwascool 8y ago
agreed. the drive to squash this deal was mainly driven from <butt hurt> local politicians who were whining that they were cut out of the process.
- untog 8y ago
  As an NYC resident I'm glad my elected officials are "butt hurt" at not being involved in a political process that would affect the city in a large way. If they weren't "butt hurt" they really shouldn't be in their jobs.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    NYC by virtue of political clout gets to meddle in all sorts of issues that affect upstate and warp them for it's own benefit. This time the state cut a deal that NYC wasn't in on and NYC didn't like it but at the end of the day it's still getting what it wants. Having self government on a local level but then getting constantly steamrolled by a state government that is dominated by some other city really sucks. NYC (and Boston, and Chicago, and a whole load of other cities that dominate their state government) should try it sometime. On one hand I'm annoyed that an opportunity for part of NYC to feel what that's like was missed by this > < much. On the other hand the deal that NYS cut with Amazon was a boondoggle load of crap that set a terrible precedent so I'm glad it's not happening.
    - untog 8y ago
      I assure you, we know exactly what that is like when we watch things like MTA funds being reassigned to save upstate ski resorts. And gobs and gobs of money being spent on the East Side Access train tunnel, at the expense of our failing subway system. New York State has plenty of control over things that matter to the city, and doesn't hesitate to prioritize state concerns.

legitster 8y ago

The subsidies were very contingent on Amazon delivering all of their promised uplift. But I think people scoffed at the top-line best case subsidies. I forget where, but I remember seeing someone dig into the details of the offer and Amazon was not actually getting that much better of a deal than any other NYC business.

jhall1468 8y ago
They were getting very near the same deal that any other company can get through a common tax-reduction program in NY. The difference was scale: 25k jobs was vastly, vastly more than any other company had used for this. The sheer number of people from NY saying they are "proud" of this shows just how far removed people are from reality.
- bokan 8y ago
  If this is true (I don't know either way, I've only followed this casually), why go through the whole dog and pony show in the first place? In that case, Amazon seems to have shot themselves in the foot here by playing a carnival game with the campus selection process. They gave everyone the _appearance_ that they got a sweetheart deal while basically not getting anything special?
  - jahlove 8y ago
    and wasted the time and resources of tons of municipalities across the country who placed a bid on HQ2 with the false impression that they had a shot at winning it.
- taurath 8y ago
  There are plenty of valid reasons why people who live in NY would not want Amazon dropping in - to say that they're removed from reality demonstrates quite a lack of empathy. Rents going up, people being displaced, an area that traditionally has fewer high income people all getting pushed out. People are still reeling from the push of affordability out of Brooklyn; now Bed-Stuy even is getting heavily gentrified. To many people, its a complete net negative for a tech company to move in - those who can't take advantage of it.

adrianmonk 8y ago

As an outsider (to both Amazon and NYC), I always assumed NYC's motivation was wanting to diversify its industry. Right now it seems heavy in the financial sector to me. Arguably tech is a big part of the economic future, so one view is that it would be smart to have some of that. It's my understanding that while NYC isn't really a tech hub, the startup / tech scene there has grown stronger in recent years. So I pretty much assumed they were trying to capitalize on this momentum and do a big push to achieve something like critical mass. Whether that's a worthy goal is very much for debate, but it seemed like that's what they thought they were getting in exchange for the sweet deal they were offering.

rsj_hn 8y ago

I think NYC (or SF or any high cost of living area) is a crazy place to put HQ2. In terms of subsidies, while it's easy to dunk on Amazon, and no business should be getting subsidies IMO, there is a real issue here: Cost of Living in NY is higher and Amazon will have to pay higher wages if it puts jobs there rather than a place like Nashville. That's higher wages for the same job. Pretty much every company has a cost of living multiplier and pays different wages for the same position based on where you live. So given that Amazon has a choice to locate in the low wage or high wage area, it seems reasonable for the high wage area to offer to offset some of those extra costs. Otherwise why would AMZN even consider a high cost of living area like NYC? Now to me it's clear that the market signal is that they should open the new office in a lower cost of living area, which is what's going to happen now. A small victory for reason. This means more Amazon workers will be able to afford to buy a house and Amazon will be able to pay them less. Good news.

frontloadpro 8y ago
Less pay sounds good until you see the talent that comes with less pay. Junior devs and low performing seniors. Amazon claimed my city didn't have enough talent. What they meant is that 6 figures is too much to pay per programmer.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  ...Amazon pays substantially more than 100k per programmer in the US.
TulliusCicero 8y ago
There's a reason you get superstar hubs, instead of companies and employees equalizing to somewhere else as soon as one metro gets a bit more expensive. Network/ecosystem effects are a real thing. Google already has some dev offices in cheaper areas, like Pittsburgh, where office space is cheaper and the salaries they pay slightly lower. And yet, they still choose to double their headcount in NYC. Just saying, "well I guess Google is just being irrational for no reason" would be simplistic, childish thinking. Google doesn't choose sites or increase headcount on a whim. They're going to do it because there are real advantages to the major tech hubs. Educated guess, as someone who works at Google now and used to work at Amazon: it's easier to attract people to major tech hubs, because they offer more career stability in the form of having lots of other tech companies around. Being in Kansas City making a Google salary might sound great, until you realize that if you lost that job for some reason, there's nothing around in the same tier. Also, the kind of person who wants to live in a cheaper city, with a big house for their family, is also the kind of person who's going to be reluctant to move from wherever they currently live anyway. That demographic is going to be hard to convince.