4 ms·
> this really highlighted the kind of leverage a big company can hold over even a huge metropolis. Agree, it was a gross display of cynical power. Amazon playe
by crispyambulance 8y ago
> this really highlighted the kind of leverage a big company can hold over even a huge metropolis.
Agree, it was a gross display of cynical power. Amazon played a dozen large cities off each other, forcing each to bend over backward to offer up as much freebies as possible. In exchange for what? A tentative fungible "promise" to deliver 50000 high-pay jobs to the lucky city? In response, even poor cities like Philadelphia strived (in secret) to come up with "proposals" to one of the richest and most ascendant companies on the globe.
And what ultimately happened? Oh, turns out, it wasn't an HQ2 after all, it is now an HQ2 AND HQ3 in TWO cities with half the number of jobs each.
I sort of expect such behavior from a greedy American corporation, but what makes me sad is the pathetic appeasement from the cities courting this.
Good for the people of NYC, who finally opened their eyes to the bullshit.
- rlanday 8y agoWell, no, actually it turns out there’s only going to be one HQ2 after all. NYC got complacent.
- moate 8y agoBy the original definition of the size, magnitude, there will be 0 "HQ2s" until Amazon announces that it's Crystal City location is going to be twice as large. NYC didn't fall for a Foxconn style bait and switch.
- crispyambulance 8y agoYeah but it was clear when they announced "two winners" that this was all an exercise for Amazon's benefit at the expense of the cities. And what is an HQ2 anyway? How many "headquarters" does one need? And what's up with the curious round number of 50k? Was that just pulled out of thin air by some PR dude? Is there any accountability at all for throwing around numbers like that and then reneging on the deal?