4 ms·

>The times article is about how the tax cuts did not result in the capital investments promised, by FexEx and others. Drive by IND on 70, you can see the capit

>The times article is about how the tax cuts did not result in the capital investments promised, by FexEx and others. Drive by IND on 70, you can see the capital investment that was one of the promises of this. Hub expansion via construction (similar construction at MEM). The construction at IND is so large you can actually see it from the other side of the airport, I know because I see it every weekday when I pull into the parking lot at work. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/01/26/fedex-credits-tax-cuts-1-5-billion-expansion-indianapolis-hub/1068813001/ https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/01/26/fedex-credits... 800,000 sqft expansion at IND alone https://bgabuilders.com/fedex-indianapolis-ob4-project/ https://bgabuilders.com/fedex-indianapolis-ob4-project/

drak0n1c 7y ago
Thank you for providing evidence. That's certainly a much larger capital investment than the NYT has ever made. Why is this downvoted when the parent comment asked for proof?
- jrockway 7y ago
  They spent $850,000,000 on a new building in New York City in 2007.
  - ryanmercer 7y ago
    What does 2007 have to do with this article or subject?
    - jrockway 7y ago
      You claim that FedEx added some square footage to a warehouse, and then a comment replied to you saying "that's a much larger investment than the NYT has ever made" and then I cited a large investment that the NYT has made. The time range was expanded to "ever" with that comment. The New York Times building has twice as much square footage than the claimed 800,000 square feet that FedEx added. So you can kind of see where I'm going. Although it's stupid to argue that a newspaper can't write an article about something if they haven't invested as much money in real estate as the subject of their article... it appears that they have, so as dumb as that argument is, it's not even correct.
      - ryanmercer 7y ago
        >You claim that FedEx added some square footage to a warehouse, They didn't 'add some square footage to a warehouse" they are building multiple brand new buildings, with brand new equipment, drastically increasing their sort operation at IND by 800,000 square feet and are also expanding at MEM as well as building a brand new facility just south of Indianapolis. Buying a building /= building a new state of the art sort facility full of conveyors, scanners, etc.
jmull 7y ago
You aren't really addressing the claims in the times story though. They didn't say FedEx had zero capital investment. They said there wasn't the promised increase. From the article: > ...As for capital investments, the company spent less in the 2018 fiscal year than it had projected in December 2017, before the tax law passed. It spent even less in 2019. So maybe you can argue that the times numbers are bad with some numbers of your own? Maybe you can argue with some numbers that this hub expansion is just getting started and over the next few years will represent a nice increase in capital spending? As it is, you aren't really arguing anything.
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  >You aren't really addressing the claims in the times story though I'm also not FedEx and am replying to a specific comment, that I quoted, in this thread and not the article. The construction is active, it has been active for over a year now. The IndyStar article also links to another article, with yet more construction, going on just south of Indianapolis at 259 million dollars. The comment I replied to stated >did not result in the capital investments promised I linked to one example, and referenced a second, of them actively carrying out those capital investments.

drak0n1c 7y ago

Thank you for providing evidence. That's certainly a much larger capital investment than the NYT has ever made. Why is this downvoted when the parent comment asked for proof?

jrockway 7y ago
They spent $850,000,000 on a new building in New York City in 2007.
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  What does 2007 have to do with this article or subject?
  - jrockway 7y ago
    You claim that FedEx added some square footage to a warehouse, and then a comment replied to you saying "that's a much larger investment than the NYT has ever made" and then I cited a large investment that the NYT has made. The time range was expanded to "ever" with that comment. The New York Times building has twice as much square footage than the claimed 800,000 square feet that FedEx added. So you can kind of see where I'm going. Although it's stupid to argue that a newspaper can't write an article about something if they haven't invested as much money in real estate as the subject of their article... it appears that they have, so as dumb as that argument is, it's not even correct.
    - ryanmercer 7y ago
      >You claim that FedEx added some square footage to a warehouse, They didn't 'add some square footage to a warehouse" they are building multiple brand new buildings, with brand new equipment, drastically increasing their sort operation at IND by 800,000 square feet and are also expanding at MEM as well as building a brand new facility just south of Indianapolis. Buying a building /= building a new state of the art sort facility full of conveyors, scanners, etc.

jmull 7y ago

You aren't really addressing the claims in the times story though. They didn't say FedEx had zero capital investment. They said there wasn't the promised increase. From the article: > ...As for capital investments, the company spent less in the 2018 fiscal year than it had projected in December 2017, before the tax law passed. It spent even less in 2019. So maybe you can argue that the times numbers are bad with some numbers of your own? Maybe you can argue with some numbers that this hub expansion is just getting started and over the next few years will represent a nice increase in capital spending? As it is, you aren't really arguing anything.

ryanmercer 7y ago
>You aren't really addressing the claims in the times story though I'm also not FedEx and am replying to a specific comment, that I quoted, in this thread and not the article. The construction is active, it has been active for over a year now. The IndyStar article also links to another article, with yet more construction, going on just south of Indianapolis at 259 million dollars. The comment I replied to stated >did not result in the capital investments promised I linked to one example, and referenced a second, of them actively carrying out those capital investments.