I actually have the opposite take - I've seen "the Amazon HQ is definitely at <place>" reported so many times, with different places, that I won't believe that they're actually putting it there until the electricity is on, people are commuting to it, and they have a contract with a landscaping firm.
I think "HQ" is an intentionally overloaded term, and what will eventually happen is that Amazon will build something in most of these locations, constantly fighting against ballooning budgets typical with massive infrastructure projects
The locations were pre-selected, and Amazon was just testing the waters to know how much free corporate welfare various government institutions were willing to give the 18th largest company in America.
Except the whole article is about how Virginia won despite offering less "corporate welfare" than other places.
> All told, Virginia offered Amazon only $550 million in tax breaks and $195 million in transportation improvements. But it pledged to plow $1.1 billion into tech schooling. According to Moret, it was the only place in the nation that made education the centerpiece of its pitch.
More than 2/3's of Virginia's investment into Amazon was in education and transit, which benefits everyone.
"We're moving to Virginia. Let's see if we can get other cities to bid and see if that improves Virginia's offered incentives."
(Plus free business intelligence hand delivered to them, and leverage if they want to put a distribution hub in one of the cities that didn't win. "You were willing to part with billions, you can't spare a couple dozen million in incentives for this warehouse?")
I mean, fair. I guess I don't see the harm though. They made 20 cities seem very attractive to other companies. It was a bit showy, but it was nice to see the process in the open as opposed to the normal backrooms these deals happen in.
Corporate welfare comes in more forms than tax rebates. Reconfiguring your educational system to suit the desires of a company also counts, as much as it does when places change their transportation policy to suit a big shop.
Or perhaps you'd like to explain how Amazon wants tech schooling for, I dunno, religious reasons?
Amazon and other FAANGs recruit globally and get the cream of the crop of STEM graduates. Do they really need to build a tech school to train future employees?
More telling is that these tax incentives all seem off-the-shelf. Like these cities are crazy inflating the sticker price of their taxes just so they can turn around and boast to businesses about how much they are taking off. Like a cheap salesman.
DC is a tech hub plain and simple... next to only Silicon Valley. It makes perfect sense to me. It's not just Amazon, almost everybody is in the Northern Va area and if they aren't now they seem to be coming every day.
I think Virginia knew it didn't have to compete so hard on tax breaks or investments. NoVa has something that no other region had: The Pentagon. If Amazon wants big fat government contracts, then it's a no-brainer they'd want a presence there. Bezos already owned the Washington Post and a very expensive DC mansion--the region's importance was never uncertain to him.
>More than 2/3's of Virginia's investment into Amazon was in education and transit, which benefits everyone.
Ostensibly, yes, but caution is warranted here; let's hope that (as with Oracle sponsorship), that education funding doesn't translate into indoctrination into the sponsor's stack.
Please don't post unsubstantive comments like this to HN. Two better options are: (a) make it a good comment by substantiating the accusation, or (b) don't post.
I'm genuinely curious, "Pure politics: conflicts around party, ideology, nation, race, gender, class, and religion that get people hot and turn into flamewars on the internet. We’re not so concerned about stories on other things that happen to have political aspects—like, say, software patents."
The comment above seems to be speculation that backroom deals played a part in a major tech news story. Speculation based on expert opinion often seems welcome, but speculation colored by negative experiences with the political jockeying that tech firms often do to accomplish their goals is not welcome.
Suppose the user above is a tech CEO with expert experience negotiating land deals with city government. Suppose they're a clerk in city government who often are privy to these deals. I feel like you may be making some broad assumptions of your own about what rises to the level of expert opinion and that's got a noxious effect on conversation here as well.
I'm not sure what your point is. If the commenter is an expert on the subject, or has some inside knowledge, making those things clear would be one way of making the comment more substantive. As it stands, it reads as if it has just been made up.
I'm assuming that by "the locations were pre-selected" the comment means that the outcome of the process was predetermined. That's a huge claim. Obviously a comment making a wild accusation without providing any basis for it is unsubstantive. It lowers discussion quality noticeably when people sling such charges around. I realize it's a fun thing to do on the internet, but there are other places for it.
Its the subject matter that seems to warrant intervention by a moderator. Speculation about a state actor in a high profile breach or outage or speculation of any kind where the poster might only have tangential knowledge and not be a true insider doesn't seem to warrant moderation.
I've noticed lots of instances where a high profile technology company may be responsible for some wrongdoing gets the notice of moderators.
It leads me to believe this particular kind of speculation presents a specific problem for hacker news and the moderators.
Such perceptions are in the eye of the beholder; whatever a reader feels most strongly about, that's what they'll notice the moderator moderating, or failing to moderate. It is an inverted image of your own feelings and beliefs. People who like/dislike other things have different images of moderator bias.
I don't much care, either way, about Amazon or any other high-profile technology company. I care about doing a good job for HN. Assuming I didn't misread the GP comment, it seems like an obvious case of somebody making something inflammatory up on the internet, so I posted a moderation reply. This is routine. Yes, there are plenty of other cases just as bad where we don't reply. That doesn't mean we secretly agree with those comments. Most often it means we didn't see them.
Perhaps you could update the guidelines regarding your take on when it is acceptable to speculate and an appropriate way to do it.
This did not seem to be a throwaway comment to me. It seems entirely plausible that a backroom deal was reached between local politicians and Amazon. Such deals were solicited and a major part of the reporting around this story.
This is a long-winded expose of northern Virginia. I only made it about half-way through, there were some subsidies promised apparently.
In any case, I never considered locations other than Northern VA as viable for the HQ2 business, it was 90% going there from the start IMO due to 1) Existing Amazon Offices 2) Existing Amazon Datacenters and major internet exchanges 3) Proximity to DC.
So, to present this as to 'How Virginia Won' is a little wishful IMO. Virginia did nothing other than happen to be the place where other companies are doing business.
Virginia won because it scored well on everything but cost of living. I think it's quite likely that the criteria was essentially selected with NoVA in mind.
Yeah, I think the criteria was "We're building in NoVA unless someone gives us a deal we literally can't refuse." NYC tried that, but there was citizen outrage (apparently).
And a really straightforward call at that. IIRC it was something like "Bezos has a 25 million dollar house already in DC, he's obviously putting HQ2 there". All the tax stuff, economic fit, etc etc just seems like it could really be fluff to occlude the simple fact that Bezos is most comfortable with HQ2 coming to area he's already well suited to operate out of.
There was an hacker news item, where some one analysed stackoverflow metrics and Amazon requirements (of sort) and predicted NOVA is going to be the location of HQ2 months if not a year ahead.
I disagree that VA was pre-decided, the way I see it is, they kind of knew what the front horses are but wanted what others can surprise them and/or improve their negotiation position.
* Austin had something given Whole Foods
* Dallas is said to finish #3 for HQ2 (probable rumour) until a tell all from some one in search committee.
So i dont know should i feel happy for Virginia for succeeding attracting a tax-evading megacorporation to its area. "Close to regulators", yey. Now Amazon employees can just drive down to their office and negoatiate campaign money directly.
> Now Amazon employees can just drive down to their office and negoatiate campaign money directly.
Well, at least the gridlock around 395 should keep them at bay for a little while until Bezos figures out how to bore a private tunnel under the Potomac.
Gridlock all the way from Frederick MD south to DC. DC south to Fredericksburg VA or any other direction out of the city. Gridlock all over DC, our traffic is the absolute worst.
At some point there was talk of allowing Amazon to build a helipad. I'd image that's easier than building a tunnel, due to how close HQ2 is to the Pentagon.
Airports don't have no-fly zones, they have controlled airspace. It's common to have helicopter operations near airports. You talk to the tower and fly fairly normally.
Similarly, the DC Flight Restriction Zone (FRZ) is not a no-fly zone, but an area where flight operations are much more tightly managed. I (and many other pilots) have authorization to fly into the FRZ and land at the DC-3 airports for non-scheduled operations (in addition to the many air carriers who fly scheduled operations in/out of the area).
> One local figure spoke to Metro general manager Paul Wiedefeld and urged him to make sure Amazon got to ride on one of its newest, 7000-Series trains. Wiedefeld, who says he can’t recall whether the official was from Virginia, Maryland, or the District, responded by explaining that public transportation doesn’t work that way.
I'm not trying to crap on Wiedefeld, but all he's doing is what every one knew/knows needs to be done, it's just that no one else before him would actually do it because it's a very tough pill to swallow. Turns out fixing things improves reliability, but he's had to inconvenience a lot of riders to get it. Some have switched from public transit completely.
The reality is that Metro still has a lot of work in front of it and still has to crawl back form decades of neglect and poor planning. Metro could operate at 100% reliability, but it still wouldn't offer sufficient travel options for a large majority of the area because it doesn't fit the commuting patterns of the area. Short of extending lines and adding new ones, there's only so much the metro in it's current incarnation can do.
> all he's doing is what every one knew/knows needs to be done,
That's not true at all. He's fighting through tremendous resistance from various factions. From unions seeking to insulate themselves from private-sector competition, http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/metro-to-use-contractor..., to urbanists demanding that Metro offer massively money-losing late-night rides to support "active nightlife": https://ggwash.org/view/70172/metro-needs-late-night-service.... He's taking a bold course that elevates long-term sustainability over temporary inconvenience, and quality of the core offering over trying to cater to every want or need. Lots of people disagree whether that is what needs to be done.
The linked article paints a slightly less heroic picture of someone who used a loophole in the ordinances to allow construction crews to jackhammer after 10PM in the residential areas and got away with it. So while families with small children were kept up in the long hours of the night, the loopholing hero was enjoying his quiet 9 hours of Zzzs.
All hypothetical of course, I am not from the area.
here's the paragraph describing the loophole:
"""
“The parking areas, all the travel areas…the pedestrian walkways…that’s all considered inside the station,” Kirst added, explaining what the noise waiver granted to Metro covers. Crews working in those areas aren’t allowed to perform “excavation, demolition, saw cutting, and jack hammering” between 10 pm-6 am on Sunday through Thursdays, and 10 pm-8 am on Friday and Saturday. Those restrictions don’t apply to the tracks outside the stations, however.
"""
I'm sure closing the windows, and putting on their favorite video, will work well enough to drown out the noise of the jackhammer. I lived a block from Caltrain for a few years and the loud whistles of the passing trains were a minor annoyance at best.
One of the reasons America can't build infrastructure is that we elevate the temporary inconvenience of a few "families with small children" over the long-term good for hundreds of thousands of people in the region. It's also the underlying basis for the myriad ways in which we let individuals and special interest groups sue to stop development that benefits everyone.
yes, this state of affairs where you can buy a property and then expect to not be inconvenienced by corporations or governments in a myriad ways and then to sue if your peace is threatened is called 'civilization'.
it seems that what you imagine is a 'temporary inconvenience of a few families'. what I imagine is a world where every day there is a new 'temporary inconvenience' which you are supposed to endure 'for the good of the many', over and over again -- because that is what will happen when 'heroes' like the one in the article are allowed to run amok.
Yes, because the suburbs are always a good option for families who aren't into the whole collective living thing.
And it makes sense. When you have a kid, that kid is your priority. There's less incentice to be willing to sacrifice for others who aren't your genetic progeny.
Full disclosure, I personally think having a kid is the single most selfish act a human can do. I don't mind it obviously, but do observe that it's amazing when other people expect me to prefer their offsprings' benefit over anything else.
No, you're already looking out for them. I think it makes sense to treat them like any other human, since that's all they are to me.
A benevolent dictator would do a nationwide cost-benefit analysis, and decide if 30 families having no sleep for a week outweighs 100,000 people getting to work 10 minutes faster for the next decade.
While sometimes our existing legal system makes the same choice as our fictional benevolent dictator, sometimes it doesn't because rather than looking at the big picture, it gets tied up with nuances of wording of ordinances and precident written decades earlier without knowledge of the current situation.
Whenever that happens, on average, people's lives get worse and the economy weaker, compared to an identical country which made the benevolent dictator choice.
Not hypothetical. A dear friend of mine lives next to a Metro station and just recently complained that jackhammering was still going on at 11:30 PM for several nights in a row.
Outside the USA, I live near a subway line, and every single night for the last 10 years I hear hammering and yelling.
The subway needs disassembly to check it isn't worn out yet, which involves big sledgehammers to dislodge bits of track. Due to strict safety rules, they have to do that once per 10,000 wheels passing over the track, which is every day.
Does it reduce my quality of life? Yes. But not having the subway working efficiently and safely would have a much bigger impact, so is a cost I pay for a bigger benefit elsewhere.
How can something that is standard in the ordinances of multiple districts (and is pretty common nationwide) be considered a loophole? It is pretty intentional that this work is exempt.
Backlash was certainly loud, but Amazon could have made things work even without all of the subsidies they received. This is entirely me speculating, but I wonder if Amazon feared that NYC workers might eventually organize or be organized, given the political rhetoric and the framing of the backlash. Amazon has a legendary fear of unionization.
> Backlash was certainly loud, but Amazon could have made things work even without all of the subsidies they received. This is entirely me speculating, but I wonder if Amazon feared that NYC workers might eventually organize or be organized, given the political rhetoric and the framing of the backlash. Amazon has a legendary fear of unionization.
Aren't the workers primarily knowledge workers? In a place like New York where developer jobs grow out of the concrete I don't think there could be legitimate fear of unionization.
Not really mentioned in the article. As someone who moved from NoVA to New York during the HQ2 search, these are my thoughts: New York's plan was more direct subsidies and tax breaks, less infrastructure and schools. Much more unpopular with the locals (who wouldn't benefit as much). And the locals let them know. Because Amazon made everyone operate under NDA they had no chance to build the public support that would be necessary to support such largesse.
> I mean the people who would have to pay the taxes to subsidize Amazon, so the city and state at large, yes.
Interesting that you characterize the entire state as "locals" given that some parts of New York can take several hours to get to by car from the city.
We decided it was ridiculous to offer $1.5 billion in incentives when we would never recoup that, so we protested.
Amazon paid no federal taxes last year (https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/16/amazon-p...), and probably would have figured out how to pay little corporate state tax. At the promised level of 25,000 jobs with an average $150,000 salary, the city (but not the state) would have only seen an extra ~$150mil in income taxes.
There's lots of ways to run the projections and factor various costs/benefits, but few of them would have resulted in a 10x improvement in the offhand estimates.
It was a bad investment for the city the same way most sports stadiums are.
There's something to Friedman's point - that technology can let us work from anywhere. But far from distributing talent, it has concentrated it. If you can work from anywhere, why not just move to the nice coastal cities?
I think people are missing the forest for the trees - Amazon could have saved billions of dollars a year founding it anywhere else. But we cannot seem to break out this viscous cycle where the good jobs of the future go to tiny, expensive areas. And the primary benefit of these areas is they are already full of successful, well paid people.
Instead of paying 3 people in Tallahassee a decent $80,000, we are choosing to pay 1 person in San Fransisco $240,000.
Are you sure that's what the market would end up doing? Maybe competition for the people with the most desired combination of ambition and skill set is so intense that the price would end up being >$200,000 anyway.
Companies that are based in San Francisco and the Bay Area aren't just recruiting randomly from the people who happened to live there. The most skilled people in the world move there because there's so many companies that can fruitfully utilize their efforts. Or at least that's how it looks to me from across the Atlantic ocean.
I'm certain I would be more valuable delivering software for a customer base of 40 million rather than the 400,000 I do in my local market, but I wouldn't accept my current salary for that level of responsibility. Hopefully most others think the same; it's in our interest as developers and professionals/working-class (not capitalist class) to make sure we negotiate the highest salaries we are able to. After all, we are programming magical robots that do the work of millions of menial labor employees. That's an incredibly valuable service we shouldn't trade away cheaply.
We've all heard the fable of the 10x engineer. My take is that this is what it looks like in practice.
There's nothing here to indicate which parts were relevant or mattered to Amazon's decision.
Big Gov is just starting in the cloud, and Amazon wants the biggest piece of that gadzillion dollars. I can see a private wing of AWS running most of the military, for example.
Virginia tried very hard to make sure that HQ2 is not just more government contracting jobs- the region is already very exposed to government work as it is[1]. The limited tax breaks Amazon gets are directly linked to the new jobs NOT being government related.
[1]: From 2010-2015, the Washington DC MSA was basically the only large tech hub that lost tech workers, because of the Sequester and the constant government budget showdowns. Virginia viewed HQ2 as an insurance against that.
"Virginia tried very hard to make sure that HQ2 is not just more government contracting jobs"
Virginia can think whatever they want, but Amazon will do what it wants to do.
The objective is not 'contracting jobs' - that's not Amazon's business. The objective is to deeply entrench AWS services and products into government.
The amount of money - and especially the incumbency - provided to the winner of 'gov cloud' will be gigantic.
Defence and civie agencies spent $6.5B on cloud services in 2018, up 35% (!) from the year before, that's an incredible growth rate. [1]
This is going to grow like wild for some time, and that's Amazon's objective.
The lobbying/relationship efforts will be important as well.
Virginia is just the local government, they are actually not hugely part of the equation other than the specific incentives as you point out. Even the 'investment in education' is not hugely sweet for businesses, as the majority of workers won't come from Virginia anyhow.
The best thing Virginia can do is 'be a good government' - make sure the infrastructure, healthcare, schools etc. are well managed.
My understanding is that they didn't actively try to lose it and protest against something that would have brought in billions of revenue and lots of high-paying jobs, the way NY City did.
> The development firm JBG Smith plastered the inside of its office-building elevators with life-size images of the interior of Amazon’s Seattle headquarters—“so that when they walked in there,” says CEO Matt Kelly, “it felt like home.”
I assume they quickly ripped them down and plastered them with images of Apple Park since they pitched the same space to Apple shortly after.
By being close to DC and thus having easy access to government.
Do people really think Amazon really left it up to chance? Then that chance just somehow worked out to right next to DC and the biggest talent hub on the East Coast.
The, "biggest talent hub" on the East Coast apparently sends most of its Graduates to inferior schools in Massachusetts. More like the biggest military hotel on the east coast
94 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 35.6 ms ] thread> All told, Virginia offered Amazon only $550 million in tax breaks and $195 million in transportation improvements. But it pledged to plow $1.1 billion into tech schooling. According to Moret, it was the only place in the nation that made education the centerpiece of its pitch.
More than 2/3's of Virginia's investment into Amazon was in education and transit, which benefits everyone.
Philly, by contrast, offered $4.6 billion in subsidies, just $100 million for transit, and nothing for education: https://slate.com/technology/2018/11/amazon-hq2-incredible-i.... Chicago offered $1.3 billion in tax breaks and $450 million for transit.
"We're moving to Virginia. Let's see if we can get other cities to bid and see if that improves Virginia's offered incentives."
(Plus free business intelligence hand delivered to them, and leverage if they want to put a distribution hub in one of the cities that didn't win. "You were willing to part with billions, you can't spare a couple dozen million in incentives for this warehouse?")
Worst case you're at the cost you expected anyways.
Or perhaps you'd like to explain how Amazon wants tech schooling for, I dunno, religious reasons?
More telling is that these tax incentives all seem off-the-shelf. Like these cities are crazy inflating the sticker price of their taxes just so they can turn around and boast to businesses about how much they are taking off. Like a cheap salesman.
They are. Tax incentives are a common practice. Amazon just made it national news.
Ostensibly, yes, but caution is warranted here; let's hope that (as with Oracle sponsorship), that education funding doesn't translate into indoctrination into the sponsor's stack.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Worst moderator I've ever seen. Seriously, you are just atrocious.
The comment above seems to be speculation that backroom deals played a part in a major tech news story. Speculation based on expert opinion often seems welcome, but speculation colored by negative experiences with the political jockeying that tech firms often do to accomplish their goals is not welcome.
Suppose the user above is a tech CEO with expert experience negotiating land deals with city government. Suppose they're a clerk in city government who often are privy to these deals. I feel like you may be making some broad assumptions of your own about what rises to the level of expert opinion and that's got a noxious effect on conversation here as well.
I'm assuming that by "the locations were pre-selected" the comment means that the outcome of the process was predetermined. That's a huge claim. Obviously a comment making a wild accusation without providing any basis for it is unsubstantive. It lowers discussion quality noticeably when people sling such charges around. I realize it's a fun thing to do on the internet, but there are other places for it.
I've noticed lots of instances where a high profile technology company may be responsible for some wrongdoing gets the notice of moderators.
It leads me to believe this particular kind of speculation presents a specific problem for hacker news and the moderators.
I don't much care, either way, about Amazon or any other high-profile technology company. I care about doing a good job for HN. Assuming I didn't misread the GP comment, it seems like an obvious case of somebody making something inflammatory up on the internet, so I posted a moderation reply. This is routine. Yes, there are plenty of other cases just as bad where we don't reply. That doesn't mean we secretly agree with those comments. Most often it means we didn't see them.
This did not seem to be a throwaway comment to me. It seems entirely plausible that a backroom deal was reached between local politicians and Amazon. Such deals were solicited and a major part of the reporting around this story.
In any case, I never considered locations other than Northern VA as viable for the HQ2 business, it was 90% going there from the start IMO due to 1) Existing Amazon Offices 2) Existing Amazon Datacenters and major internet exchanges 3) Proximity to DC.
So, to present this as to 'How Virginia Won' is a little wishful IMO. Virginia did nothing other than happen to be the place where other companies are doing business.
The government is 25% of the economy, and it's just starting in the cloud.
The amount of money the US Gov. is going to spend on AWS will be jaw dropping.
It will trickle down into states, cities, and other governments like Canada.
And of course the deeply entrenched lobbying power.
I disagree that VA was pre-decided, the way I see it is, they kind of knew what the front horses are but wanted what others can surprise them and/or improve their negotiation position.
* Austin had something given Whole Foods * Dallas is said to finish #3 for HQ2 (probable rumour) until a tell all from some one in search committee.
Well, at least the gridlock around 395 should keep them at bay for a little while until Bezos figures out how to bore a private tunnel under the Potomac.
Similarly, the DC Flight Restriction Zone (FRZ) is not a no-fly zone, but an area where flight operations are much more tightly managed. I (and many other pilots) have authorization to fly into the FRZ and land at the DC-3 airports for non-scheduled operations (in addition to the many air carriers who fly scheduled operations in/out of the area).
Wiedefeld, incidentally, is a total bad-ass. He was hired at the end of 2015. In 2017, the first year they started measuring end-to-end travel time, on-time performance was a dismal 66%. In Q2 of 2019, it was 87%. In 2016, he shut down the entire system for days, and entire lines for weeks at a time, for emergency repairs. He's steam-rolled over NIMBYs, dramatically shutting down entire stations all summer so crumbling platforms can be completely rebuilt: https://ggwash.org/view/72561/metro-reasons-loud-yellow-and-.... (Accomplishing in three months what took years of delays and disruptions during prior, partial shut-downs.) He's brought the hammer down on the WMATA union, controlling costs and resisting calls to overtax the system by extending service: https://wamu.org/story/17/04/27/transit-union-turns-back-met... https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2018/09/18/metro... https://wamu.org/story/16/11/03/wmata_board_struggles_to_rea.... Not all heroes wear capes.
The reality is that Metro still has a lot of work in front of it and still has to crawl back form decades of neglect and poor planning. Metro could operate at 100% reliability, but it still wouldn't offer sufficient travel options for a large majority of the area because it doesn't fit the commuting patterns of the area. Short of extending lines and adding new ones, there's only so much the metro in it's current incarnation can do.
That's not true at all. He's fighting through tremendous resistance from various factions. From unions seeking to insulate themselves from private-sector competition, http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/metro-to-use-contractor..., to urbanists demanding that Metro offer massively money-losing late-night rides to support "active nightlife": https://ggwash.org/view/70172/metro-needs-late-night-service.... He's taking a bold course that elevates long-term sustainability over temporary inconvenience, and quality of the core offering over trying to cater to every want or need. Lots of people disagree whether that is what needs to be done.
All hypothetical of course, I am not from the area.
here's the paragraph describing the loophole:
""" “The parking areas, all the travel areas…the pedestrian walkways…that’s all considered inside the station,” Kirst added, explaining what the noise waiver granted to Metro covers. Crews working in those areas aren’t allowed to perform “excavation, demolition, saw cutting, and jack hammering” between 10 pm-6 am on Sunday through Thursdays, and 10 pm-8 am on Friday and Saturday. Those restrictions don’t apply to the tracks outside the stations, however. """
it seems that what you imagine is a 'temporary inconvenience of a few families'. what I imagine is a world where every day there is a new 'temporary inconvenience' which you are supposed to endure 'for the good of the many', over and over again -- because that is what will happen when 'heroes' like the one in the article are allowed to run amok.
And it makes sense. When you have a kid, that kid is your priority. There's less incentice to be willing to sacrifice for others who aren't your genetic progeny.
Full disclosure, I personally think having a kid is the single most selfish act a human can do. I don't mind it obviously, but do observe that it's amazing when other people expect me to prefer their offsprings' benefit over anything else.
No, you're already looking out for them. I think it makes sense to treat them like any other human, since that's all they are to me.
A benevolent dictator would do a nationwide cost-benefit analysis, and decide if 30 families having no sleep for a week outweighs 100,000 people getting to work 10 minutes faster for the next decade.
While sometimes our existing legal system makes the same choice as our fictional benevolent dictator, sometimes it doesn't because rather than looking at the big picture, it gets tied up with nuances of wording of ordinances and precident written decades earlier without knowledge of the current situation.
Whenever that happens, on average, people's lives get worse and the economy weaker, compared to an identical country which made the benevolent dictator choice.
The subway needs disassembly to check it isn't worn out yet, which involves big sledgehammers to dislodge bits of track. Due to strict safety rules, they have to do that once per 10,000 wheels passing over the track, which is every day.
Does it reduce my quality of life? Yes. But not having the subway working efficiently and safely would have a much bigger impact, so is a cost I pay for a bigger benefit elsewhere.
How can something that is standard in the ordinances of multiple districts (and is pretty common nationwide) be considered a loophole? It is pretty intentional that this work is exempt.
> He's brought the hammer down on the WMATA union
Ahh, that hero crushing the working class.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/politics/amazon-backlash-alex...
Aren't the workers primarily knowledge workers? In a place like New York where developer jobs grow out of the concrete I don't think there could be legitimate fear of unionization.
https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/1096137477188976646
Interesting that you characterize the entire state as "locals" given that some parts of New York can take several hours to get to by car from the city.
Amazon paid no federal taxes last year (https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/16/amazon-p...), and probably would have figured out how to pay little corporate state tax. At the promised level of 25,000 jobs with an average $150,000 salary, the city (but not the state) would have only seen an extra ~$150mil in income taxes.
There's lots of ways to run the projections and factor various costs/benefits, but few of them would have resulted in a 10x improvement in the offhand estimates.
It was a bad investment for the city the same way most sports stadiums are.
I think people are missing the forest for the trees - Amazon could have saved billions of dollars a year founding it anywhere else. But we cannot seem to break out this viscous cycle where the good jobs of the future go to tiny, expensive areas. And the primary benefit of these areas is they are already full of successful, well paid people.
Instead of paying 3 people in Tallahassee a decent $80,000, we are choosing to pay 1 person in San Fransisco $240,000.
Companies that are based in San Francisco and the Bay Area aren't just recruiting randomly from the people who happened to live there. The most skilled people in the world move there because there's so many companies that can fruitfully utilize their efforts. Or at least that's how it looks to me from across the Atlantic ocean.
I'm certain I would be more valuable delivering software for a customer base of 40 million rather than the 400,000 I do in my local market, but I wouldn't accept my current salary for that level of responsibility. Hopefully most others think the same; it's in our interest as developers and professionals/working-class (not capitalist class) to make sure we negotiate the highest salaries we are able to. After all, we are programming magical robots that do the work of millions of menial labor employees. That's an incredibly valuable service we shouldn't trade away cheaply.
We've all heard the fable of the 10x engineer. My take is that this is what it looks like in practice.
Big Gov is just starting in the cloud, and Amazon wants the biggest piece of that gadzillion dollars. I can see a private wing of AWS running most of the military, for example.
[1]: From 2010-2015, the Washington DC MSA was basically the only large tech hub that lost tech workers, because of the Sequester and the constant government budget showdowns. Virginia viewed HQ2 as an insurance against that.
"Virginia tried very hard to make sure that HQ2 is not just more government contracting jobs"
Virginia can think whatever they want, but Amazon will do what it wants to do.
The objective is not 'contracting jobs' - that's not Amazon's business. The objective is to deeply entrench AWS services and products into government.
The amount of money - and especially the incumbency - provided to the winner of 'gov cloud' will be gigantic.
Defence and civie agencies spent $6.5B on cloud services in 2018, up 35% (!) from the year before, that's an incredible growth rate. [1]
This is going to grow like wild for some time, and that's Amazon's objective.
The lobbying/relationship efforts will be important as well.
Virginia is just the local government, they are actually not hugely part of the equation other than the specific incentives as you point out. Even the 'investment in education' is not hugely sweet for businesses, as the majority of workers won't come from Virginia anyhow.
The best thing Virginia can do is 'be a good government' - make sure the infrastructure, healthcare, schools etc. are well managed.
[1] https://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2018/09/federal-clo...
I assume they quickly ripped them down and plastered them with images of Apple Park since they pitched the same space to Apple shortly after.
Do people really think Amazon really left it up to chance? Then that chance just somehow worked out to right next to DC and the biggest talent hub on the East Coast.
Sure, I'll buy that to go with my new bridge.