So you wouldn't invest 3 billion to make 27 billion? That makes a lot of sense. AOC is apparently the biggest socialist in America who doesn't want the money to pay for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
Printable View
So you wouldn't invest 3 billion to make 27 billion? That makes a lot of sense. AOC is apparently the biggest socialist in America who doesn't want the money to pay for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
Does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbang
That place is in high demand for development. Aside from Tribeca, that area might be the most busy with construction around. It already has come very far from a factory desolate area to a thriving neighborhood.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I live in Northern Virginia and I'm absolutely not thrilled by Amazon coming here. The workers are going to be moving away from other lines on the DC metro and clogging it leading to longer delays. If I had a magic wand, Amazon would immediately decided not to locate here.Quote:
Originally Posted by papipapsmanny
The arguments that you and other people are making for Amazon are the same people make for sports teams getting new stadiums from taxpayers. It ignores market forces and uses what essentially boils down to a cult of personality. People think Amazon is good, therefore anything good for Amazon must be good.
No its actually simple economics and the secondary and tertiary benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
Metro Delays are not an economic argument. I know the are very well the metro is quite new there and still expanding. A lot of the Cars are new now and a decent bulk of the repairs and updates are done, but again this is irrelevant to the issue.
This is completely different from a football stadium that hosts 8 football games.
Again 25000-40000 additional jobs is people living in the area. They all need to shop somewhere, eat somewhere, buy groceries etc, if the local area doesn't currently have the supply capacity, that means more stores, which mean more additional jobs.
And again its simply a question of 3 billion to make 27 billion or 0. You think if Berkshire Hathaway got an incentive from another state to move and Nebraska decided not to match that, it would be a win for the state of Nebraska?
She's interesting. I think Republicans need to get used to politicians similar to her whether they like it or not. She's certainly not as dumb as they think.
Then why not throw more money at Amazon?Quote:
Originally Posted by papipapsmanny
These broad and intentionally vague benefits of "they have to shop somewhere" always falls flat on its face. People in the area would be shopping whether Amazon was coming or not.
You're talking residential. Sure, there's enough. But there is hardly enough commercial activity. Many people from this area aren't shopping locally because there's only a few grocery stores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sick Of It All
And now those people will have more money to spend. What is your point? This is basic economics, lol. This was a terrible decision. Amazon gave up because 100 other cities are interested. Why should Amazon pay a legal team and take the risk of coming here only to get constantly pounded by these liberals who don't even know how the tax incentive works? Idk why you say intentionally vague. It's a fact more economic activity leads to more spending leads to a stronger economy. This is not vague. It might be because you can't connect the dots and we have to explain it to you like you're ten.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncos78087
There are plans to build a great route connecting Brooklyn to Queens.Quote:
Originally Posted by papipapsmanny
https://astoriapost.com/bqx-project-...-public-review
But I love when people who don't know what they're talking about in terms of congestion also have no problem with illegals coming into the country. It's congestion when legal citizens want to work but not when illegals sneak into the country by the millions. Interesting.
I wonder...
...this decision by Amazon, coming as quickly as it did after the announcement, reflects an arrogance that seems to pervade big business culture in contemporary America (“too big to fail...too big to jail”)?
While there is no doubt there were potential benefits to the project, there were legitimate concerns as well — many of them coming from local sources. I’m guessing that this situation is not unusual; it would likely be the case wherever such a project were to locate.
Things have to get worked out in a viable partnership.
So, at first blush it strikes me that Amazon’s sudden retraction demonstrates an inherent unwillingness to address seriously those concerns, which further suggests that it might not have been inclined ever to engage truly in the welfare of the community over the long haul.
It bespeaks an attitude of “We’re big business. We set the parameters. Take it or leave it.”
Of course, some politicians (DiBaso and Cuomo) would go for it, but there’s a lot more at stake than their economic interests.
I'm usually against these tax easement deals or deals where the local community agrees to seemingly absurd infrastructure payments or the issuance of public bonds.
They always seem to be filled with unprovable double talk (e.g. we were going to widen the streets or build a highway anyway, the sewage system needed to be replaced in the future anyway etc.).
Also, as mentioned, a lot of these deals involve sports facilities to prevent some team from moving out. Tampa has done this for football and spring training baseball. Few of the the athletes live here and the jobs created are seasonal and pretty crappy.
However this deal in New York is different…
25,000 jobs or more and redevelopment of a huge area of a major city. You can't ignore that. This doesn't come along every day and there are dozens of cities that will take them. I wish they would come to Tampa (we have lousy transit. Little chance they will come here.)
This number of jobs will raise the salaries of other companies in the area as they have to compete with Amazon to hold their employees, more people will move to NYC (not that they need that) schools will be built, business will pop up. Housing etc, Just as important…Amazon is a hight tech operation, others in the area may upgrade, high tech people will converge on the city, other high tech industries may come.
Simply stated…the deal is way too big to just write off because of the tax breaks. And I doubt if any of us on this forum could understand the entire deal as a whole. There are tons of info we are not privvy to.
And the progressives are jumping for joy over this.
Well, it must be the right move though. The Ocasio kid has a degree in economics.
Hasn't Seattle had to deal with these tech companies who come in, provide high paying jobs, but then completely price people out of the housing market?
The irony of discussing shopping locally in the context of bringing in amazon is SWEET.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
well NYC is already priced out of the housing market.Quote:
Originally Posted by statquo
Honestly, I think this is a mistake for various reasons. Introducing more competition for salaries would only have helped NYC. Cortez is hell bent on being anti-corporation, and in this instance, I think a mistake was made.
You do realize how long those things take right? The second avenue line was proposed in 1919. and opened in 2017. Construction began in the 70s... (Got a great horror movie Mimic out of the deal).Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
What the **** do illegals have to do with congestion? Really? You are linking those two topics? I get some arguments against immigration, they are mostly ****, but you can draw the lines pretty easy... This is just weird.