Hacker News Reader

Comment by graeme | Hacker News Reader

Do any of those cities have good international flight options? I live in Montreal, the the options are very limited compared to Toronto.

I expect Montreal would be completely ruled out because of the language laws, incidentally. Fine for a branch office, unacceptable for a second HQ.

So, I'm not sure you're right about Toronto being a token candidate. I believe it's the best candidate in Canada.

But, moving to Canada is a big choice. So big you'd really want to consider only the top 1-2 candidates.

I do wonder what kept Vancouver off the list though.

View on HN

I second that about Montreal. The language laws are absurd. Getting a temporary work permit to work in Quebec is even weirder. The permanent residents of any other provinces cannot get health care in Quebec without Quebec's CSQ certificate which will take ages to get after you apply. The infrastructure is in ruins. Amazon will have a hard time getting skilled workers in Quebec than the rest of Canada.

To be clear, I'm optimistic about Quebec. It's growing rapidly, unemployment is low, and there's an increasing energy visible in the streets.

But, I think it would be crazy for an american, anglophone company to place a second HQ here. It would dramatically cut the talent pool.

Also, apologies for the triple comment on this thread. It seems each edit of my top comment added a comment.

> I do wonder what kept Vancouver off the list though.

Housing crisis.

And probably the fact that it's so close to Seattle. Geography matters to a company like Amazon and putting up a large hub right next to the first one isn't the best choice.

Toronto's housing isn't that far behind Vancouver. Locals on local salaries cannot afford it.

Yeah, the map of shortlisted cities has a pretty conspicuous buffer around Seattle.

More likely the same thing that kept Portland off - they want more distance between HQs.

Or the fact that their employees would need to sell their organs in order to afford single-bedroom apartments.

But I'm curious, have they actually publicly stated that they want a lot of geographical distance between the old and new HQ? It's an assumption that informs a lot of what's being said here.

I see this sentiment coming a lot from Portlanders.

I understand that rent is rising in your area. That is awful.

But you do realize that Portland's rent is comparable to the rent in many other US metros? In fact, it's cheaper than quite a few! With better infrastructure and poverty rates!

I'm from Chicago, and the rent in Portland is pretty comparable. You can find cheap rent in Chicago if you don't mind commuting 45-60 minutes each way and living in an (almost) literal war-zone. When was the last time you witnessed a drive by? Or had an active gang-shooter outside your house having a gun-fight with other bangers?

I see this sentiment coming a lot from Portlanders.

I understand that rent is rising in your area. That is awful.

Did you intend to post this as a reply to someone else? Someone from Portland?

They haven't said it, but probably because it's not a criterion cities can do anything about.

Having HQ2 far away from Seattle reduces business risk from e.g. major earthquakes.

Having HQ2 far from Seattle also means they can pull out of a different labor pool.

Seattle is more expensive though, so if anything they might just get their Seattle employees wanting to move south to still be in the PNW.

Moreover, it's less than 150 miles away from Seattle

Reply on news.ycombinator.com