Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by RubenSandwich | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

RubenSandwich

Ruth Graham, a writer for Slate, commented on this this morning[0]:

A sword was brought & Bezos said “Cut HQ2 in half. Each of you can have part of it.”

“Please don’t split HQ2,” the true host city screamed.

“Go ahead, cut it in half," the other city said.

Bezos pointed to the first city. “This is the real host. Put the headquarters here.”

It makes me wonder if this is another negotiation tatic by Amazon to get the final city to shell out more incentives.

[0] https://twitter.com/publicroad/status/1059533656694362115

View on HN

> It makes me wonder if this is another negotiation tatic by Amazon to get the final city to shell out more incentives.

Alternately, Amazon has liked pitting cities against each other so much, that they decided to keep doing it forever. "City A, we're looking to start a major new project up. City B is willing to offer X, Y, and Z if we launch it in the City B office, are you willing to beat that for us to open it in your office?"

This makes the most sense by far.

It gives them more negotiating power, and a lot more flexibility.

Agreed. It certainly seems like this is the case and the end result would be both cities lurching towards becoming massively under Amazon's powerful thumb and dependent on it in the long run (think the Walmart method of dealing with businesses but... slightly bigger).

>It makes me wonder if this is another negotiation tatic by Amazon to get the final city to shell out more incentives.

Especially given that they are ramping up offices in Vancouver, BC, Northern Virginia, they have a presence in Austin thanks to Whole Foods, and probably other locations I'm forgetting off the top of my head, it has seemed to me like this "HQ2" business is somewhat of a red herring. Even if they do anoint some city as "HQ2" they've already put their eggs into more than one basket.

Humorous and insightful, the best kind of commentary.

For those who aren't familiar with the reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon

I suspect you are correct; this is a way to make the two cities compete to please / to accommodate / to benefit Amazon and get the headlines that they are Amazon's choice for X, Y, Z reason. Amazon's gravity is quite strong, and its tactics very honed.

I wish all cities competed for residents in this way.

I think it would drastically improve our government if there was an actually significant risk of people leaving when the government messed up.

It has happened. Remember White Flight?

Yes that a pretty good example, even if it hasn't held up well with modern day morality.

Are you referring to the GI Bills that allowed flight to new suburban developments or something else?

White flight refers to white residents (and usually with it, investment) leaving racially-mixed American cities for the racially homogeneous suburbs en-masse during the civil rights movement and the race-riots that occurred in major cities toward the end of that era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight

Wow, you and I couldn't see things more differently. Sports teams are doing this to cities constantly. Build us a new sports stadium at your expense that will be used 8-10 times a year. We'll take the concession revenue, the parking revenue, etc. Maybe we'll let you have a tax on food.

Maybe we'll move away before the city is done paying for the stadium. See St. Louis and the Rams. It's rare that a city like San Diego refuses to buckle under.

In Portland, the City of Portland makes up the difference between the minimum wage and $15/hour for the employees who work the MLS Timbers games.

Nearby in Beaverton, Nike's property was guaranteed by the state not to be annexed by the city so they wouldn't be required to pay property taxes. There was muttering that maybe Nike would pack up and move if this didn't happen.

What I would love to see is that cities and states are not allowed to offer subsidies to companies. If you want to move here, great. How many stupid things like what Scott Walker is doing with Foxconn have to happen before something like that is prohibited?

In a show-down between corporate pros and local politicians, I know who's going to come out ahead.

These items go to a vote. I, like the commenter you're responding to, appreciate this mobility and community choice. That a smaller set of citizens can choose abatements at their own expense is much better than it being done in a capital far away. Many times it's great that self-determinism, be it propositions, bonds, sports teams, taxes, etc, is welcomed at the community level and is always scary when curbed by larger entities. There are levels and limitations of course, but to say the community's financial choices here should be outlawed is unfair.

> These items go to a vote.

And they get voted down. And the moneyed interests jam them through anyway.

I was stunned when the Chargers finally got told to get lost out of San Diego and it stuck.

> It's rare that a city like San Diego refuses to buckle under.

While we're listing these cities, we should add Oakland to the list.

If I'm in government and I mess up then I would love if the people who are angry just packed up and left.

I'd be more upset if they stayed angry and showed up on election day.

Luckily you can carve up the angry peoples’ electoral districts every 10 years assuming you are in power at the right time.

Isn’t that what this is, in the end? The supposed reason for courting these deals is always the jobs it brings, and the reason for jobs is to attract new residents, or retain existing ones.

Amazon isn't a resident.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com