Most new Yorkers supported the project even when told about the subsidies. It's a vocal minority that sank the project
https://www.wsj.com/articles/majority-of-new-yorkers-support...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/majority-of-new-yorkers-support...
Animal cruelty? There is only a vocal minority who takes a public stance, despite this beeing a very clear cut issue in terms of public opinion. Migration is the other way round: most people don't give a fuck, but have a loud vocal base that will even hurt themselves to make a point and you will be heard.
It's not a vocal minority, it's a vocal subset of the majority.
A vocal minority is when the opponents of a popular viewpoint are louder than its proponents.
The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
I see the same thing with the Amazon HQ. It's easy for Amazon to spin it in a positive PR direction by talking about jobs and increased revenue, but the policy case for giving in to Amazon's demand is actually weak.
https://hbr.org/2018/07/landing-amazon-hq2-isnt-the-right-wa...
> Definition of proponent: one who argues in favor of something
Even if people are enabling something doesn't mean that they are proponents. Let's stop with the newspeak and use the correct words for things please.
They're not "ok" with the level of cruelty but in a pervasive environment of limited culinary and social choices, they're okay with living with that knowledge.
Personally, I think you get further raising better people than trying to impose a moral standard in a population that (for the most part) eats diets that hamper cognition and volition ala high sugar and ultra processed crap. Intermittent fasting and a decent diet would do much more for the quality of moral calculation of people than telling them that their entire culture is morally bad. Because we're humans who utilize different strata of values, not mere moral robots.
To paraphrase Nietzsche, the moralists and priesthoods of the world devalue the very small things which give arise to moral judgment: Diet, climate, and habit.
Not everyone has the money to choose differently.
At times there is no choice. This is especially true if you are a 15 year old. At 15, you basically eat what your parents eat. You can't generally afford food. You can't always just get a job if your parents won't provide education and/or if your school decides your grades aren't up to working. Oh, and you can't work all that often due to child labor laws.
At times, the actual choice is a bad one. Take eggs, for example. When I have the choice, I choose eggs from hens with larger cages. I realize these are hardly large, but they are better than the alternative. I've only lived one place that I could buy eggs directly from the source (during summer time) - but I'm literally an ocean plus some away from that now.
People honestly need a little bit of animal proteins lest they must take supplements. (Truth: I take vitamin D, as I can't make enough at my northerly location). I'm also mostly vegetarian. I eat fish once a week and I eat eggs and cheese.
Also, the way different accounts seem to seamlessly continue a deep and tangential discussion thread is also kind of suspicious. Almost like it’s one person who keeps switching alt accounts.
Regardless of peoples eating lifestyles it's undeniable that factory farms which produce most of the economically accessible meat are little concerned about animal welfare or the environment. The public on this matter also are least concerned about these matters related to the meat they buy off supermarket shelves, only when it's a video of a 'cute' animal being abused. It is only the minority of people in this instance that take a principled stance, if the silent majority did care we wouldn't be producing so much factory farmed meat after years of publicizing the abuse in the media.
I'm not a vegan but the way you characterize anyone who has a 'minority view' as some radical that only wants to cause problems is the attitude that allows corporations to operate it's abuse of worker standards and public funding to no one else's gain but themselves.
The discussion would have been clearer if the unambiguous term "factory farming" was used instead. The use of these ambiguous and disingenuous tactics of argumentation is reminiscent of PETA in particular. If you don't want to be characterized as a nutjob, don't act like one. That's my point.
Either someone shared with you an out-of-context link to this subthread for brigading purposes or you’re being totally disingenuous right now.
For myself (and maybe the others), your responses jumped one step beyond reasonable. Because someone used animal cruelty to describe factory farming, that poster is a hyperbolic vegan? I think the fact that you were being hyperbolic incited a few extra replies due to the... irony?
Edit: Cats are obligate carnivores and can't physically remain healthy without eating meat.
When people think animal cruelity they think beating your family dog vs the state of factory farming or organic farming.
I've been thinking a lot about trying to purchase pasture raised and sustainable meat products lately and part of that has been buying pasture raised eggs.
My last incredibly priced carton actually included a little slip inside with pictures of the hens in their pasture, and I believe even an offer to visit their farm.
Was really nice to go the other way. Instead of thinking about or ignoring the cruelty, to think about these happy hens.
But damn is it expensive!
Migration meaning what? Immigration within the US? That's been a hot button topic since the first Bush nationally, and has been the source of propositions in California since the my first memories of the early 80s. Interestingly, the more the internet was adopted, the more high profile the immigration debate became, nationally. Clinton talked quite a bit (even after his presidency), Bush Jr ignored it, and so on.
Reagan passed landmark immigration liberalization in 1986.
Clinton was an immigration hawk.
https://hackinglawpractice.com/blog/20-year-law-signed-conti...
GWB fought hard against his own party for immigration reform and liberalization.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/senate-ki...
That is, in itself, incorrect.
> Reagan passed landmark immigration liberalization in 1986
Yes, bringing it to the forefront, but without a way to communicate effectively, the party in power passed landmark legislation without a national consensus. Most people were unaware, until it passed and had no recourse after.
> Clinton was an immigration hawk.
I'm not sure what you believe, but that's incorrect, imo. He gave strong lip service in "securing borders" but was instrumental in toothless legislation that paved the way for the current passive acceptance alongside the tripling (ish) of the illegal immigration. The insistence that legal immigration continued to outpace illegal immigration year-over-year before and after his presidency is classic Clinton doublespeak meant to push an agenda by interpretation, which he maintained after his presidency. See his last John Stewart Daily Show appearance. Winners write the stories, so this will likely just be forgotten by the future.
> Migration is the other way round: most people don't give a fuck, but have a loud vocal base that will even hurt themselves to make a point and you will be heard.
GWB's reforms were not well supported, so the initial point I made stands, regardless of what was reported. The idea that GWB was doing anything but appealing to a wider base. What he did, was speed up deportations (ending catch and release) and stopped talking about it after his election. So you can interpret that how you will, but it certainly wasn't "fighting hard".
An unrelated example: polls show large supermajorities in favor of many gun control proposals (universal background checks poll at ~90%, for example). But most people who say that they want it, don't consider the opposite stance on that a deal-breaker for their vote - there are many other issues that are more important to them. On the other hand, the 10% that is opposed, is very firmly opposed, and that issue is close to the top for many of them, to the point of single issue voting. And when those people all turn up in the Republican primaries and vote as a bloc, those votes are enough to prevent candidates that displease that crowd from even getting to the general. And so you have all those party line votes, with every single Republican voting against, even though the majority of their constituents - and even the majority of their supporters - would prefer them to vote differently.
Besides this sniffs of the "yea build shelters everywhere but my block" attitude.
So who makes up this supposed groundswell of local opposition? People that moved in to one of those shiny new towers last week and are already looking to slam the door behind themselves?
Because the entire "competition" was a sham. Amazon was never going to park the future of the company into a place lacking talent.
> The proposal was most popular among Black and Hispanic Queens residents and least popular among White Manhattan residents
That's a good point, but the counter is that the Black and Hispanic residents are the ones who would end up pushed out by Amazon's white and asian workers.
Surprised AMZN had such a thin skin.
And after all this, they are going to move into vacant office buildings in DC near the airport, and in Nashville.
Instead they got a pretty massive backlash that adds more fuel to the already burning story about Amazon's mistreatment of workers, Amazon's 0% tax rate, Amazon lobbying defeating taxes in Seattle, etc... They have a PR problem already. They are bringing a whole lot of negative attention to themselves. They will have it worse in the future when they try to do the same sort of thing in Washington state.
They folded because staying in wasn't worth it.
No wonder Gianaris, who represents our district in the NY Senate, was such a strong opponent.
The first is likely, the second is very unlikely. For the simple reason that Amazon would not plan such project in a market that is so hot that is able to generate tax income at the same rate as concentrated investment project of the Amazon HQ size. Surely, it won't turn into a barren wasteland, but I would not expect it to produce more in tax revenue than big development like Amazon HQ would.
When I was 16 LIC was a pretty sketchy place, but as of a few years ago when I lived there it was completely different. There is still some light industry related to food trucks and taxi cabs, but you have to walk pretty far to get to anything more significant. The only sketchy area I can think of is the Queensbridge projects but that is north of the 59th st. bridge and pretty far from the rest of the neighborhood.
Looks like you do, because now we have - no discount, no business.
> It's not like the economic development of NYC is dependent on Amazon
Of course, losing several billions of added value and 25K jobs won't kill the economy of the size of New York. Just as shooting oneself in the foot won't kill most healthy people. But keep at it, and sooner or later there would be a surprising development that the health is not what it once was...
Not the business that was conditional on the discount.
https://www.nycedc.com/program/relocation-and-employment-ass...
https://www.nycedc.com/program/industrial-commercial-abateme...
It doesn't make a lot of sense for a city to offer incentive programs and then complain when companies attempt to use them. The city should make up its political mind about what incentive programs are available, and who qualifies for them, as part of the decision about whether to offer such programs. Programs should then be implemented neutrally, in a way that does not play favorites or pick winners and losers. Many other companies have benefited from these programs - the entire point of these programs is to achieve some kind of policy objective by being used.
The uproar in this case seems more like political brinkmanship, not any kind of sound economic policy designed to benefit the constituents of the city. These incentive programs were presumably passed in the first place to benefit constituents - that's why they're there, to attract additional investment to areas of the city that otherwise would not receive it. ("The Relocation and Employment Assistance Program (REAP) provides a refundable business tax credit for commercial and industrial businesses relocating to designated areas of New York City and making capital improvements to their space")
If people in NYC think that these incentive programs are a bad idea, harmful, inappropriate, or whatever else, then they should direct their anger at their political representatives, and cancel those incentive programs - not direct anger at the companies who take up the offer that the city put forward.
A business choosing a location is a business transaction, as is city taxation choices. Both can freely choose how to woo the other.
NYC chose to lose possible decades of high paying jobs over their unwillingness to deal.
Other cities are not so fortunate, but Amazon has no interest in truly desperate cities (or even cities that are not so desperate but could use the boost, like Newark and Baltimore).
Amazon’s role is not charity. It is to be as productive as possible. NYC does have the role in being a good steward of resources for its citizens. It threw out a lot of money and job for them due to a vocal minority.
https://hotair.com/archives/2019/02/14/amazon-kills-plan-bui...
Even after reading this, I think the claim “most New Yorkers supported the project” is extremely dubious.
Amazon could have easily ignored them for all eternity if they wanted. A vocal minority can't influence a random housing development, you think they had any say over Amazon? That's a STRETCH