Electile Dysfunction (Current students plz look!)

[Deceus]

Savage move by Amazon. I wouldn't want to deal with a senator that has absolutely no clue how business taxes work either. 30 seconds of fact checking would have told her that wasn't 11 billion going straight into Jeff Bezo's pocket. Depreciating assets and deferred expenses are a thing.

I get that the average person in America has no fucking clue how even basic taxes work in this country but it's really sad when shit like this comes up every single year. It's usually some rich asshole making a lot of capital gains and people foaming at the mouth over them paying little to no income tax. So I guess this is at least a change of pace but I expected people to at least understand international corporations and fry cooks aren't quite taxed the same. I suppose I expect too much.

I say bring on the flat tax already and end this damn circus.

[JPolen01]

The entire Amazon/NYC situation was a shit show. AOC acted like Amazon bullied their way in there. In reality, the governor and other politicians lobbied hard to have Amazon there and decided what incentives they were going to provide. Does NYC need Amazon? Probably not. I think the bigger tell is that Amazon is not looking for a second location. That seems to signal that they were simply looking to get as many tax breaks as possible by selecting 2 cities. Do I fault Amazon for playing in the system as it is designed? Not really. Do I blame the people of NYC who really didn't want them there? Not really.

[CaptainHenreh]

AOC = Left Trump.

Her social media, her platform, her soundbytes... Oh man, we're gonna replace planes with cars and canada's going to pay for it. 

It's the same game on the other side of the coin.

[WRXtranceformed]

This was a massive blow for NYC no matter how you slice it. It's not just about tax revenue or spending from the company and its employees itself, it's the secondary and tertiary economic effects of bringing that many high paying jobs to an area that they are going to massively miss. From everything I read, the majority of NYC resident opinions were that Amazon was welcomed there. This is definitely why you should have some kind of political and economic experience before you step up as a major political leader

[.RJ]

it's the secondary and tertiary economic effects of bringing that many high paying jobs to an area that they are going to massively miss.

you mean cannibalizing employees that already live there, providing no net new tax revenue, in an area that does not need any more fucking people or tech jobs?

[WRXtranceformed]

it's the secondary and tertiary economic effects of bringing that many high paying jobs to an area that they are going to massively miss.

you mean cannibalizing employees that already live there, providing no net new tax revenue, in an area that does not need any more fucking people or tech jobs?

no dummy, come at me when you learn regional input / output economics

[Apoc]

it's the secondary and tertiary economic effects of bringing that many high paying jobs to an area that they are going to massively miss.

you mean cannibalizing employees that already live there, providing no net new tax revenue, in an area that does not need any more fucking people or tech jobs?

Trump, is that you? Maybe do a bit of research before spouting BS. There are not enough people to fill tech jobs in the US, period. Ask me how I know.

https://blog.aboutamazon.com/community/a...gh-schools

By 2020, there will be 1.4 million jobs requiring computer science expertise, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, but only 400,000 computer science graduates will have the skills to fill those roles. Amazon today announced a plan to provide Introductory and Advanced Placement (AP) computer science courses to more than 130 high schools in the New York City area.

The courses, supported by the company's Amazon Future Engineer program, will take place in schools spread across all five New York City boroughs, including more than 30 schools in Queens, where Amazon plans to open one of its new headquarters.

[Ken]

This was a massive blow for NYC no matter how you slice it.  It's not just about tax revenue or spending from the company and its employees itself, it's the secondary and tertiary economic effects of bringing that many high paying jobs to an area that they are going to massively miss.  From everything I read, the majority of NYC resident opinions were that Amazon was welcomed there.  This is definitely why you should have some kind of political and economic experience before you step up as a major political leader

lol - dude, you and I both know NYC isn't going to feel anything from this. Anecdotal, but I know literally know one who wanted them here and everyone was more excited that it is now gone. There are plenty of jobs here and it would have stressed an area that was not built for that kind of influx.

We have Hudson Yards opening soon that is already going to bring in a ton of new jobs and corporations. 

People were pissed because there was literally no reason to offer an incentive at all. Google is more than doubling their office space here and expanding to new locations (adding nearly 12K positions here) - know how many tax incentives NYC offered? None.

[WRXtranceformed]

This was a massive blow for NYC no matter how you slice it.  It's not just about tax revenue or spending from the company and its employees itself, it's the secondary and tertiary economic effects of bringing that many high paying jobs to an area that they are going to massively miss.  From everything I read, the majority of NYC resident opinions were that Amazon was welcomed there.  This is definitely why you should have some kind of political and economic experience before you step up as a major political leader

lol - dude, you and I both know NYC isn't going to feel anything from this. 

You wrong though, and most economists worth their salt do not agree

[Ken]

This was a massive blow for NYC no matter how you slice it.  It's not just about tax revenue or spending from the company and its employees itself, it's the secondary and tertiary economic effects of bringing that many high paying jobs to an area that they are going to massively miss.  From everything I read, the majority of NYC resident opinions were that Amazon was welcomed there.  This is definitely why you should have some kind of political and economic experience before you step up as a major political leader

lol - dude, you and I both know NYC isn't going to feel anything from this. 

You wrong though, and most economists worth their salt do not agree

"Some experts said that the study also did not consider the alternatives for the area where Amazon would put HQ2 and that recent studies had found that investing in existing local businesses could be more economically stimulative than wooing new corporations.

On top of that, the study did not account for the worker influx creating liabilities for the city, such as increased trash collection and education costs. Critics also pointed to other externalities they said would make HQ2 less attractive for New York City residents.
"

[Apoc]

"Most economists" and "some experts" can both be true.

I think offering public money is dumb, but the desire to not have Amazon is based mostly on fear created in the press.

Also, +1 for AOC being Left Trump.

[Ken]

"Most economists" and "some experts" can both be true.

Thanks for proving my point? It's not exactly the super-clear OMG NYC TOOK A MASSIVE BLOW picture that you both want to paint here. 

The studies done assumed nothing was done with the area... which just wouldn't happen. It also generously assumed that all 40,000 jobs were taken in the next 15 years, which Amazon only promised 25,0000 and stated that potentially another 15,0000. 

This is no different than all the rosy, perfect-case scenario, studies done to justify stadium spending for sports teams. It's not needed, businesses will come either way, this isn't the middle of nowhere. Maybe it won't be as much as Amazon would have brought, but it won't be that far off, worst case.

[WRXtranceformed]

If you want to cite studies and ignore input output economics that companies like Amazon and EDOs/WIBs use in these types of city / employer negotiations, there are literally hundreds of articles out there describing the lost investments into the city (including education), income tax revenue, secondary and tertiary jobs and the impact of primary and secondary vendor supplier revenue and job increases when you bring that many employees to a region. Most of what you are quoting are studies offering guesswork as to "what a city could do" with "that kind of economic benefit". Of course it's going to cost more to collect trash when there are more people in an area, give me a break.

If we're ignoring mathematics and just going off local rags, here's one I found from up that way that rattles off facets of the deal without having to type here for the next hour to educate everyone here about regional economics:

Jobs
Amazon would have reportedly generated $27.5 billion in city and state revenue over 25 years—a 9:1 ratio of revenue to subsidies. This arrangement was predicated on Amazon creating at least 25,000 jobs over the next decade—and up to 40,000—with an average salary of $150,000, the memorandum said. Another 1,300 jobs were in the pipeline for construction and some 107,000 in total direct and indirect jobs were anticipated, according to state estimates.

Amazon, the city, and state initially planned to commit $5 million each toward workforce development. The deal also planned for a local nonprofit to open a training center on the HQ2 campus to mentor and recruit Long Island City locals, according to the city. A $10 million expansion of the city’s JobsPlus program into the Queensbridge Houses—the largest public housing complex in the country—was set to take shape. Additionally, the de Blasio administration planned to launch a $3-5 million program geared toward training NYCHA residents for careers in IT, cybersecurity, and web development.

Infrastructure
To fund local infrastructure—streets, sidewalks, open space and the like—Amazon planned to utilize the city’s Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) program, estimated by former Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen at $600 to $650 million over four decades. Amazon would have also built a 600-seat school and 3.5 acres of public, open space along the waterfront at Anable Basin.

When the deal first landed, transit advocates and elected leaders promptly called on Amazon to beef up transportation infrastructure in Long Island City, worrying that existing options weren’t enough to serve the rapidly growing neighborhood. Advocates pointed to the ongoing bus and subway crisis plaguing the city and packed train cars that run on the 7 and G lines through the area.

HQ2 was also piggybacking off of city infrastructure investments that were already in the works, or in the midst of being proposed, including $46 million for sewer and water-main upgrades, $60 million for a new school and a new Long Island Rail Road stop, and $180 million in new spending for overall improvements to Long Island City, the city has said.

Economic Impact
As part of the contested incentives package, Amazon was to receive nearly $3 billion in tax breaks, abatements, and grants. The state was committing up to $1.7 billion in Excelsior Tax Credits and capital grants—again, based on Amazon’s delivery of job and investment commitments. On the city side of things, the Industrial Commercial Abatement Program (ICAP) would have abated approximately $386 million in property taxes, while the Relocation and Employment Assistance Program (REAP) would have been worth $897 million, according to city and state officials. Incentives aside, the state would have reportedly earned $14 billion in tax returns, and the city would have received more than $13.5 billion in tax revenue over a 25 year period.

But officials revealed at a January City Council hearing that the price tag to bring Amazon to Long Island City could have cost $987 million more than the city previously claimed because city estimates only accounted for the minimum job and infrastructure investments that Amazon was expected to make, according to a report from the Council’s Finance Committee.

Real Estate
Long Island City transformed from a buyer’s to a seller’s market practically overnight after Amazon’s HQ2 announcement. The change came after a slump that in October saw 13 percent of the area’s listings slash their prices. Real estate experts speculated that Amazon’s move to Long Island City could paved the way for other large companies to move into the neighborhood. Amazon’s sudden reversal will undoubtedly lead to “whiplash,” as one StreetEasy expert put it in a statement.

The HQ2 cancellation has sent some developers scrambling, namely family-run plastics company Plaxall that was initially due to rent 4 million square feet of Long Island City land to Amazon for its headquarters.

Amazon said Thursday that it doesn’t plan on restarting its search for another location. The company will still move forward with its HQ2 location in Crystal City, Virginia, and a smaller operations center in Nashville, Tennessee.

[Apoc]

"Most economists" and "some experts" can both be true.

Thanks for proving my point? It's not exactly the super-clear OMG NYC TOOK A MASSIVE BLOW picture that you both want to paint here. 

Please quote me where I said NYC would take a massive blow. 

If you don't want Amazon given the use of public money, I support that. If you don't want it because you don't think there will be benefit, I'm here to tell you that's 100% wrong. I have seen it in the economics of my own city. You know why Facebook and Google built in Seattle? Amazon talent.

[WRXtranceformed]

"Most economists" and "some experts" can both be true.

Thanks for proving my point? It's not exactly the super-clear OMG NYC TOOK A MASSIVE BLOW picture that you both want to paint here. 

The studies done assumed nothing was done with the area... which just wouldn't happen. It also generously assumed that all 40,000 jobs were taken in the next 15 years, which Amazon only promised 25,0000 and stated that potentially another 15,0000. 

This is no different than all the rosy, perfect-case scenario, studies done to justify stadium spending for sports teams. It's not needed, businesses will come either way, this isn't the middle of nowhere. Maybe it won't be as much as Amazon would have brought, but it won't be that far off, worst case.

The other intangible issue though here is that now NYC (and the leadership that the dummies up there elected) have made it really clear that it is willing to effectively reneg on its negotiations with employers.  These negotiations for tax breaks, etc. do indeed happen during nearly every major corporate move, from companies both large and small.  You generally just don't hear about it (Amazon made a mistake IMO and turned it into a big spectacle).  This could be a warning flag to companies considering a move into the city that the new change in leadership is not going to be business friendly or will not be worth the hassle in dealing with state and local representatives.

---

"Most economists" and "some experts" can both be true.

Thanks for proving my point? It's not exactly the super-clear OMG NYC TOOK A MASSIVE BLOW picture that you both want to paint here. 

Please quote me where I said NYC would take a massive blow. 

If you don't want Amazon given the use of public money, I support that. If you don't want it because you don't think there will be benefit, I'm here to tell you that's 100% wrong. I have seen it in the economics of my own city.

Are we arguing that companies shouldn't receive benefits from state and local governments for bringing job opportunities to their regions?  Because you obviously know that happens all the time right?  Every state and nearly every big city has an EDO that negotiates these moves and it is BIG money for the people that do it.

[Ken]

If you want to cite studies and ignore input output economics that companies like Amazon and EDOs/WIBs use in these types of city / employer negotiations, there are literally hundreds of articles out there describing the lost investments into the city (including education), income tax revenue, secondary and tertiary jobs and the impact of primary and secondary vendor supplier revenue and job increases when you bring that many employees to a region.  Most of what you are quoting are studies offering guesswork as to "what a city could do" with "that kind of economic benefit".  Of course it's going to cost more to collect trash when there are more people in an area, give me a break.  

If we're ignoring mathematics and just going off local rags, here's one I found from up that way that rattles off facets of the deal without having to type here for the next hour to educate everyone here about regional economics:

Jobs
Amazon would have reportedly generated $27.5 billion in city and state revenue over 25 years—a 9:1 ratio of revenue to subsidies. This arrangement was predicated on Amazon creating at least 25,000 jobs over the next decade—and up to 40,000—with an average salary of $150,000, the memorandum said. Another 1,300 jobs were in the pipeline for construction and some 107,000 in total direct and indirect jobs were anticipated, according to state estimates.

Amazon, the city, and state initially planned to commit $5 million each toward workforce development. The deal also planned for a local nonprofit to open a training center on the HQ2 campus to mentor and recruit Long Island City locals, according to the city. A $10 million expansion of the city’s JobsPlus program into the Queensbridge Houses—the largest public housing complex in the country—was set to take shape. Additionally, the de Blasio administration planned to launch a $3-5 million program geared toward training NYCHA residents for careers in IT, cybersecurity, and web development.

Infrastructure
To fund local infrastructure—streets, sidewalks, open space and the like—Amazon planned to utilize the city’s Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) program, estimated by former Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen at $600 to $650 million over four decades. Amazon would have also built a 600-seat school and 3.5 acres of public, open space along the waterfront at Anable Basin.

When the deal first landed, transit advocates and elected leaders promptly called on Amazon to beef up transportation infrastructure in Long Island City, worrying that existing options weren’t enough to serve the rapidly growing neighborhood. Advocates pointed to the ongoing bus and subway crisis plaguing the city and packed train cars that run on the 7 and G lines through the area.

HQ2 was also piggybacking off of city infrastructure investments that were already in the works, or in the midst of being proposed, including $46 million for sewer and water-main upgrades, $60 million for a new school and a new Long Island Rail Road stop, and $180 million in new spending for overall improvements to Long Island City, the city has said.

Economic Impact
As part of the contested incentives package, Amazon was to receive nearly $3 billion in tax breaks, abatements, and grants. The state was committing up to $1.7 billion in Excelsior Tax Credits and capital grants—again, based on Amazon’s delivery of job and investment commitments. On the city side of things, the Industrial Commercial Abatement Program (ICAP) would have abated approximately $386 million in property taxes, while the Relocation and Employment Assistance Program (REAP) would have been worth $897 million, according to city and state officials. Incentives aside, the state would have reportedly earned $14 billion in tax returns, and the city would have received more than $13.5 billion in tax revenue over a 25 year period.

But officials revealed at a January City Council hearing that the price tag to bring Amazon to Long Island City could have cost $987 million more than the city previously claimed because city estimates only accounted for the minimum job and infrastructure investments that Amazon was expected to make, according to a report from the Council’s Finance Committee.

Real Estate
Long Island City transformed from a buyer’s to a seller’s market practically overnight after Amazon’s HQ2 announcement. The change came after a slump that in October saw 13 percent of the area’s listings slash their prices. Real estate experts speculated that Amazon’s move to Long Island City could paved the way for other large companies to move into the neighborhood. Amazon’s sudden reversal will undoubtedly lead to “whiplash,” as one StreetEasy expert put it in a statement.

The HQ2 cancellation has sent some developers scrambling, namely family-run plastics company Plaxall that was initially due to rent 4 million square feet of Long Island City land to Amazon for its headquarters.

Amazon said Thursday that it doesn’t plan on restarting its search for another location. The company will still move forward with its HQ2 location in Crystal City, Virginia, and a smaller operations center in Nashville, Tennessee.

Okay-  as I already mentioned, this study that all of you seem to champion, was seriously flawed for the reason I mentioned.

Amazon would have reportedly generated $27.5 billion in city and state revenue over 25 years—a 9:1 ratio of revenue to subsidies. This arrangement was predicated on Amazon creating at least 25,000 jobs over the next decade—and up to 40,000—with an average salary of $150,000, the memorandum said. Another 1,300 jobs were in the pipeline for construction and some 107,000 in total direct and indirect jobs were anticipated, according to state estimates.

40,000 jobs were assumed for that number, assumed nothing developed in it's place.

As your own article also states, they were adding little to nothing in regards to infrastructure that they would be adding even more strain to. 

I will grant you, this is complicated. Again, though, this isn't the doom scenario you're trying to paint. NYC will be just fine, other companies will move in without needing any incentives.

[Apoc]

I haven't championed any study, but thanks for continually misrepresenting my argument to make it easier to attack.

[Ken]

"Most economists" and "some experts" can both be true.

Thanks for proving my point? It's not exactly the super-clear OMG NYC TOOK A MASSIVE BLOW picture that you both want to paint here. 

Please quote me where I said NYC would take a massive blow. 

If you don't want Amazon given the use of public money, I support that. If you don't want it because you don't think there will be benefit, I'm here to tell you that's 100% wrong. I have seen it in the economics of my own city. You know why Facebook and Google built in Seattle? Amazon talent.

More towards Lee, but I assume that's mostly because he loathes NYC and looks for any reason to shit on it. 

And yes, my issue is with the public money. Of course there are benefits when a large corporation moves in, we just don't need to pay them for the privilege. 

To your point, Microsoft was already established in Seattle. Much how like there are countless large corporations already established in NYC. We'll be fine.

---

Are we arguing that companies shouldn't receive benefits from state and local governments for bringing job opportunities to their regions?  Because you obviously know that happens all the time right?  Every state and nearly every big city has an EDO that negotiates these moves and it is BIG money for the people that do it.

Doesn't make it right. We don't need to spend the money here, other businesses will come. As I stated before Google is already doing so for 12K positions without any need for NYC tax incentives.

[WRXtranceformed]

Okay-  as I already mentioned, this study that all of you seem to champion, was seriously flawed for the reason I mentioned.

Amazon would have reportedly generated $27.5 billion in city and state revenue over 25 years—a 9:1 ratio of revenue to subsidies. This arrangement was predicated on Amazon creating at least 25,000 jobs over the next decade—and up to 40,000—with an average salary of $150,000, the memorandum said. Another 1,300 jobs were in the pipeline for construction and some 107,000 in total direct and indirect jobs were anticipated, according to state estimates.

40,000 jobs were assumed for that number, assumed nothing developed in it's place.

As your own article also states, they were adding little to nothing in regards to infrastructure that they would be adding even more strain to. 

I will grant you, this is complicated. Again, though, this isn't the doom scenario you're trying to paint. NYC will be just fine, other companies will move in without needing any incentives.

Right, the infrastructure upgrades were already planned regardless.  The extra strain presumably would be addressed via the added tax revenue.

It's the additional jobs in this scenario (the "direct" and "indirect" jobs described there, although they left out "induced" jobs which is generally a much larger number) that are the X factor.  All of those jobs add to regional prosperity and taxation.

I'm not arguing that NYC is going to collapse, my point is that you simply cannot dismiss the massive impact that that many high paying jobs make on a region.  It's a shame for that area really but it looks like for right now anyway Amazon is going to spread the jobs across their existing markets as opposed to redirecting them all to a second choice

---

---

Are we arguing that companies shouldn't receive benefits from state and local governments for bringing job opportunities to their regions?  Because you obviously know that happens all the time right?  Every state and nearly every big city has an EDO that negotiates these moves and it is BIG money for the people that do it.

Doesn't make it right. We don't need to spend the money here, other businesses will come. As I stated before Google is already doing so for 12K positions without any need for NYC tax incentives.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that:

According to The Wall Street Journal, Google isn’t pursuing any incentives from New York in exchange for its newly expanded presence in the city. But, politics and business being what they are, that doesn’t preclude the city giving Google any tax breaks or other perks of its own accord. The exact details of the deal aren’t public right now — which is perhaps unsurprising, considering how past Google land deals have gone — but there’s a chance we may find out more from Google during its Q1 earnings in January (or at another juncture closer to the opening of the campus).

[Ken]

I wouldn't hold your breath on that:

According to The Wall Street Journal, Google isn’t pursuing any incentives from New York in exchange for its newly expanded presence in the city. But, politics and business being what they are, that doesn’t preclude the city giving Google any tax breaks or other perks of its own accord. The exact details of the deal aren’t public right now — which is perhaps unsurprising, considering how past Google land deals have gone — but there’s a chance we may find out more from Google during its Q1 earnings in January (or at another juncture closer to the opening of the campus).

LOL - Good lord politicians are dumb.