Nice Job NY you just killed off 25k high paying jobs

[pellius]

My concern is what happens to the displaced business owners and their employees? Will this merely serve to continue to increase our unemployment rates and further hurt our economy?

Jobs end and jobs are created is a simplified view though, isn't it? Consider the limited skill set and education that many of these individuals/workers in retail have and then tell us where they will go once companies like Amazon force their employers out of business. Unless amazon can replace the jobs lost with an equal amount of new jobs and guarantee work for the displaced employees, I think they'll end up on the unemployment line seeking financial assistance, which comes directly from our taxes.

I think NYC maybe has seen the devastating effects amazon has had on other cities and doesn't want to join in on the fun. In Jeff Bezos' world, he would love for people to be able to simply click away on their amazon app and never have to consider walking into an actual store to purchase good/services, but it's those same people that he wants money from that also need jobs in order to buy/use his companies products/services.

Put the average consumer out of work and you hurt the overall economy and ultimately yourself.

"1"

Even at our most dismal worse, unemployment in the US is consistently one of the lowest in the world. What is the alternative? We do not evolve? We do not seek new, more innovative ways to run a society. Would it be better if we didn't have computers and have to get in our cars every day every time we need or want a book or a faucet filter? I have access to products that I just can't get here locally and have to order over the net. It's the old "cars are going to put the horse and buggy out of commission and they will be out of jobs. Cell phones are going to put land lines out of business. Electric cars may put gas engines out of business. Oil companies will collapse. Does that mean we shouldn't have a Safeway Supermarket so that the Tang family can still operate their store providing less service and products, at more expense, in a crappy practically third world setting, that's far less safe and sterile? And how do we enforce this? Do we make a law that you can't have a business greater than X size and can't sell a product for less than X price?

There's a reason New York offered such huge tax breaks to Amazon and why other States are tripping over themselves offering incentives to come to their State.

It's almost like if I went up to AOC as she worked at a Pizza place and told her that I want to order 30 pizzas and I have a coupon for $20 off volume purchase and she told me to buzz off with my greedy coupon and special treatment then bragged to her boss that she saved the company $20.   

[pellius]

You’re completely assuming people are stagnant and can’t evolve. Think about it this way.  I can shop online and save a lot of time. I use that time to grow my technology company and continue to hire at a rapid rate.  The technology we develop displaces a lot of admin type people but adds jobs for us and encourages these admin people to expand their education to do higher purpose type work.

This mindset is probably one of the reasons that you are so successful. Moving forward. Growing and improving. It also forces one to evolve as well. That switchboard operator or hand dishwasher has to learn a new skill and grow as a person as well.

[pellius]

I could also argue that there are products on Amazon that were never available to me. Now those company's are able to grow and add jobs.

Move to the head of the market economics class.

[pellius]

Having gone to school for logistics and supply chain management, I'm really torn on this.  On the one hand both Amazon, and Walmart are so ahead of everyone else and constantly coming up with new innovations in those areas that from a person's stand point that is interested in those things you can't help but be blown over by what they've achieved.  To me it's very interesting to learn about.

On the other hand, there's the things you've mentioned, and my belief which is what SF1900 stated in this thread which is Walmart and Amazon will someday be the only two places to shop.  That won't be how it literally turns out, but damn near it.  As I mentioned in the property tax thread, I predicted long ago that Amazon would become their own logistics provider to some extent(they have) and eventually completely(they will).  I am very much of the thought that they will eventually build their own airports, and build their warehouse/distribution/fulfillment centers on or near the land with the airports, and sell off everything else to become more centralized.  My prediction is in 10-15 yrs.

We had a very large, modern, and nicely laid out open air mall here open up around 10 years ago.  Out of the 8-10 well known larger retailers opened with the mall itself, that in a traditional shopping mall would be referred to as "anchor stores" only best buy and tj maxx are left....and tj maxx is probably ready to pack it in as their lot never has more than 20 cars except over the winter holiday madness sales.  All told, there's probably 180,000 to 220,000 square ft of available retail space there right now.

Amazon did hire a ton of drivers, and call workers here over the last 12-18months, and our unemployment is below the national avg always.

Amazon and Walmart will only do what it believes will increase it's value to the consumers. Whatever scenario you envision will be successful only if that is what the consumer wants. Whatever doesn't work will be quickly discarded. Foldable phones are on the horizon. No one is sure if it will take. If it does then soon all phones will be foldable. Will that be a bad thing? How can it be if that's what everbody wants? For Amazon to be the only online retailer left it would mean that everybody, or the vast majority, wants it to be because they don't go anywhere else.

[pellius]

Screw Bezos...NY was going to pay 3 billion dollars to a Man who is worth 90 billion.
Let him pay for his own dam project.

That's what they said. So he just said goodbye and is going somewhere else where they are only too happy to give him what he wants. When conducting a transaction your prime concern is if you are getting a good deal. It's foolish to reject a deal because you don't want the other person to profit or profit too much.

Do you think New York is better off without a business like Amazon in their State? Maybe you have more faith in the economic expertise of the socialist AOC than the business and economic experts that realize the wealth Amazon would have brought to their State for decades to come.

Bezos will be just fine and continue to profit and grow with or without New York. Not sure the same can be said for New York. Don't forget, it was Bezos that rejected New York and not New York rejecting Bezos. He was already given the green light but didn't want to bother by all the nonsense when he can just as easily go elsewhere.

"The question is whether it’s worth it if the politicians in New York don’t want the project, especially with how people in Virginia and Nashville have been so welcoming," said one person familiar with the company’s plans, according to the Post.

[pellius]

It's not a deal when you have to pay Amazons tax obligations to the tune of 3 billion dollars.

Vince, you have not been paying attention. I thought you were smarter than this. No one was paying Amazon anything. The deal was they were not going to take as much money as they already confiscated from other businesses in that State. The reason why States like Texas do so well is that they don't have as many barriers for business as States like New York have.

Please remember this one basic principle: The government cannot give or pay anybody anything simply because they have nothing to give or pay. What they "give" to one person or company they've taken away from another person or company.

It's a zero-sum game.

[Palumboism]

You do scratch your head until you consider the mindset of a socialist. They see a company like Amazon strictly as an exploiter. They don’t consider the value a company like that provides to consumers. Same with Walmart. Who are Walmart customers? Generally lower income people who benefit greatly from the cheap products Walmart sells.

You’re right though. You probably wouldn’t see something of this magnitude happen in many other places. NYC can take the hit because it’s so big.

The Southern Governors play to win when it comes to attracting companies and getting jobs.  New York politicians look like armatures in comparison.

Every state's in a competition to attract companies and jobs.  

[pellius]

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/11/16/18098589/amazon-hq2-nyc-queens-long-island-city-explained

Amazon was going to receive 3 billion of public funds, Not including tax breaks......These were monies PAID to Amazon....Google it....

Nope, that is not true. It was not 3 billion of public funds being paid to Amazon. It was 3 billion in SUBSIDIES. Big difference. A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business or institution, usually by the government. ... The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.

So specifically a subsidy is a reduction in the price of goods and services to the business. So again, it's the government taking less than they what they usually take from others. They are not giving or paying anything.

As stated in the article in the link you posted: But perhaps the biggest bugbear for critics is the nearly $3 billion in subsidies being offered to Amazon, which surely has enough money to build an office without any public dollars.

When they talk about public dollars they are referring to the money they would have gotten if Amazon paid "full price" as it were. Just like when I was given a 25% discount at the Vitamin Shopped provided I bought at least $100 dollars worth of merchandise. So yes, Vitamin Shoppe is not getting that 25% that they would be getting if they didn't offer me that incentive. But they feel that they will still make a profit by providing me an incentive to buy that much in merchandise -- which I did. So though they didn't get that $25 dollar they still got a profit that they would not have gotten if I didn't have that incentive. Vitamin Shopped paid me nothing.

According to the link to the article you posted: According to the state, Amazon will generate $27.5 billion in state and city revenue over 25 years, a 9:1 ratio of revenue to subsidies—an arrangement Cuomo called “the highest rate of return for an economic incentive program the state has ever offered.”

But be that as it may, Amazon rejected New York and will go elsewhere and enrich another State instead. Amazon lost nothing. New York lost a potential $27.5 billion dollars.

[Humble Narcissist]

Nope, that is not true. It was not 3 billion of public funds being paid to Amazon. It was 3 billion in SUBSIDIES. Big difference. A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business or institution, usually by the government. ... The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.

So specifically a subsidy is a reduction in the price of goods and services to the business. So again, it's the government taking less than they what they usually take from others. They are not giving or paying anything.

As stated in the article in the link you posted: But perhaps the biggest bugbear for critics is the nearly $3 billion in subsidies being offered to Amazon, which surely has enough money to build an office without any public dollars.

When they talk about public dollars they are referring to the money they would have gotten if Amazon paid "full price" as it were. Just like when I was given a 25% discount at the Vitamin Shopped provided I bought at least $100 dollars worth of merchandise. So yes, Vitamin Shoppe is not getting that 25% that they would be getting if they didn't offer me that incentive. But they feel that they will still make a profit by providing me an incentive to buy that much in merchandise -- which I did. So though they didn't get that $25 dollar they still got a profit that they would not have gotten if I didn't have that incentive. Vitamin Shopped paid me nothing.

According to the link to the article you posted: According to the state, Amazon will generate $27.5 billion in state and city revenue over 25 years, a 9:1 ratio of revenue to subsidies—an arrangement Cuomo called “the highest rate of return for an economic incentive program the state has ever offered.”

But be that as it may, Amazon rejected New York and will go elsewhere and enrich another State instead. Amazon lost nothing. New York lost a potential $27.5 billion dollars.

Thank you pellius for explaining this to these liberal retards.  I thought Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was the only brain dead moron who didn't understand how much money she just cost her city and state but it's obvious those on the left share her stupidity.  These people have no idea how business, tax revenue or economies work and AOC has a economics degree.

[oldtimer1]

The NY Post said this was the break down. "The state enticed Amazon with $1.525 billion in tax credits and construction grants, while the city is giving $1.28 billion in tax breaks, officials said." "Between 325 Million handed out if it meets certain hiring deadlines."

[Thin Lizzy]

The Southern Governors play to win when it comes to attracting companies and getting jobs.  New York politicians look like armatures in comparison.

Every state's in a competition to attract companies and jobs.  

They’re basically arrogant. They think that the NY market is so good that businesses will take any kind of ass raping to stay in it. It’s the same with CA.

The reason they had to give out the subsidies in the first place is because the tax rates are so punishing that it discourages most businesses from setting up shop here.

[SF1900]

If that is what the consumers want. The businesses that survive are the businesses that consumers choose to survive. They can pay lip service all they want but what really matters is where they spend their money. So people talk about how it's tragic that Sears and other stores are going out of business but then they go home, log on to their computer and take out their credit card.

These businesses have been failing and disappearing for the last fifteen years. If it was a net loss the retail business would be getting smaller and smaller every year. It's not. It keeps growing and growing. More stuff, both new and old, come into the market every year; and more stuff, both new and old, are bought and sold every year.

Yeah, but brick and mortar stores could no way survive against Amazon. The only way they would survive is to be exclusively online.

No one wants to go out of their house to shop anymore. These stores have ZERO chance of surviving. As stated, the only way for them to survive is to become an online giant like Amazon, but how feasible is that for every company? Either way, they would have to close down their stores and lay off employees.

At this rate, there is no sense of even opening a business unless its online.

Some recent stores that have filed for bankruptcy in 2018:

Brookstone
Gymboree
Payless
David's Bridal
Sears
Mattress Firm
Ninewest
Claires
Rockport
Bon Ton

and more.

[cephissus]

Good for New York.

As a long time amazon employee and Seattle resident... I don't think most of you would be singing the same tune if you had to work for or live around an Amazon HQ.

Settle for one week paid shipping and drop the stockholm syndrome, friends.

[oldgolds]

Jeez..Did anybody read the link? Amazon was going to receive 3 billion in PUBLIC FUNDS...NOT including tax breaks...
That's $48,000 per job created...

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

Vince, you have not been paying attention. I thought you were smarter than this. No one was paying Amazon anything. The deal was they were not going to take as much money as they already confiscated from other businesses in that State. The reason why States like Texas do so well is that they don't have as many barriers for business as States like New York have.

Please remember this one basic principle: The government cannot give or pay anybody anything simply because they have nothing to give or pay. What they "give" to one person or company they've taken away from another person or company.

It's a zero-sum game.

I am smarter than this.  Amazon was planning to move there to simply avoid paying taxes.   In addition, people were upset that New York was offering  3 billion dollars in incentives. Now granted Amazon was going to provide school funding and job training but the argument that Amazon was going to generate 27 billion in tax revenue over 10 years is bullshit.  That's because every company knows how to exploit the tax code to pay as little as possible and with Trump's new tax code, its even easier.   Netflix made 845 million dollars in profit and because of the new tax laws, they didn't pay a dime and in fact extracted a 22 million dollar return on their taxes.  Amazon also didn't do any favors in offers facial recognition software to immigrant agents.  


Pellius, Amazon is a bully.   They pretty much ruined a number of small businesses including myself although I'm now using it somewhat to my advantage.   New York was never going to get anything truly from the deal and the job pay guarantee did not match up with what actual Amazon employees made and work..the majority of them working seasonally.   It was all smoke and mirrors.

[oldgolds]

Amazon was to get 897 million from the REAP program.
386 million from the Industrial and Commercial Abatement Program.
505 million from a capitol grant.
1.3 billion from Excelsior Grants, part of that is tax credits.
These are described in the media as PUBLIC FUNDS..Not tax breaks.

[Thin Lizzy]

Yeah, but brick and mortar stores could no way survive against Amazon. The only way they would survive is to be exclusively online.

No one wants to go out of their house to shop anymore. These stores have ZERO chance of surviving. As stated, the only way for them to survive is to become an online giant like Amazon, but how feasible is that for every company? Either way, they would have to close down their stores and lay off employees.

At this rate, there is no sense of even opening a business unless its online.

Some recent stores that have filed for bankruptcy in 2018:

Brookstone
Gymboree
Payless
David's Bridal
Sears
Mattress Firm
Ninewest
Claires
Rockport
Bon Ton

and more.

Sears had the Sears Catalogue but they didn’t adapt it to the new online environment. You either adapt or die.

[Coach is Back!]

I am smarter than this.  Amazon was planning to move there to simply avoid paying taxes.   In addition, people were upset that New York was offering  3 billion dollars in incentives. Now granted Amazon was going to provide school funding and job training but the argument that Amazon was going to generate 27 billion in tax revenue over 10 years is bullshit.  That's because every company knows how to exploit the tax code to pay as little as possible and with Trump's new tax code, its even easier.   Netflix made 845 million dollars in profit and because of the new tax laws, they didn't pay a dime and in fact extracted a 22 million dollar return on their taxes.  Amazon also didn't do any favors in offers facial recognition software to immigrant agents.  


Pellius, Amazon is a bully.   They pretty much ruined a number of small businesses including myself although I'm now using it somewhat to my advantage.   New York was never going to get anything truly from the deal and the job pay guarantee did not match up with what actual Amazon employees made and work..the majority of them working seasonally.   It was all smoke and mirrors.

Amazon would have hired 40,000 workers within 25 years and N.Y. would have reaped around $25 billion in tax revenue, and created thousands of new lower paying jobs, and up. Imagine the opportunity for entrepreneurs starting restaurants, coffee shops, cleaners, Uber, in addition to all the jobs to build and maintain the new building. This was a fantastic opportunity for new jobs.

Good or bad return on a $3 billion enticement?

You’re in the minority when it comes to this decision. Most of the people of NY wanted but instead let the politicians and a bartender with the IQ of a tree stump get their way

[SF1900]

Sears had the Sears Catalogue but they didn’t adapt it to the new online environment. You either adapt or die.

Well, that what sort of my point. If they adapted and went exclusively online, they would still have to shut down their stores, since everyone is switching to online shopping anyway. How would their stores survive if people go to their website? I am not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand how the actual stores would stay afloat, even if they adapted to the online world. Unless online merchandising pulled in so much money, it could help the stores stay open.

[SF1900]

Amazon would have hired 40,000 workers within 25 years and N.Y. would have reaped around $25 billion in tax revenue, and created thousands of new lower paying jobs, and up. Imagine the opportunity for entrepreneurs starting restaurants, coffee shops, cleaners, Uber, in addition to all the jobs to build and maintain the new building. This was a fantastic opportunity for new jobs.

Good or bad return on a $3 billion enticement?

You’re in the minority when it comes to this decision. Most of the people of NY wanted but instead let the politicians and a bartender with the IQ of a tree stump get their way

Excuse me, Coach, but have you built an online empire the likes of Caliber Fitness Solution The Leader in Human Evolution Since 2001?

[Coach is Back!]

Excuse me, Coach, but have you built an online empire the likes of Caliber Fitness Solution The Leader in Human Evolution Since 2001?

What does that have to do with this?

[SF1900]

What does that have to do with this?

Vince is a business and economic mogul and gave his opinion on business and economics, which is likely the truth, given his success of numerous business/economic ventures.

[Thin Lizzy]

Well, that what sort of my point. If they adapted and went exclusively online, they would still have to shut down their stores, since everyone is switching to online shopping anyway. How would their stores survive if people go to their website? I am not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand how the actual stores would stay afloat, even if they adapted to the online world. Unless online merchandising pulled in so much money, it could help the stores stay open.

Who says there is an answer to save the stores? What was the answer for Blockbuster video? Find a new line of work that’s what.

There’s no guarantee in life that what you’re doing to make money is going to be viable going forward. Might as well accept it.

[SF1900]

Who says there is an answer to save the stores? What was the answer for Blockbuster video? Find a new line of work that’s what.

There’s no guarantee in life that what you’re doing to make money is going to be viable going forward. Might as well accept it.

So, basically, in the face of online shopping, these brick and mortar stores are screwed, unless they delve heavily into online ventures to save their company. A

I am accepting of it. I am not in such a field, so it does not affect my occupation in the least. I was more curious than anything.

[Humble Narcissist]

So, basically, in the face of online shopping, these brick and mortar stores are screwed, unless they delve heavily into online ventures to save their company. A

I am accepting of it. I am not in such a field, so it does not affect my occupation in the least. I was more curious than anything.

Pretty much.  When the car was invented and mass marketed to consumers that put most buggy makers out of business.  In the next 25 years many industries and old model businesses will become obsolete.