SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
October 19th was the deadline to submit bids to become the host city for Amazon's second headquarters. 238 proposals were submitted:
Amazon.com Inc's $5 billion second headquarters and its promise of up to 50,000 jobs attracted 238 proposals from 54 states, provinces and districts in the United States, Canada and Mexico, the company said on Monday.
Regions and cities in 43 U.S. states from Maine to Alaska, as well as Washington, D.C., submitted bids by the Oct. 19 deadline, Amazon said. The states that did not bid were Arkansas, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.
Canadian bids came from the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec. Mexican bids emanated from the states of Chihuahua, Hidalgo and Queretaro. Other bidders included Puerto Rico, which is struggling to recover from Hurricane Maria and is in the process of restructuring its sagging finances in court.
Details of the bids, including tax breaks and other incentives being offered to entice the internet retailer, were scarce as some bidders cited competitive reasons or nondisclosure policies.
New Jersey offered $7 billion in tax credits for a Newark headquarters, while Chicago offered $2.25 billion of incentives, including tax credits, property tax breaks, $450 million in infrastructure improvements, $250 million in "Neighborhood Opportunity Funds", and potentially free land. The mayor of Stonecrest, an Atlanta suburb, offered 345 acres of industrial land on which a new city called Amazon could be built, with Jeff Bezos as mayor-for-life.
Also at First Post, NYT, and the Chicago Tribune.
Previously: Amazon to Invest $5 Billion in Second HQ Outside of Seattle
Cities Desperate to Become the Location of Amazon's "Second Headquarters"
Is A Mega-Deal Like Amazon's HQ2 Always Worth It?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @04:55PM (10 children)
Amazon's 2nd HQ could have "up to 50,000 employees." Let's make the huge assumption that's actually true.
$5,000,000,000/50,000 employees = $100,000 per "job created."
And keep in mind that that many of those jobs will be for people like janitors.
Okay, you can make the argument that it's a long-term investment for community development, and it's a one-time cost for future revenue. Even so... that seems like a steep price to pay, especially as Amazon can always threaten to move and re-negotiate after a few years.
I can think of a lot of other good things that could be done with $100,000, including but not limited to simply giving it out to people as cash for them to spend as they choose.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @05:43PM
Not sure. I'm never certain if the belief I have that the idiots who think throwing money at corporations is a good way to build a community are idiots is evidence of foolishness on my part.
I'd guess the nature of the laundering is quid-pro-quo where the politician gives the corporation taxpayers' money so that the corporation can sponsor the politician in next year's politicsball playoffs. <sarcasm>Also, tickets to speeches by retired politicians are really expensive from what I understand, so CxOs need the help to afford to be able to listen to retired politicians' words of gold.</sarcasm> (Well, certainly their words are go£d€n for $omebody.)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 24 2017, @05:54PM (8 children)
What?!?! You can't help poor people out by giving them cash! Why, they'll only spend it irresponsibly on food and clothing and utilities and rent, and the next thing you know the world will collapse! If you give it to Jeff Bezos instead, he'll be much more responsible and buy a new yacht.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @06:52PM (7 children)
Why, they'll only spend it irresponsibly on food and clothing and utilities and rent
Let me regale you the tale of T. T had a car accident with her son. Spine bent up face half ripped off. Pretty nasty with months of therapy. Some dude had run a red light and splattered their car. They offer her 15,000 dollars. A life changing amount for T. She gets 200-300 dollars a month for section 8, another 200 or so for utilities, and about 300 for food in stamps, and another 300 from SS, all paid through entailment programs and social security. That 15,000 she took it. It lasted an entire 3 weeks. 200 dollar dinners. Rocking nike sneakers. New flat screen TVs. etc,etc, etc. Week 4? They were asking money to cover their cell phones bills (in addition to the 'bmama phone'). This is not uncommon.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only Jeff Bezos will 'waste' that money. That is not even remotely true. Both groups will.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @07:22PM (2 children)
Yeah. A lot of refugees from hurricane Katrina moved to my city. I was in Walmart one day and someone stopped me randomly (like I was an employee or something) to ask if a stereo system was good for her kids and that she was buying one for each kid with her "hurricane money from the government" and then told me "I also bought a big screen TV and put it on the back porch". Yeah, not wasting that relief money at all...
But, despite that, you can't use bad apples as an example of the entire group. Every group is going to have good people and bad people, smart people and dumb people. It's inevitable in any group, but in some situations (such as wasting tax money that you and I pay), the worst stand out much more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @08:05PM (1 child)
Poor people are poor because they are stupid, or stupid people are stupid because they are poor? Something tells me it's former more so than ladder, but probably a little bit of ladder sprinkled in just to make it probable enough for libtards to runaway with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @10:45PM
Or because they are very unfortunate or lack ambition (could be a mental health issue in some cases). I agree that most people don't seem to know how to spend their money wisely, however. Even when they aren't buying insanely expensive items that they should not buy, they spend a 'little bit' here and there and think nothing of it until their money is simply gone.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday October 24 2017, @10:23PM (3 children)
Some times that kind of behaviour is rational.
Someone who currently receives public assistance gets a lump sum of money. The public assistance stops. So, they can either:
1. Live like they did before, spending the lump sum instead of the public assistance, or
2. They can have a great time for a short while until their bank account is depleted and the public assistance kicks in again.
Which is the logical choice?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @10:47PM (2 children)
The logical choice would be to spend the money on things that are actually important instead of being stupidly wasteful. You know, things like debts and important bills.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @01:22AM
Like the $100+ cellphone and cable bills?
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:56PM
In that kind of situation, paying off debts might not be much better than just setting the money on fire.
You start out on public assistance and in debt, and once the money's gone you're right back on assistance and in debt. What good is paying the debt? You'll just have more debt tomorrow. It's not going to improve your already trashed credit rating. It's not going to make the collectors stop calling. At best you'll pay down a credit card so you can load it up again, but that's not much different from just buying whatever you'd buy directly. If you're already expecting to die in debt, then there's no point in ever attempting to pay it off -- it might as well be infinite. And there's not much point in saving either, as those savings are likely to be confiscated to cover the "infinite" debt.
They bought things they would never otherwise be able to get that they thought would improve their life for some reasonable length of time. That sounds perfectly logical to me.