re: Amazon seeking second headquarters for 50K employees

quote:

---

Well TX (14th) and GA (16th) are probably tax friendly enough, so Atlanta and Dallas are likely options. On the other hand, but I wonder if Atlanta and Dallas are TOO big. Atlanta (4th) and Dallas (7th) are already two of the most congested cities in the country. And as far as airports go I would think that as long as it's a medium size international airport or higher, that the airlines and airports would be able to accommodate any changes in demand that result (e.g., add direct flights to and from Seattle).

---

Based on what I am hearing, think less logistics, geographic placement, and business environment - to a degree - and more oriented towards talent and lifestyle. A company like Amazon can negotiate its way into a tax-favorable situation pretty much wherever it wants to go (and they can shift around their revenue, anyway, with how they are set up).

quote:

---

Get to work Edwards.

---

His tax and spend liberal bullshite isn't going to fly here dude. Especially when he's dependent on a donor class of sue happy ambulance chasers.

quote:

---

Yeah I mean, why should the governor try to attract a huge company bringing 50k jobs

---

He can try but he sure as shite isn't going to succeed.

He would have a much better chance if he wasn't such a prog tard with his lust for high taxes burdensome regulations.

quote:

---

That's because the tax rate in CA has driven them out. The problem is that the democrats can't understand why their agenda doesn't work but continues the same rhetoric when they transfer to states like Texas.

---

In 2016, it looks like California had 108 Fortune 1000 companies while Texas had 1000. That means California has 2.8 per million people and Texas has 3.6 per million people. So Texas has more per capita but both trail Ohio (4.7), New York (4.8), and Illinois (5.0). New York (50th) and Illinois (43rd) have high corporate tax rates. While I'm guessing Amazon will consider that for its new HQ, I'm guessing most established companies consider a number of other factors too. And if it's purely a result of corporate taxes (not including specific incentives), then there are a number of states that would be more feasible than Texas (14th).

Amazon already has data centers inn NOVA, real estate too pricey there for office space.

If they want fiber exchange, and low real estate for a corp HQ, ATL is the place to be. Google has already built out a couple million sq ft here.

quote:

---

quote:
I've actually been talking with Amazon friends at HQ in Seattle. Word about it has been going around for a while, and they think it's already a done deal.


What are they saying is a done deal?

---

The city is already selected.

quote:

---

A company like Amazon can negotiate its way into a tax-favorable situation pretty much wherever it wants to go

---

Sure, but it's easier to negotiate a favorable system when the starting point is anchored at a more favorable position in the first place. Why else would Amazon have so much invested in Ohio and Kentucky if it weren't for those advantages in the first place?

quote:

---

think less logistics, geographic placement, and business environment

---

I'm not saying that there are the sole factors, but I find it unlikely that the wouldn't be considered as well.

quote:

---

and more oriented towards talent and lifestyle.

---

Well lifestyle is pretty subjective although I think things like nice weather and scenery are things that are valued pretty broadly. Unfortunately those don't work well for Ohio, although living in both Nashville and Columbus the weather wasn't as different as one would think, and the summers are more tolerable In Columbus while the opposite is true for winter.

quote:

---

Based on what I am hearing,

---

But what specifically are you hearing?

quote:

---

Sure, but it's easier to negotiate a favorable system when the starting point is anchored at a more favorable position in the first place. Why else would Amazon have so much invested in Ohio and Kentucky if it weren't for those advantages in the first place?

---

I mean, I agree with you to an extent (look at my prior posts in this very thread), but there are always significant exceptions like GE to Massachusetts and Boeing to Chicago (and even, more recently, McDonald's to the actual city of Chicago from the suburbs). Places make carve outs for huge firms like that if everything else is aligned well enough.

quote:

---

quote:
think less logistics, geographic placement, and business environment
I'm not saying that there are the sole factors, but I find it unlikely that the wouldn't be considered as well.

---

Logistics and geographic placement don't matter all that much from what I've heard. They want to be near a true international airport, too. And "business environment" can mean a lot of different things. Silicon Valley doesn't have a great business environment concerning taxes, but it's second-to-none in pretty much everything else (attracting and retaining talent, financing, network, etc.

quote:

---

quote:
and more oriented towards talent and lifestyle.
Well lifestyle is pretty subjective although I think things like nice weather and scenery are things that are valued pretty broadly. Unfortunately those don't work well for Ohio, although living in both Nashville and Columbus the weather wasn't as different as one would think, and the summers are more tolerable In Columbus while the opposite is true for winter.

---

Again, think more like a tech firm. International work force, wants to be near the most innovative work and firms in the world, etc.

quote:

---

quote:
Based on what I am hearing,
But what specifically are you hearing?

---

East Coast, specifically near university clusters.

Would love Nashville, but I don't think we have the tech industry they are looking for.

Definitely check the other boxes, and we're centrally located and 3 hours from Fedex HQ.

For my two bits worth, I wish they would move the whole fricking outfit to N Korea and the two CEO's could play footsie with one another.