News:

Am able to again make updates to the Shield Gallery!
- Alex

Main Menu

Amazon HQ2

Started by Bruce, September 07, 2017, 05:45:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jakeroot

Quote from: roadman on October 19, 2017, 11:24:52 AM
QuoteTech's a global business.

Except that Amazon is principally a retailer, not a tech company.

That was true for a while, but their ventures into hardware have been positioning themselves as more of an Apple or Google type company. Without a doubt, commission from their retail market and AWS makes them gobs of money. But they're slowly "pivoting" away from just being retail.


english si

Quote from: roadman on October 19, 2017, 11:24:52 AMExcept that Amazon is principally a retailer, not a tech company.
What Jake said.

Quote from: kalvado on October 19, 2017, 11:29:32 AMThis is also about market size - 36M  population in Canada, 65M in UK, and 323M in US. How much that relates to headquarters location, associated cash flow and taxes is a whole different story.
True, but HQ2 in Canada, if the US builds a protectionist-fortress gives an HQ outside the wall - it doesn't matter if it serves 100M or 500M people, if you have two HQs behind a wall and nothing outside of it, you will struggle to serve outside of it.

As such, if you worry about a trade wall, then you'd put something outside, not double down on inside.

I'd argue though, that Trump's NAFTA redo is about Mexico, not Canada.

MisterSG1

Quote from: english si on October 19, 2017, 04:15:41 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 19, 2017, 11:24:52 AMExcept that Amazon is principally a retailer, not a tech company.
What Jake said.

Quote from: kalvado on October 19, 2017, 11:29:32 AMThis is also about market size - 36M  population in Canada, 65M in UK, and 323M in US. How much that relates to headquarters location, associated cash flow and taxes is a whole different story.
True, but HQ2 in Canada, if the US builds a protectionist-fortress gives an HQ outside the wall - it doesn't matter if it serves 100M or 500M people, if you have two HQs behind a wall and nothing outside of it, you will struggle to serve outside of it.

As such, if you worry about a trade wall, then you'd put something outside, not double down on inside.

I'd argue though, that Trump's NAFTA redo is about Mexico, not Canada.

Of course you're right, but Canada will be collateral damage. Having said that, there has been a lot of heartbreaking losses regarding manufacturing to Mexico in Canada as well.

This discussion will dissolve into politics, and the PTB here do not like that.

kalvado

Quote from: english si on October 19, 2017, 04:15:41 PM

I'd argue though, that Trump's NAFTA redo is about Mexico, not Canada.
With latest c-series Bombardier story , and Canada showing a well-deserved finger to US -  there may be a bit more than a sour feeling left in Canada.

kphoger

It seems neither major political party has wanted the Cross Border Trucking Program to succeed (speaking of NAFTA).  The Democrats, because the Teamsters are involved in the drayage system and would rather keep the inefficient system that unnecessarily adds cost to goods.  The Republicans, because Mexicans are apparently unregulated, dangerous criminals who need to be kept on the other side of a wall.
[/politics]

He Is Already Here! Let's Go, Flamingo!
Dost thou understand the graveness of the circumstances?
Deut 23:13
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: PKDIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

MisterSG1

Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2017, 04:50:02 PM
It seems neither major political party has wanted the Cross Border Trucking Program to succeed (speaking of NAFTA).  The Democrats, because the Teamsters are involved in the drayage system and would rather keep the inefficient system that unnecessarily adds cost to goods.  The Republicans, because Mexicans are apparently unregulated, dangerous criminals who need to be kept on the other side of a wall.
[/politics]

How does that program work, are Mexican carries and drivers allowed to cabotage within the cross border trucking zone? I would assume the answer is a solid no.

Cabotage to put it simply means a vehicle and/or person registered/from Country A moving something BETWEEN two points in Country B. Not just trucking but this same concept applies with airlines, buses, and even taxis. Cabotage is generally not allowed anywhere in the world, with the EU being a notable exception.

TheArkansasRoadgeek

Well, that's just like your opinion man...

jakeroot

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 19, 2017, 06:41:56 PM
Well shit... Arkansas ain't getting Amazon! :no: Little Rock said, "No"

I think Little Rock knew they were out of the running from the start, so they just decided to go out with a bang.

Scott5114

Realistically, if Arkansas was going to get Amazon, it would probably go to Bentonville anyway.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

TheArkansasRoadgeek

Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 19, 2017, 06:41:56 PM
Well shit... Arkansas ain't getting Amazon! :no: Little Rock said, "No"

I think Little Rock knew they were out of the running from the start, so they just decided to go out with a bang.
By the report they used the opportunity to market to other businesses, good on them! :thumbsup:
Well, that's just like your opinion man...

Bruce

Missouri offered three cities and the promise of Hyperloop. Their bid is likely sitting at the bottom of a recycling bin in Seattle.
Wikipedia - TravelMapping (100% of WA SRs)

Photos

kphoger

Quote from: MisterSG1 on October 19, 2017, 05:29:58 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2017, 04:50:02 PM
It seems neither major political party has wanted the Cross Border Trucking Program to succeed (speaking of NAFTA).  The Democrats, because the Teamsters are involved in the drayage system and would rather keep the inefficient system that unnecessarily adds cost to goods.  The Republicans, because Mexicans are apparently unregulated, dangerous criminals who need to be kept on the other side of a wall.
[/politics]

How does that program work, are Mexican carries and drivers allowed to cabotage within the cross border trucking zone? I would assume the answer is a solid no.

Cabotage to put it simply means a vehicle and/or person registered/from Country A moving something BETWEEN two points in Country B. Not just trucking but this same concept applies with airlines, buses, and even taxis. Cabotage is generally not allowed anywhere in the world, with the EU being a notable exception.

I'm not sure about cabotage, but my understanding is that the USA is in compliance with the NAFTA regulations in regard to Canada but not in regard to Mexico.  So, basically, whatever works across the northern border should work across the southern one too.  But I think the program died in the water in 2014.  Companies that were grandfathered in, having been dual-licensed for decades already, are still allowed to operate; so are those companies that were part of the pilot group from 2011 to 2014.  The most recent Mexican-tagged trucks I've seen were [1] on southbound I-29 between Sioux City and Council Bluffs on Sunday of last week, and [2] on a Kellogg frontage road here in Wichita last week.  Before that, I hadn't seen a single one in probably two or three years.

He Is Already Here! Let's Go, Flamingo!
Dost thou understand the graveness of the circumstances?
Deut 23:13
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: PKDIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

sparker

This morning the local AM radio news station featured a discussion about the pros and cons that'll be facing whatever city Amazon selects for their new facilities.  The most striking of the negatives was simply that selecting a location that has a plethora of amenities and resources that might make Amazon select it would also likely feature higher-than-average housing costs for both purchase and rentals.  Even though the initial projected 10K employees would most likely be phased in over several years, the housing market, especially in already burgeoning urban/suburban areas, tends to function as much on projection and perception as sheer "on the ground" demand.  Some discussion participants suggested that even as little as 2K-3K "first wave" employees would likely instigate a spike in both property values and rental costs.  For that reason, the consensus within the "talking heads" participating in the discussion was that Amazon would likely avoid locations already featuring exceptionally high housing costs (such as San Jose, greater Boston or New York, and even areas "on the rise" such as NC's Research Triangle) and instead select a somewhat more economically viable location -- of course, provided certain amenities were present.  Locations mentioned as more or less fitting those criteria included the Cincinnati-Dayton (I-75) corridor in SW Ohio, northern Delaware, suburban Kansas City (someone specifically talked about Overland Park), or even Tennessee -- possibly outside Knoxville or in the Nashville-Columbia general vicinity.  Of course, this discussion was merely speculation -- but apparently the bid process closed today (10/20) and the proposals are in the hands of Amazon management as this is written -- now we'll just have to see just what sort of weight Amazon assigns to the various characteristics of the applicant cities. 

Bruce

The bids are all in, officially, with at least 100 cities.



Most of them aren't going to survive the first round of cuts. A suburban campus is probably first to go, followed by sites with poor transit.
Wikipedia - TravelMapping (100% of WA SRs)

Photos

kalvado

Quote from: Bruce on October 20, 2017, 04:38:57 PM
The bids are all in, officially, with at least 100 cities.

Most of them aren't going to survive the first round of cuts. A suburban campus is probably first to go, followed by sites with poor transit.
I hope they would put out some short list first. Really interesting is how they are going to filter it, even more interesting than final winner

TheArkansasRoadgeek

Why not somewhere in California? You've got Google, Yahoo!, and so many more in Silicon Valley... So, why would they even bother with the East, Mid-West, Central, or South? Like I would go to a city where more people gave a fuck. No tech-based company will care about the other far reaching states... I'd say.
Well, that's just like your opinion man...

hotdogPi

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 20, 2017, 07:31:18 PM
Why not somewhere in California? You've got Google, Yahoo!, and so many more in Silicon Valley... So, why would they even bother with the East, Mid-West, Central, or South? Like I would go to a city where more people gave a fuck. No tech-based company will care about the other far reaching states... I'd say.

Too close to the first location.
Clinched

Traveled, plus
US 13, 50
MA 22, 35, 40, 53, 79, 107, 109, 126, 138, 141, 159
NH 27, 78, 111A(E); CA 90; NY 366; GA 42, 140; FL A1A, 7; CT 32, 320; VT 2A, 5A; PA 3, 51, 60, WA 202; QC 162, 165, 263; 🇬🇧A100, A3211, A3213, A3215, A4222; 🇫🇷95 D316

Lowest untraveled: 36

LM117

Quote from: Bruce on October 20, 2017, 04:38:57 PM
The bids are all in, officially, with at least 100 cities.



Most of them aren't going to survive the first round of cuts. A suburban campus is probably first to go, followed by sites with poor transit.

You can go ahead and cross North Carolina off the map. The current state legislature (controlled by the GOP) has a very negative attitude toward incentives. They killed the film industry in Wilmington and refused to put any serious effort into luring Volvo, which ended up getting swiped by South Carolina during Nikki Haley's reign as SC governor.
"I don't know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!" -Jim Cornette

bing101

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 20, 2017, 07:31:18 PM
Why not somewhere in California? You've got Google, Yahoo!, and so many more in Silicon Valley... So, why would they even bother with the East, Mid-West, Central, or South? Like I would go to a city where more people gave a fuck. No tech-based company will care about the other far reaching states... I'd say.

Too close to EBay's headquarters if Amazon were to go to Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San Jose and Santa Clara.

TheArkansasRoadgeek

Quote from: bing101 on October 20, 2017, 08:11:34 PM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 20, 2017, 07:31:18 PM
Why not somewhere in California? You've got Google, Yahoo!, and so many more in Silicon Valley... So, why would they even bother with the East, Mid-West, Central, or South? Like I would go to a city where more people gave a fuck. No tech-based company will care about the other far reaching states... I'd say.

Too close to EBay's headquarters if Amazon were to go to Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San Jose and Santa Clara.
Ebay is a dead meme! We have Amazon and Craig's List now.
Well, that's just like your opinion man...

kkt

Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 20, 2017, 07:31:18 PM
Why not somewhere in California? You've got Google, Yahoo!, and so many more in Silicon Valley... So, why would they even bother with the East, Mid-West, Central, or South? Like I would go to a city where more people gave a fuck. No tech-based company will care about the other far reaching states... I'd say.

They might think about a place where there's a little more unemployment to help with hiring people without having to pay them sky-high wages, and where real estate isn't already at sky-high levels.

Another west-coast city might be a weakness too, if part of their goal is some diversity in decision making.

jakeroot

Interesting to note the massive number of submissions in the Seattle area, despite Amazon already having their headquarters there. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But surprising because nowhere outside of Seattle (except downtown Tacoma) is there decent public transportation (IMO).

Of course, if they're basing their choice off of future public transit systems, most of the Seattle-area submissions would actually have a good argument.

briantroutman

All of this wild guessing about Amazon's pick for HQ2 is fueled by the fact that the company is being so opaque as to the true motivations behind this search.

Either Amazon's trying to dodge taxes and high land costs–or–it's seeking another world-class city with preeminent institutions of higher education. The company is trying to save on wages–or–it's trying to attract world-class tech talent. Amazon's looking for a "business-friendly"  government that will let them trample over workers and regulations–or–it wants a progressive political environment that would never pass a NC/TX-style bathroom bill or AZ "papers please"  law.

But Amazon's not getting all of these things one place.

The civic boosters in Philadelphia are largely hoping that Amazon truly does want all of the conflicting items on its wish list and that the city has just enough of enough of them (location, transit, higher ed., moderate cost of living) to make it a contender. But if the company was to admit, for example, that this is solely an effort to dodge taxes and costs, that would color the search in an entirely different light.

Bruce

It's probably about being less vulnerable to something happening in Seattle. Whether a natural disaster (long overdue earthquakes and volcanoes) or the changing political landscape (where city councilmembers openly call for seizing the Boeing factory) or just being unable to grow further in the Seattle market without risking economic ruin.

It probably also helps that this race to the bottom allows them to reap a lot of benefits out of a new city that doesn't quite know what Amazon will bring with it.
Wikipedia - TravelMapping (100% of WA SRs)

Photos

MikeTheActuary

While I can see geographic diversification/risk mitigation as being a consideration, I've got to believe that the primary motivation for looking for a second home is balancing a desire to concentrate their employees on a common campus versus Seattle becoming too expensive for them to attract enough additional talent.

"Hey, we've tapped out the local supply of labor, and we've made the local real estate too expensive for us to get more people to move here and for us to expand our office space.  Let's see where we can get some cheap real estate and attract more people."



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.