Totally agree intparent… Amazon is like Tesla in a lot of ways. Spend, Spend, Spend, in hopes that one day, all of that spending will yield a big return on investment, and increased profitability.
Amazon and Tesla are still pretty much “works in progress”, and until Musk and Bezos are satisfied that their companies have matured and become stable, they will continue to invest heavily, which means less money for community endeavors.
If you want to talk about a company that definitely has the means to do more for the community and society in general, let’s talk about Apple… their profits and cash reserves are enormous, yet their growth has remained pretty stagnant.
Cities (and states) want Amazon for reasons that include:
50K high-income workers means lots of tax revenue. At the state level this is usually income tax. At the city level this is usually property tax.
50K high-income workers spend lots of money in their society. This helps the local florists, car dealerships, grocery stores, etc.
As these workers become parents, they will demand high-quality schools, and if they don't get it, they will complain loudly.
Just like shopping centers need anchor tenants that attract other stores, both big and small, an anchor company like Amazon will attract other companies, both big and small.
For Boston in particular, it educates more high-tech workers than any other city, but loses many of them to California, or New York, or Seattle. A company like Amazon will keep more of them local, re-positioning the city as a high-tech center.
I’m not sure this is an unalloyed benefit to the community where Amazon chooses to relocate. Schools are expensive. Many high-end suburban municipalities try to limit the number of kids they need to educate, e.g., by zoning to exclude multi-family housing developments, which tend to generate less in additional tax revenue than they cost in increased expenditures for schools, parks, playgrounds, police and fire protection, etc. Less affluent suburbs and central cities are generally less picky, but they can be swamped by overcrowded classrooms and the need to build more schools and hire more teachers, even as they’re whipsawed between angry parents demanding more and better, and angry empty nesters and the childless who resent paying higher property taxes to support schools that don’t directly benefit them.
I think irrelevant. It has nothing to do with why they are or aren’t in Washington state, where it is now legal. Their HQ was established here before it was legal, so… no idea why it would be a factor. Not even sure which way you would think it would push it. As someone who moved from a state where it wasn’t legal to WA 2 years ago, it is a trivial/non-impact fact of life here. I see signs for places to buy pot. Have smelled in it public (in parks) maybe half a dozen times in two years. I don’t use it, and don’t care if anyone else does. So not sure why it would matter at all.
Betting website Paddy Power puts Atlanta’s odds of landing Amazon’s $5 billion second headquarters or ‘HQ2’ at two-to-one, beating Austin (3-to-1) and Boston (6-to-1).
I bet a decent portion of employees were partaking of marijuana at least occasionally even before it was legal in WA. It’s not uncommon among younger people.
It sure isn’t impacting the growth of Amazon, Facebook, Google, or Expedia in Seattle. The tech boom is just nuts here, and a LOT of the growth is very recent. I don’t think they are looking to leave because their workers are stoned… seriously don’t think it is a factor. I just finished up a 16 month stint with a company here, and not once did I ever think a co-worker was stoned on the job. I remember ONCE someone said something about their ex sitting around their house smoking pot, but it was a derogatory comment. That is literally the only time pot has come into the workplace even in conversation in the past 16 months here in Washington. I really don’t think the tech employers see this as an issue.
I had more problems with this in MN (had a crack addict on my team once).
I had a conversation with a dispensary owner in Aspen a few years back. As he was quick to point out regarding people’s misperceptions, they don’t ask bar owners if they are drunk all the time. Marijuana users that are gainfully employed are no more likely to use during work hours than a person who drinks alcohol is likely to drink on the job. Not much difference between knocking back a few drinks after work and using a little weed. Then some, like me, do neither.
I just went to a seminar on this issue and I assure you that, for safety sensitive jobs, it is a concern. Many companies are no longer drug testing pre-employment except in warehouses and manufacturing plants. There are a lot of differences between pot and alcohol- you can be impaired longer than one would think from smoking pot. I can assure you that what I learned at this conference and in my daily legal reporters indicates that this is a concern. It wouldn’t keep a HQ out of somewhere, but it is something to watch in a non-office setting, for sure.
To change the topic a little bit, I think or hope one good thing that caomes of this is local governments realize how important education is and increase their funding for state universities and public schools. Elite universities are great but their enrollment is puny compared to state u. I need well educated people in numbers.
