Speaking of this, I wonder if other businesses in Amazon’s selected city will then go to the city council threatening to leave unless they get some concessions on-par with Amazon. The whole “race to the bottom” need not stop yet!
On the other hand, many decisions governments make do not make sense economically. If the US government decided things as a rational business would, it would stop making pennies, nickels and dimes, and would probably replace the one- and five-dollar bills with coins. I’m sure we can come up with lots of other examples.
You mean like this? 
… following personal and corporate tax hikes in January, Caterpillar CEO Doug Oberhelman has threatened take his business out of state.
Last week, Oberhelman sent a letter to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, noting that four states have invited the Peoria-based heavy equipment colossus (Caterpillar employs more than one hundred thousand globally) to relocate, Reuters reports.
Oh, and the following year, workers went on strike at another Caterpillar plant because they had a bit of a problem with the company’s plan to cut their wages by 50% and eliminate their pensions. The company dutifully considered their complaint, and announced that, in view of the workers’ complaint about the wage and pension cut and the strike, Caterpillar was closing the plant and everyone was fired. I wonder how much it cost taxpayers to originally attract that marvelous bit of entrepreneurial job creation? :rolleyes:
I saw why Chicago was attractive for Boeing in 2001, but not for Amazon in 2017 or 2018. Boeing’s move put it in a major media center, near manufacturing, and near major commercial clients. At that time, it also enjoyed a better reputation as a city for doing business and for livability. I don’t see Chicago having a competitive advantage over other cities now, though.
I don’t think Sacramento is such a wacky idea. As you say, proximity to the Bay but without the costs. Sac-town is almost like another suburb of the Bay that’s just a little further away. Cheaper costs of living though.
Chicago has become less livable in the past 15 years? That’s news to me. I’d love to see Amazon move into the Old Main Post Office. It’ll be really neat to see it renovated and cleaned up. Plus, it seems appropriate that it be Amazon who moves into the former mail order capital of the world.
Yeah asahi - I really don’t care if Amazon comes here or not. And I know nothing of their business model/plans, and what they are looking for.
For the past 2-3 decades, downtown Chicago has been booming. Hasn’t been a significant period that the skyline hasn’t been littered with construction cranes. I remember as a kid in the 60s, when the Loop was deserted at night. But since Daley II, the S Loop and outlying neighborhoods have been developed, there has been tons of central residential construction, and public areas have been beautified.
Add in the big market elements (sports, worldclass airport, public transportation, museums/arts), a wonderful lakefront (with essentially unlimited access to fresh water), a huge ring of forest preserves, a compact central area with sprawling neighborhoods/suburbs.
Not denying issues such as crime (in relatively few neighborhoods), public schools, city/state funding/corruption, weather. I’m just wondering what causes you to believe “liveability” has decreased.
My brother in law lives there and has three primary complaints:
1 - Crime/gun murders
2 - Property taxes (his prop taxes as a percentage of house/property value is about 3 or 4 times mine)
3 - Weak housing market
Taxes are high indeed - tho I don’t know how they compare to other big cities. Unless he lives in Austin, Englewood, or a couple other lousy neighborhoods, I doubt he has much to worry about “crime/gun murders.” And I don’t know what you mean by “weak housing market.” Housing was WAY cheaper than places like LA/SF/Seattle/NYC/Boston, but seem to be holding their own/increasing. Unless you overpaid in 07-08. And they keep building new.
But this is beyond the intended scope of the thread. I don’t want to come across as a monster Chicago booster. I’m sure many other big cities are just as nice - likely better in some categories.
Several days ago, I heard an interview with some city official (can’t remember the city) who stated that they know they won’t be picked, but feel like just being recognized as “being in the running” gets their name out there and is good exposure for that city. Perhaps attracting other businesses with criteria not quite the same as Amazon’s. I wonder how common this is.
Boston’s proposal has been released. I haven’t read it too thoroughly, but I didn’t see anything in it about tax breaks or incentives. Maybe that’s to be negotiated later, or was left out of the public release, but it’s interesting.
Weaker recovery and slower growth compared to other major cities.