Amazon HQ2 selected - and not Boston

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Suffolk Downs Redevelopment

All of this...

Well what were warehouse distribution jobs like before Bezos and Amazon?

Because theoretically higher productivity means more wealth creation which at least creates the potential for more people to benefit.
 
Re: Suffolk Downs Redevelopment

Exactly.




Bezos has more money than some countries yet he cant pay them more, gives them only a 30 min lunch break between slave shifts and it takes 10 monutes to walk across the factory...also the employees have to wear friggin trackers. All they need is some whips and leg shackles. Amazon also uses our tax money to save money shipping their trash with usps because usps does not need to make a profit its federally funded.

For some reason, the large majority of people in this country seem to believe that if the job you do does not require a college degree, or some form of advanced training (ie. being a welder, an electrician, an MRI tech, etc.) then you shouldn't complain about low pay and/or poor working conditions and your job is not one that a career can be made out of. Example, how many of these union nurses that were heavily pushing question 1 spend large sums of money every year on Amazon? How many people pretend to care about CEO and executive pay and corporate profits reaching record highs and yet they continue to shop at the same stores that have crushed local competition and then complain if they have to pay .50 cents more for their toothpaste? Or what always makes me laugh is when people speak so highly of Steve Jobs when in reality the guy was a massive dick that cared little for his employees. Point being is that people pick and choose where they "care" for the working man so long as it isn't a brand they like or a store they like.
 
So you are saying that people primarily just care about themselves. Yup.
 
Re: Suffolk Downs Redevelopment

Well what were warehouse distribution jobs like before Bezos and Amazon?

Because theoretically higher productivity means more wealth creation which at least creates the potential for more people to benefit.

Depends on where the wealth goes, which is typically at the top and none for the bottom.

The fact remains that there are not enough competent execs at the top to run major corporations so corporations overpay their execs to keep them.
 
Re: Suffolk Downs Redevelopment

The fact remains that there are not enough competent execs at the top to run major corporations so corporations overpay their execs to keep them.

No. Not supply and demand. Rather, corporations overpay their execs because execs manipulate the process of benchmarking pay (by cherrypicking peers they can show that they always need a raise)

Manipulating pay in this way was impossible (when unions were strong) and un-lucrative (when top marginal tax rates were high). The decline of unions and top tax rates c.1980 - 1990 suddenly made such pay manipulation possible and "worth it."
 
Re: Suffolk Downs Redevelopment

No. Not supply and demand. Rather, corporations overpay their execs because execs manipulate the process of benchmarking pay (by cherrypicking peers they can show that they always need a raise)

Manipulating pay in this way was impossible (when unions were strong) and un-lucrative (when top marginal tax rates were high). The decline of unions and top tax rates c.1980 - 1990 suddenly made such pay manipulation possible and "worth it."

Tax rates are fake. The federal government always takes about the same percent of national income. Given deductions and exclusions the marginal rates arent apples to apples.

Have you ever evaluated public company CEO comp? I’m likely one of the few on this board to have done so and probably only one to be in the discussion regularly. I can tell you it’s not how it happens. Equity returns tie comp to performance and that’s what big investor want. They are happy to pay if capital returns are high.
 
Re: Suffolk Downs Redevelopment

Equity returns tie comp to performance and that’s what big investor want. They are happy to pay if capital returns are high.

Yep.

So the CEO's job is to provide returns to big investors. Also, an increasing proportion of their compensation is in stock options, which do not land on a company's books as an operating cost the way salaries do. So the CEOs and investors are just engaged in a game where they make each other rich. (I am not disputing this nor offering an alternative; simply stating what is going on).
 
Re: Suffolk Downs Redevelopment

No. Not supply and demand. Rather, corporations overpay their execs because execs manipulate the process of benchmarking pay (by cherrypicking peers they can show that they always need a raise)

That's still supply and demand even if they manipulate the benchmark. Corporation would have no need to give their execs raises if they didn't feel like they cannot replace the exec (should he or she leave the company) with another exec at a lower salary.
 
Re: Suffolk Downs Redevelopment

Depends on where the wealth goes, which is typically at the top and none for the bottom.

The fact remains that there are not enough competent execs at the top to run major corporations so corporations overpay their execs to keep them.


I was thinking all things being equal, such as executive pay, then having more efficient businesses should create more wealth overall. So at least creating the opportunity for more and/or higher paying jobs. So efficient businesses are better than inefficient businesses.

As for competent execs... I just don't believe there is actually a scarcity. Look at how many competent business school grads are being pumped out from the top ten business schools and then extrapolate out 20 years. I agree that "rock star" or self made bootstrapped CEOs are few and far between.

But I would look at ownership (stock) compensation rather than salary as a way to align their interests with the company on longer term basis.

And I look at the concept of the rock star CEO with great skepticism. CEOs at established businesses (like GE for instance) shouldn't have to be anything more than competent and should be relying on the people that work for them.

I could see a 10x or even 20x multiple being justifiable, but the 100x salaries and compensation packages that we see are very rarely justified. Very very few individual people are worth the same as 100 competent people. No way people are really earning $10 million to $100 million salaries based on any real metric of value to the company. And all too often those highly compensated executives are the very ones who are sinking their companies with bad debt and bad decisions.
 
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...on/nReoPvmCbYopv0x94YQYSI/story.html#comments

By Renée Loth GLOBE COLUMNIST NOVEMBER 08, 2018

The most popular governor in America is basking in his 34-point reelection victory, but one key figure rendered a very different verdict on Governor Charlie Baker’s first term this week, and he didn’t even vote here.

That person is Jeff Bezos, who appears to have passed over Greater Boston as Amazon’s second headquarters despite this area’s brainpower, its proximity to an international airport, and its lifestyle amenities — all criteria Bezos cited when Amazon began the search for a host city over a year ago. Now Amazon is said to be eyeing two communities on the outskirts of Manhattan and Washington, D.C., splitting the prize so both can better cope with the transportation and housing impacts of the move.

Transportation and housing: precisely the areas where Boston can’t compete.
contd
 
Yeah, if only we had abundant affordable housing and top-notch transportation infrastructure with lots of spare growth capacity, just like [checks notes] ... New York City...
 
Tim Logan of the Globe takes a tour of Crystal City, and is not impressed.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...perfect-for/D9BgkSPROvGmdRFlcq3VxK/story.html

His takeaway. Crystal City was chosen because 1.) it has 2.1 million sq ft of vacant office space; 2.) rents that are a third of what they would be in Kendall; 3.) single property owner. (When Amazon expanded big in Seattle, they also were dealing with a single property owner, the late Paul Allen).
 
Boring is good for Amazon... the tech workers aren't going to be doing much other than working at Amazon and sleeping anyway.

Really interested to seeing what incentives they got.
 
Yeah, if only we had abundant affordable housing and top-notch transportation infrastructure with lots of spare growth capacity, just like [checks notes] ... New York City...

I'm not an expert on NYC's housing scene by any means, but prices seem to tumble once you get beyond a sensible commutable range from Midtown or Lower Manhattan. Being in Queens helps.

Now of course we also don't know how large the NYC group is going to be. It might not be that much.
 
History has shown time and again that when a metro area grows to depend on limited kinds of industries or companies the time comes when these generators of cash go away or become obsolete, and no one can pick up the pieces. These economic downturns leave behind social upheaval and poverty for many, until a transition to something else, which can take decades. In the meantime population emigration, poor property values and maintenance, abandoned city blocks, death of retail, a dearth of tax revenue, an increase in crime and drugs, degradation of school systems and other public amenities, etc. might go on for decades. Look at Detroit as a recent example. Boston's own frozen economy lasted from before WWI to the sixties. Good luck to those cities that are welcoming Amazon. New York is fortunate in that it's already a behemoth that ordinary people can ill afford. I just hope they know what they're in for. Short term wonder may lead to long term misery. And the day will come with Amazon morphs into something entirely different, just as the phone companies. No loss to Boston, which can continue to diversify its economy and make the metro area affordable again to ordinary people.
 
If they cared about affordable, they would have done Philly or Newark.

You can still pick up a 3 story free-standing home for $90k
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top