MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Efficient Frontier on November 06, 2018, 08:24:08 PM
-
This is the shrewdest crap I’ve seen in a while. Spectacularly calculated. Imagine the amount of data they captured on over a hundred cities nationwide.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-hq2-change-leaves-cities-in-a-bind-1541535732?
To Recap:
1) Amazon announces nationwide search for HQ2
2) Cities offer billions in tax incentives
3) Amazon leveraged those offers to get hundreds of millions in tax benefits from NYC & DC (it’s biggest east coast offices now)
4) Amazon picks NYC & DC
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/amazons-hq2-spectacle-should-be-illegal/575539/
-
The bigger question that needs to be asked by cities that didn't win (are you listening Chicago?) is a simple one:
Why?
DC was the front-runner from Day 1. Bezos' interest in the post made it an almost guarantee.
New York was the shocker. I'd rather have expected that Atlanta, Dallas or maybe Austin might have been the first runner up after New York.
The amazing thing is that Illinois and Chicago got wiped out again. Yes, I know some of the tech companies are taking out more space and adding jobs in Chicago but the impact of those incremental positions is modest compared to what Illinois has lost: Foxconn, a Toyota plant that considered Global 4 near Rochelle but went to Alabama instead and now HQ 2. Illinois spent boatloads of money to keep Sears and, guess what, Sears probably will be gone within a year.
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/amazons-hq2-spectacle-should-be-illegal/575539/
I’d agree that it’s undisciplined bargaining by elected officials that has caused these.
-
The bigger question that needs to be asked by cities that didn't win (are you listening Chicago?) is a simple one:
Why?
DC was the front-runner from Day 1. Bezos' interest in the post made it an almost guarantee.
New York was the shocker. I'd rather have expected that Atlanta, Dallas or maybe Austin might have been the first runner up after New York.
The amazing thing is that Illinois and Chicago got wiped out again. Yes, I know some of the tech companies are taking out more space and adding jobs in Chicago but the impact of those incremental positions is modest compared to what Illinois has lost: Foxconn, a Toyota plant that considered Global 4 near Rochelle but went to Alabama instead and now HQ 2. Illinois spent boatloads of money to keep Sears and, guess what, Sears probably will be gone within a year.
I don’t follow the logic of how the WP has anything to do with the location of HQ2. This was already a major site for Amazon independent of the WP.
Fill in the blank plausibly for me: “Jeff Bezos benefits from having a regional office of his $1T company collocated with the newspaper he owns because ______.”
-
I don’t follow the logic of how the WP has anything to do with the location of HQ2. This was already a major site for Amazon independent of the WP.
Fill in the blank plausibly for me: “Jeff Bezos benefits from having a regional office of his $1T company collocated with the newspaper he owns because ______.”
It is a delicious conspiracy theory that will be thoroughly savored for years.
-
The bigger question that needs to be asked by cities that didn't win (are you listening Chicago?) is a simple one:
Why?
DC was the front-runner from Day 1. Bezos' interest in the post made it an almost guarantee.
New York was the shocker. I'd rather have expected that Atlanta, Dallas or maybe Austin might have been the first runner up after New York.
The amazing thing is that Illinois and Chicago got wiped out again. Yes, I know some of the tech companies are taking out more space and adding jobs in Chicago but the impact of those incremental positions is modest compared to what Illinois has lost: Foxconn, a Toyota plant that considered Global 4 near Rochelle but went to Alabama instead and now HQ 2. Illinois spent boatloads of money to keep Sears and, guess what, Sears probably will be gone within a year.
Yeah I'm sure that Chicagoans/Illinois residents are really broken up about losing foxconn after it's coming out about all the insane concessions Walker made and now Foxconn isn't living up to their end of the bargain (as pretty much anyone with a brain said they would)
-
I don’t follow the logic of how the WP has anything to do with the location of HQ2. This was already a major site for Amazon independent of the WP.
Fill in the blank plausibly for me: “Jeff Bezos benefits from having a regional office of his $1T company collocated with the newspaper he owns because ______.”
Cause it’s his secondary home base after Seattle. He has a home there and spends much time there for WP and governmental influence/meetings.
Of course he is wealthy enough to have homes anywhere, but I’m sure there is appeal to having it where he’s already established
-
Yeah I'm sure that Chicagoans/Illinois residents are really broken up about losing foxconn after it's coming out about all the insane concessions Walker made and now Foxconn isn't living up to their end of the bargain (as pretty much anyone with a brain said they would)
Well, it would have required spending money Illinois doesn't have. But you are missing the larger point. We can debate the merits of Foxconn -- time will tell who is right. But the fact that major corporate investments such as Toyota, HQ2 and Foxconn are looking past the state that should be the economic driver of the Midwest should be disconcerting to Illinoisians.
If Illinois ever expects to break the cycle of poverty and misery that prevails in too many neighborhoods in the state, it's going to take private investment. And that's going to require incentives from the state. It's also going to require an economic and political environment that makes the state attractive to outside interests.
-
Cause it’s his secondary home base after Seattle. He has a home there and spends much time there for WP and governmental influence/meetings.
Of course he is wealthy enough to have homes anywhere, but I’m sure there is appeal to having it where he’s already established
He also has homes in Beverley Hills and Texas, and Amazon is headquartered in Seattle. His job requires him to travel regularly regardless of where he has a house/office.
Unless you’re breaking a story here, I’m not aware of any operational role he has in WP. I believe in an interview recently shared he’s there once a month.
Also this move for offices near DC and in NYC are not relocating Bezos’s Office. He’s still going to be in Seattle.
-
He also has homes in Beverley Hills and Texas, and Amazon is headquartered in Seattle. His job requires him to travel regularly regardless of where he has a house/office.
Unless you’re breaking a story here, I’m not aware of any operational role he has in WP. I believe in an interview recently shared he’s there once a month.
Also this move for offices near DC and in NYC are not relocating Bezos’s Office. He’s still going to be in Seattle.
Read the Wall Street Journal today. They cite the WP as a reason why from the beginning the DC area was thought of as the leader.
-
Well, it would have required spending money Illinois doesn't have. But you are missing the larger point. We can debate the merits of Foxconn -- time will tell who is right. But the fact that major corporate investments such as Toyota, HQ2 and Foxconn are looking past the state that should be the economic driver of the Midwest should be disconcerting to Illinoisians.
It would be troubling if it were true. But it isn't. Illinois continues to get plenty of major corporate investment. To wit:
- In 2017, the Chicago area saw a record 351 corporate relocations and expansions, accounting for $2.2 billion in new investment.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/chicago-with-a-lift-from-ohares-planned-revamp-again-named-best-corporate-relocation-target-2018-03-05
- For five years running, Site Selection magazine has named Chicago the the top metro area in the nation for corporate relocation and investment
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-named-best-corporate-relocation-target/
- McDonalds, ConAgra, GE Healthcare, Caterpillar, Dyson, Aspen Dental, eXP and ADM are among the companies that have chosen Chicago for their corporate HQs in recent years
- Both Google and Apple are looking at Chicago as a location for new corporate facilities
And has been pointed out, Illinois should be thanking its lucky stars Foxconn looked past the state. It's already a trainwreck for Wisconsin, and will continue to be so for decades.
-
It would be troubling if it were true. But it isn't. Illinois continues to get plenty of major corporate investment. To wit:
- McDonalds, ConAgra, GE Healthcare, Caterpillar, Dyson, Aspen Dental, eXP and ADM are among the companies that have chosen Chicago for their corporate HQs in recent years
- Both Google and Apple are looking at Chicago as a location for new corporate facilities
Of the companies you highlighted, more than half moved to Chicago from other cities in IL. Caterpillar from Peoria, ADM from Decatur, McDonalds from the burbs. Same with Beam Suntory. Dyson moved their office, but their US HQ has been in Chicago for 20+ years. Those aren’t wins for Illinois, they are just moving things around. The eXP and Aspen Dental were nice wins, but that was under 500 jobs combined
GE healthcare was good, but that was returning the company to its roots. Google and Apple would be interesting, but it remains to be seen.
-
Of the companies you highlighted, more than half moved to Chicago from other cities in IL. Caterpillar from Peoria, ADM from Decatur, McDonalds from the burbs. Same with Beam Suntory. Dyson moved their office, but their US HQ has been in Chicago for 20+ years. Those aren’t wins for Illinois, they are just moving things around. The eXP and Aspen Dental were nice wins, but that was under 500 jobs combined
GE healthcare was good, but that was returning the company to its roots. Google and Apple would be interesting, but it remains to be seen.
You are making the assumption that those companies would have stayed where they were, but they chose to relocate to Chicago instead of all sorts of other options.
The fact is Chicago remains to be a great place for business for a myriad of reasons. Educated workforce, attractive to young and older employees, transportation, etc. Like many cities it has its problems, but let's not act like its a wasteland.
Really "Chicagoland" and the rest of Illinois are really very different entities.
-
Of the companies you highlighted, more than half moved to Chicago from other cities in IL. Caterpillar from Peoria, ADM from Decatur, McDonalds from the burbs. Same with Beam Suntory. Dyson moved their office, but their US HQ has been in Chicago for 20+ years. Those aren’t wins for Illinois, they are just moving things around. The eXP and Aspen Dental were nice wins, but that was under 500 jobs combined
GE healthcare was good, but that was returning the company to its roots. Google and Apple would be interesting, but it remains to be seen.
But as Sultan already points out, those companies didn't have to remain in Illinois. And if the state's business climate were as awful as some here suggest - and other Midwest states as alluring - they would have left. But for various reasons they all determined that Chicago was their best option.
In 2013, Illinois was HQ for 32 Fortune 500 companies. This year, it's up to 37.
Illinois absolutely has more than its share of challenges, but the facts simply belie the "Illinois sucks for business" narrative that so many here are so eager to push.
-
But as Sultan already points out, those companies didn't have to remain in Illinois. And if the state's business climate were as awful as some here suggest - and other Midwest states as alluring - they would have left. But for various reasons they all determined that Chicago was their best option.
In 2013, Illinois was HQ for 32 Fortune 500 companies. This year, it's up to 37.
Illinois absolutely has more than its share of challenges, but the facts simply belie the "Illinois sucks for business" narrative that so many here are so eager to push.
That’s fair. I don’t think Illinois is particularly great for business, but the benefits of Chicago, it’s draw, and it’s education hub/workforce outweigh that. Especially in comparison to many other places to move within the Midwest
-
I don’t follow the logic of how the WP has anything to do with the location of HQ2. This was already a major site for Amazon independent of the WP.
Fill in the blank plausibly for me: “Jeff Bezos benefits from having a regional office of his $1T company collocated with the newspaper he owns because ______.”
Asked and answered. 10 months ago.
I would take that bet in a heartbeat, but Snacks already beat me to it.
The winner will be one of the three from the DC area. Book it, bank it, and let it draw interest.
Bezos already owns the Post, he just bought a house in DC, and - most significantly - with all the talk in Washington of Amazon being part of an oligopoly (or an outright monopoly) - for which the drums will only beat louder as Amazon grows bigger - Jeffy needs a local base from which to launch his lobbyist defenses.
Amazon's already made their decision. Just like Tesla chose Reno and Foxconn chose SEWI long before they announced their decisions publicly just so they could extract the maximum possible from the state and local governments.
Amazon did it smartly, however... not only do they have 19 other locales they can use as leverage with their top choice, but they also have two neighbors they can really play off of one another.
-
But as Sultan already points out, those companies didn't have to remain in Illinois. And if the state's business climate were as awful as some here suggest - and other Midwest states as alluring - they would have left. But for various reasons they all determined that Chicago was their best option.
In 2013, Illinois was HQ for 32 Fortune 500 companies. This year, it's up to 37.
Illinois absolutely has more than its share of challenges, but the facts simply belie the "Illinois sucks for business" narrative that so many here are so eager to push.
1) Illinois is losing about 80,000 persons, net, annually due to outmigration at a time when the rest of the nation is growing, substantially.
2) Illinois likely will lose two seats in Congress after the 2020 census, probably to Texas and/or Florida.
3) Illinois has a state public pension deficit of between $150 billion and $200 billion and someone will have to pay it off. That excludes the City of Chicago. Business knows that and massive new investments in plant and equipment don't come.
4) It is notable that all of the investments of which you speak are "people" investments that can be moved on a dime (well, maybe a half dollar) to Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte or elsewhere depending on changes in the state's economic environment.
5) Even then, the state had to all but bribe some of these firms to stay. Case in point: Sears Holdings LLC. The initial incentives created at the time of the Hoffman Estates HQ expired a few years back and Sears was back at the trough asking for more and threatening to move. Somebody probably should have told them, "good riddance." Boeing's headquarters came at a high cost
Look, I've lived in Illinois since 1978 and still have a home in the Chicago suburbs. I want nothing more than for the state to do what it should be doing -- driving the Midwestern economy and leading the national economy. My children will be building their careers in the state and I want them to be successful. To do that requires a vibrant and exceptional economy and nothwithstanding the tech boom on the West Side of Chicago, the state's economy is not vibrant. Amazon reinforced that point this morning.
-
1) Illinois is losing about 80,000 persons, net, annually due to outmigration at a time when the rest of the nation is growing, substantially.
2) Illinois likely will lose two seats in Congress after the 2020 census, probably to Texas and/or Florida.
3) Illinois has a state public pension deficit of between $150 billion and $200 billion and someone will have to pay it off. That excludes the City of Chicago. Business knows that and massive new investments in plant and equipment don't come.
4) It is notable that all of the investments of which you speak are "people" investments that can be moved on a dime (well, maybe a half dollar) to Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte or elsewhere depending on changes in the state's economic environment.
5) Even then, the state had to all but bribe some of these firms to stay. Case in point: Sears Holdings LLC. The initial incentives created at the time of the Hoffman Estates HQ expired a few years back and Sears was back at the trough asking for more and threatening to move. Somebody probably should have told them, "good riddance." Boeing's headquarters came at a high cost
Look, I've lived in Illinois since 1978 and still have a home in the Chicago suburbs. I want nothing more than for the state to do what it should be doing -- driving the Midwestern economy and leading the national economy. My children will be building their careers in the state and I want them to be successful. To do that requires a vibrant and exceptional economy and nothwithstanding the tech boom on the West Side of Chicago, the state's economy is not vibrant. Amazon reinforced that point this morning.
Interesting on point #1, didn't know. How does that compare to other similar Midwestern states? Also, what are your thoughts on the impact of Chicago vs. the rest of the state... Isn't the rest of the state the real boat anchor there, when it comes to the exodus of young people? What young person wants to move anywhere other than Chicago?
I have anecdotal thoughts from my own personal experience but just curious to hear from someone more informed.
-
1) Illinois is losing about 80,000 persons, net, annually due to outmigration at a time when the rest of the nation is growing, substantially.
2) Illinois likely will lose two seats in Congress after the 2020 census, probably to Texas and/or Florida.
3) Illinois has a state public pension deficit of between $150 billion and $200 billion and someone will have to pay it off. That excludes the City of Chicago. Business knows that and massive new investments in plant and equipment don't come.
4) It is notable that all of the investments of which you speak are "people" investments that can be moved on a dime (well, maybe a half dollar) to Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte or elsewhere depending on changes in the state's economic environment.
5) Even then, the state had to all but bribe some of these firms to stay. Case in point: Sears Holdings LLC. The initial incentives created at the time of the Hoffman Estates HQ expired a few years back and Sears was back at the trough asking for more and threatening to move. Somebody probably should have told them, "good riddance." Boeing's headquarters came at a high cost
Look, I've lived in Illinois since 1978 and still have a home in the Chicago suburbs. I want nothing more than for the state to do what it should be doing -- driving the Midwestern economy and leading the national economy. My children will be building their careers in the state and I want them to be successful. To do that requires a vibrant and exceptional economy and nothwithstanding the tech boom on the West Side of Chicago, the state's economy is not vibrant. Amazon reinforced that point this morning.
Illinois one of the Big Three Corrupt states along with New Jersey and Louisiana.
Things in Illinois are going to get worse for all the reasons you outlined. Chicago ( excluding south side)and North Shore are great but the headwinds are too much to overcome.
Business will no longer go along with status quo and people in basic industries will continue to exit when opportunities avail themselves.
The toll roads and parking are out of control which makes life expensive for the average Joe.
-
1) Illinois is losing about 80,000 persons, net, annually due to outmigration at a time when the rest of the nation is growing, substantially.
2) Illinois likely will lose two seats in Congress after the 2020 census, probably to Texas and/or Florida.
3) Illinois has a state public pension deficit of between $150 billion and $200 billion and someone will have to pay it off. That excludes the City of Chicago. Business knows that and massive new investments in plant and equipment don't come.
4) It is notable that all of the investments of which you speak are "people" investments that can be moved on a dime (well, maybe a half dollar) to Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte or elsewhere depending on changes in the state's economic environment.
5) Even then, the state had to all but bribe some of these firms to stay. Case in point: Sears Holdings LLC. The initial incentives created at the time of the Hoffman Estates HQ expired a few years back and Sears was back at the trough asking for more and threatening to move. Somebody probably should have told them, "good riddance." Boeing's headquarters came at a high cost
Look, I've lived in Illinois since 1978 and still have a home in the Chicago suburbs. I want nothing more than for the state to do what it should be doing -- driving the Midwestern economy and leading the national economy. My children will be building their careers in the state and I want them to be successful. To do that requires a vibrant and exceptional economy and nothwithstanding the tech boom on the West Side of Chicago, the state's economy is not vibrant. Amazon reinforced that point this morning.
And yet despite all these ills, Chicago is consistently ranked at the top when it comes to places for a corporate HQ and continues to land the corporate investment you insist it needs to solve the state's poverty. That's the point you can't seem to get. Yes, Illinois has problems. And it's still not the wasteland you wish to pretend it is.
Fact check ....
- Illinois is not losing 80,000 residents a year. In fact, it loss less than half that in 2016 (the last available data).
- No, not every other state is growing. In fact, at least eight other states saw population declines in 2016.
- No, Illinois is not likely to lose two seats in Congress. Alabama, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia also are projected to lose seats.
It's weird that you previously said states need to offer incentives to land corporate investment, recognize that companies like Amazon and Foxconn are receiving huge incentives elsewhere, and then argue that Illinois' offering of incentives is a sign of economic weakness.
Make up your mind, already.
And in a similarly contradictory stance, you argue that Amazon not choosing Chicago is a result of the state's lack of economic vibrancy.
Then what what does it say about the economies of Texas (Austin and Dallas rejected), Florida (Miami), Colorado (Denver), Georgia (Atlanta), Indiana (Indianapolis) and the 14 other states that didn't land Amazon?
(I can answer it for you ... a state's economic vibrancy had little to nothing to do with Amazon's decision. New York and Virginia aren't exactly the most thriving economies in the nation.
-
Illinois might be in for a world of hurt, but its certainly not on account of their unwillingness to win a race to the bottom for the right to hand Amazon free money.
-
What young person wants to move anywhere other than Chicago?
Both of my kids grew up in the greater Chicago area, and both wanted to stay in Milwaukee after graduation. My daughter managed to do it; my son couldn't for career reasons and is moving to the Left Coast.
My daughter loves the fact that her apartment is half of what it would cost in a similar Chicago neighborhood. She can get anywhere she wants in less than a half hour, and she has easy access to great restaurants, cultural events and pro sports.
Oh, yeah, and Marquette basketball.
-
Both of my kids grew up in the greater Chicago area, and both wanted to stay in Milwaukee after graduation. My daughter managed to do it; my son couldn't for career reasons and is moving to the Left Coast.
My daughter loves the fact that her apartment is half of what it would cost in a similar Chicago neighborhood. She can get anywhere she wants in less than a half hour, and she has easy access to great restaurants, cultural events and pro sports.
Oh, yeah, and Marquette basketball.
After Marquette, I lived/worked in chicago for 8 years. I then went to grad school in Indy and have stayed since for all the reasons stated above.
-
Illinois one of the Big Three Corrupt states along with New Jersey and Louisiana.
Things in Illinois are going to get worse for all the reasons you outlined. Chicago ( excluding south side)and North Shore are great but the headwinds are too much to overcome.
Business will no longer go along with status quo and people in basic industries will continue to exit when opportunities avail themselves.
The toll roads and parking are out of control which makes life expensive for the average Joe.
You know what else is tough for average Joe? Taking away their retirement (pensions)
-
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel says he is not sorry the city and the state of Illinois didn't offer Amazon more than $2.25 billion to bring its second headquarters to the city.
Amazon announced Tuesday it will divide its second North American headquarters between Crystal City, Virginia and the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens, New York.
Emanuel acknowledged subsidies are part of the reason Chicago lost the Amazon sweepstakes.
He says the right way to incentivize a company to move to a city isn't through just money. He says it is also through a 21st century airport, 21st century mass transit, a 21st century workforce with a university system to back it up.
Emanuel said Amazon's reasoning was outlined during a phone conversation he had Tuesday morning. The mayor didn't say who he talked to, nor did he give details on what he was told.
Work continued Tuesday afternoon on one of the sites considered as a possible second headquarters for Amazon as the city acknowledges that the tech giant won’t be setting up shop in Chicago.
"You cant win if you don’t compete and you are not guaranteed, just because you compete, that you are going to win," Mayor Rahm Emanuel said. "What I do know is that we have won more than any other city for the last five years."
The William Shatner narrated video was part of the Chicago bid, which also included incentives and locations like the main post office, the old Finkl Steel property, the former Michael Reese hospital site and a vacant parcel at Roosevelt and Clark.
The winning bidders, promised big incentives, are reportedly $1.5 billion in New York and almost $600 million in Virginia.
Chicago and Illinois also reportedly offered up to $2 billion dollars to draw Amazon along with already planned airport improvements and a university fed talent pool that has made the city number one in corporate relocations five years running.
"I have been on the phone and I have been moving our staff because we have four companies, as you guy know we have a card, four companies that we have been targeting," Emanuel said. "We have been on the phone and in the next two to three months you will see the product and the success of that strategy."
In the meantime, the city says its fundamentals remain strong and companies continue to develop projects like the post office to attract other businesses to Chicago.
"We fully expect to be installing tenants by as early as January of 2019," Brian Whiting of the Telos Group said in September 2017.
-
Both of my kids grew up in the greater Chicago area, and both wanted to stay in Milwaukee after graduation. My daughter managed to do it; my son couldn't for career reasons and is moving to the Left Coast.
My daughter loves the fact that her apartment is half of what it would cost in a similar Chicago neighborhood. She can get anywhere she wants in less than a half hour, and she has easy access to great restaurants, cultural events and pro sports.
Oh, yeah, and Marquette basketball.
I guess when you pull that line out of context, it's possible to then answer an entirely different question.
I meant, what kid in Illinois would decide to move/live anywhere other than Chicago, if they wanted to stay in-state? That was the context of the conversation.
I have no affiliation to Chicago. I worked there for a few months but never lived there. I'm from CA.
-
Interesting on point #1, didn't know. How does that compare to other similar Midwestern states? Also, what are your thoughts on the impact of Chicago vs. the rest of the state... Isn't the rest of the state the real boat anchor there, when it comes to the exodus of young people? What young person wants to move anywhere other than Chicago?
I have anecdotal thoughts from my own personal experience but just curious to hear from someone more informed.
I have lived in both the downstate and Chicago. I spent four years in the Illinois Quad Cities and my children attend school in Carbondale. There are pluses and minues to the downstate. The pluses are it is cheap to live in, the transportation lines are generally very good and a recent study by the Paul Simon Institute (I believe) at SIU determined that the downstate gets more back in taxes than it pays. Parts of the downstate, especially along the Mississppi River and south of Interstate 64 (in the Shawnee National Forest) are beautiful. And, there are places that are quite historical down there.
Plus, once you get about 150 miles south of Chicago, it becomes decidedly more Cardinal than Cub!
The minuses are that no matter how hard you try, you're always second fiddle to Chicago. Agriculture, which is a mainstay of the Downstate economy, gets the short shrift. It's also kinda boring at times to live there (especially in the winter). And forgodssake, it is f-l-a-t!
At issue is the same one for the downstate as Chicago. When it comes to capital investment, meaning basic industry that's capital intensive, there will be an aversion to invest in Illinois, especially the downstate, until the state gets its economic house in order. The downstate will hurt far more than Chicago because it lacks many of Chicago advantages. Toyota made that clear when it passed on the Global 4/Rochelle site for new auto plant in favor of Alabama.
-
You know what else is tough for average Joe? Taking away their retirement (pensions)
Average Joe no longer has a pension. Average Joe’s grandfather did, because they set up a nice little scheme to make Joe pay for it. Now there’s nothing left.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dr9attiX0AEQD8I.jpg)
-
Average Joe no longer has a pension. Average Joe’s grandfather did, because they set up a nice little scheme to make Joe pay for it. Now there’s nothing left.
Same will happen with Social Security. Three people pay in now, used to be 20. The math doesn't work without another government bail out or big changes to the rules (taking retirement later, taxing higher, combination).
-
Same will happen with Social Security. Three people pay in now, used to be 20. The math doesn't work without another government bail out or big changes to the rules (taking retirement later, taxing higher, combination).
Social Security will be fine. It's an easy fix. Just play with the retirement age, the caps, etc. I don't call those "big changes." They've happened before and will happen again.
-
Social Security will be fine. It's an easy fix. Just play with the retirement age, the caps, etc. I don't call those "big changes." They've happened before and will happen again.
The easiest and most logical fix is a sizeable hike in the maximum taxable earnings cap. That would pour potentially hundreds of billions more into the Social Security fund each year. That and a small hike in the retirement wage would do it.
Of course, that's not especially popular with some in Washington who shiver with the thought of the wealthy paying more taxes.
-
Social Security will be fine. It's an easy fix. Just play with the retirement age, the caps, etc. I don't call those "big changes." They've happened before and will happen again.
Yup, this is a fun exercise: http://socialsecuritygame.actuary.org/
-
Yup, this is a fun exercise: http://socialsecuritygame.actuary.org/
Yep. Raise the maximum taxable...lower the benefits for the wealthy...raise the retirement age by a year. It's fully funded.
-
Yup, this is a fun exercise: http://socialsecuritygame.actuary.org/
Well that was an easy fix. One decision (no limits on income; no change in benefits) fixes 88% of the problem.
-
Social Security will be fine. It's an easy fix. Just play with the retirement age, the caps, etc. I don't call those "big changes." They've happened before and will happen again.
Raising the age is problematic IMO. There are still jobs out there--construction, utility workers, HVAC, agricultural-- where not only is it physically very difficult to work past age 67, it is also unsafe in many instances.
-
Raising the age is problematic IMO. There are still jobs out there--construction, utility workers, HVAC, agricultural-- where not only is it physically very difficult to work past age 67, it is also unsafe in many instances.
A 66-year-old who worked construction or HVAC his entire life sounds like the perfect person to work a nice safe job at Home Depot. There's no law that says that everyone has to have the same job their entire life. People make career changes all the time for a variety of reasons.
Back when Social Security was started in 1935, the average life expectancy was 61. Now it's about 72. There is a legitimate argument to be had that they should push it even further back than 67.
-
Raising the age is problematic IMO. There are still jobs out there--construction, utility workers, HVAC, agricultural-- where not only is it physically very difficult to work past age 67, it is also unsafe in many instances.
Wouldn't that then be a worker's comp or disability issue?
-
Raising the age is problematic IMO. There are still jobs out there--construction, utility workers, HVAC, agricultural-- where not only is it physically very difficult to work past age 67, it is also unsafe in many instances.
Workers should only plan for Social Security to supplement retirement. One could retire at 60 and fully fund their own retirement until collect SS benefits at 70.
-
Wouldn't that then be a worker's comp or disability issue?
Worker's comp is for injuries suffered on the job that prevent a person from working.
Disability is for injuries suffered away from the job that prevent a person from working.
Getting old doesn't really qualify in either instance.
-
Workers should only plan for Social Security to supplement retirement.
People should do a lot of things.
-
Worker's comp is for injuries suffered on the job that prevent a person from working.
Disability is for injuries suffered away from the job that prevent a person from working.
Getting old doesn't really qualify in either instance.
Thanks for the Google, but like a good lawyer, you successfully dodged the question in doing so.
Put age aside for a moment.... if a person's condition has deteriorated such that it would be deemed unsafe for him/her to continue the work, how does that not qualify as either worker's comp (i.e. condition is a result of the work) or disability (i.e. condition is not the result of work)? [Let's assume here that the person didn't bring about the injury by leisure activities, e.g. smoking, motorcycle or personal watercraft collisions, tanning beds & hyperbaric chambers, etc.]
-
Thanks for the Google, but like a good lawyer, you successfully dodged the question in doing so.
Put age aside for a moment.... if a person's condition has deteriorated such that it would be deemed unsafe for him/her to continue the work, how does that not qualify as either worker's comp (i.e. condition is a result of the work) or disability (i.e. condition is not the result of work)? [Let's assume here that the person didn't bring about the injury by leisure activities, e.g. smoking, motorcycle or personal watercraft collisions, tanning beds & hyperbaric chambers, etc.]
I'm not sure how much more simple I can make this. The natural aging process is not considered an injury, therefore getting old does not qualify one for worker's comp or disability.
If you're suggesting that the person's condition has deteriorated as a result of something like a repetitive motion (such as a jackhammer operator or a typist who suffers carpal tunnel), then that's an injury that might qualify for worker's comp.
But getting too old to do the work? Nope.
-
I'm not sure how much more simple I can make this. The natural aging process is not considered an injury, therefore getting old does not qualify one for worker's comp or disability.
If you're suggesting that the person's condition has deteriorated as a result of something like a repetitive motion (such as a jackhammer operator or a typist who suffers carpal tunnel), then that's an injury that might qualify for worker's comp.
But getting too old to do the work? Nope.
Those are occupational injuries and are absolutely covered by work comp. Hearing loss is a big one too.
-
Back when Social Security was started in 1935, the average life expectancy was 61. Now it's about 72. There is a legitimate argument to be had that they should push it even further back than 67.
10% of people died by age 10 in 1935 too.
-
A 66-year-old who worked construction or HVAC his entire life sounds like the perfect person to work a nice safe job at Home Depot. There's no law that says that everyone has to have the same job their entire life. People make career changes all the time for a variety of reasons.
Back when Social Security was started in 1935, the average life expectancy was 61. Now it's about 72. There is a legitimate argument to be had that they should push it even further back than 67.
But say a career construction worker can no longer lift whatever weights he needs to and has to quit at 60, 7 years working at Home Depot for minimum wage will knock down that SS check just a bit at the point in his life most are seeing their highest paying years. Disability (SSDI) doesn't pay nearly enough and an employer's LTD policy likely will cease to pay anything after 2-3 years depending on the policy's language (let alone it doesn't usually pay more than 60-65% of pre-disability earnings.)
-
10% of people died by age 10 in 1935 too.
Fine. Someone who lived to thirty only lived, on average, another 34.5 years, so they still had less than a 50% chance of collecting Social Security retirement benefits.
-
But say a career construction worker can no longer lift whatever weights he needs to and has to quit at 60, 7 years working at Home Depot for minimum wage will knock down that SS check just a bit at the point in his life most are seeing their highest paying years. Disability (SSDI) doesn't pay nearly enough and an employer's LTD policy likely will cease to pay anything after 2-3 years depending on the policy's language (let alone it doesn't usually pay more than 60-65% of pre-disability earnings.)
TSmith was argument was in response to raising the retirement age from 65 to 67. The guy who is washed up at 60 is already effed in your scenario.
Also, that can be true for any job. If I lose mental acuity as I age and can't do my finance job any more, it's as much of a detriment to my working years as a construction worker who can't lift a 100-lb load of shingles. Fortunately, those things happen gradually, and you should be able to plan for it.
-
Fine. Someone who lived to thirty only lived, on average, another 34.5 years, so they still had less than a 50% chance of collecting Social Security retirement benefits.
A better way of looking at it is this. Those living to 65 then, on average lived another 13 years (for men) and 15 years (for women). Those living to 67 now, on average live another 16 years (for men) and 18 years (for women).
There isn't a huge difference in years after retirement.
The problem is fewer people being born, so fewer young people paying in, and starting careers later in life because of college/higher ed.
-
Workers should only plan for Social Security to supplement retirement. One could retire at 60 and fully fund their own retirement until collect SS benefits at 70.
Agreed, SS was designed to be one leg in a three-legged stool. Unfortunately one leg, employer-sponsored retirement plans, has been basically sawed in half, and flat real wages since the 70's has seriously impeded another leg. People should save more, but it is not easy if you are at or below median household income.
-
TSmith was argument was in response to raising the retirement age from 65 to 67. The guy who is washed up at 60 is already effed in your scenario.
Normal retirement age is already 67, so we're talking here about moving it to 69 or 70. Productivity generally drops significantly at these ages.
If were are trying to solve the SS deficit, there are a whole lot easier methods, as seen on the game link previously in this thread, than asking people to work into real old age.
-
TSmith was argument was in response to raising the retirement age from 65 to 67. The guy who is washed up at 60 is already effed in your scenario.
Also, that can be true for any job. If I lose mental acuity as I age and can't do my finance job any more, it's as much of a detriment to my working years as a construction worker who can't lift a 100-lb load of shingles. Fortunately, those things happen gradually, and you should be able to plan for it.
I wonder what the numbers of broken down physical laborers vs. accountants with early onset look like lol
-
A 66-year-old who worked construction or HVAC his entire life sounds like the perfect person to work a nice safe job at Home Depot. There's no law that says that everyone has to have the same job their entire life. People make career changes all the time for a variety of reasons.
Back when Social Security was started in 1935, the average life expectancy was 61. Now it's about 72. There is a legitimate argument to be had that they should push it even further back than 67.
Isn't it closer to 79? (only adds to your argument) .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/united-states-drops-21-places-global-life-expectancy-rankings-180970585/
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/life-expectancy-by-gender/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
-
Crean sucked back in 1935 two, hey?
-
Yep. Raise the maximum taxable...lower the benefits for the wealthy...raise the retirement age by a year. It's fully funded.
On paper, yes. Not how it will happen, of course.
-
On paper, yes. Not how it will happen, of course.
No kidding.
-
Social Security will be fine. It's an easy fix. Just play with the retirement age, the caps, etc. I don't call those "big changes." They've happened before and will happen again.
I have an idea. The federal government borrows Social Security funds for general budgetary needs, repaying it to SSA at a very low return ( around 1.25%). I understand that politicians will not give up that cash easily. If that money were invested by the State of Wisconsin Investment Board, or any other reputable institutional investor, wouldn't we all be better off. Long term investment plan returns of 4-5% is not unreasonable.
Thoughts? I've always wondered why this isn't discussed.
-
I have an idea. The federal government borrows Social Security funds for general budgetary needs, repaying it to SSA at a very low return ( around 1.25%). I understand that politicians will not give up that cash easily. If that money were invested by the State of Wisconsin Investment Board, or any other reputable institutional investor, wouldn't we all be better off. Long term investment plan returns of 4-5% is not unreasonable.
Thoughts? I've always wondered why this isn't discussed.
You do realize that is essentially already how it works. The SS trust makes about 3.1% in interest each year as part of its revenue. The problem is that interest is largely due to government bonds.
The reason, is that congress has pilfered the trust to fund their massive budget shortfalls, where they sell US treasury bonds to the Trust so that they are not simply raiding it.
So the Trust really has very little if any actual value, it is solely dependent on the US government paying its debt.
-
I understand this.
My question is, why not use a reputable pension asset manager to improve investment returns?
A return of 5% is a significant improvement over 3.1%.
-
I understand this.
My question is, why not use a reputable pension asset manager to improve investment returns?
A return of 5% is a significant improvement over 3.1%.
Because there is no money there. The government would first have to front nearly $3T in cash to buy back all the bonds. Where are they going to find buyers?
If they then invest that in the US-stock market, the US government would then be a 10% stakeholder in the total US market. That would create some conflicts regarding us being a capitalist system. If they invested it across the board, the US government would be a 10% owner of every single company traded in the US.
-
I'm not sure how much more simple I can make this. The natural aging process is not considered an injury, therefore getting old does not qualify one for worker's comp or disability.
If you're suggesting that the person's condition has deteriorated as a result of something like a repetitive motion (such as a jackhammer operator or a typist who suffers carpal tunnel), then that's an injury that might qualify for worker's comp.
But getting too old to do the work? Nope.
Again, not what I was asking. I appreciate your persistance though.
What I’m trying to hypothesize here is that if you’re 67 and can’t work particular job, you’d probably qualify for disability or worker’s comp if someone who’s 67 - who hasn’t otherwise made materially adverse choices with their health/well-being - should be able to work that job.
-
Again, not what I was asking. I appreciate your persistance though.
What I’m trying to hypothesize here is that if you’re 67 and can’t work particular job, you’d probably qualify for disability or worker’s comp if someone who’s 67 - who hasn’t otherwise made materially adverse choices with their health/well-being - should be able to work that job.
Your hypothesis is wrong.
-
I'd like to know what would happen if they increased the amount of the SS & Medicare tax, the amount that goes to prop up these programs, how much money would then come out of the economy because it is no longer disposable to the taxpayer. What impact would that have of removing that money from the system by parking it into these programs. Anyone know if such an impact study has been done?
-
I'd like to know what would happen if they increased the amount of the SS & Medicare tax, the amount that goes to prop up these programs, how much money would then come out of the economy because it is no longer disposable to the taxpayer. What impact would that have of removing that money from the system by parking it into these programs. Anyone know if such an impact study has been done?
Money that goes to government is not "removed" from the economy. It goes to the government, which in turn spends it same as anyone else (such as with Medicare, to pay hospitals and medical providers).A dollar spent by the Dept of Education or Defense is worth no more or less than a dollar spent by me or you.
You could make the case - successfully in many instances - that money is spent more efficiently by private interests rather than the public sector, but it's not as if it vanishes into a black hole.
-
Your hypothesis is wrong.
I'm with Pakuni on this one.
It's not workers' comp because there is no injury or illness arising out of the course of the employment. And, a 67 year old who isn't able to perform a "particular job" is not disabled. Growing old is not a disability. If they have a specific condition that prevents them from performing a wide variety of jobs, they might be disabled. But not if they just can't do things any longer because of the natural aging process.
One exception, however, would be that if they have purchased "same occupation" disability insurance that pays if they're unable to keep doing the same job -- but still would probably need to be because of a specific medical condition, not just age. Such insurance tends to be pretty expensive, and I suspect might not even be available to 67 year old (particularly in a physically demanding position).
-
I'd like to know what would happen if they increased the amount of the SS & Medicare tax, the amount that goes to prop up these programs, how much money would then come out of the economy because it is no longer disposable to the taxpayer. What impact would that have of removing that money from the system by parking it into these programs. Anyone know if such an impact study has been done?
Oh good, ChicosBothSides has weighed in with his loaded "just askin'" shtick. Might as well lock the thread now.
-
Because there is no money there. The government would first have to front nearly $3T in cash to buy back all the bonds. Where are they going to find buyers?
If they then invest that in the US-stock market, the US government would then be a 10% stakeholder in the total US market. That would create some conflicts regarding us being a capitalist system. If they invested it across the board, the US government would be a 10% owner of every single company traded in the US.
The US Govt is not the investor, just like the St of WI is not the investor. Hire an independent organization like SWIB, to execute the plan. You couldn't flip a switch and buy all the bonds. This is a long term plan, executed over many years. We are getting diddly squat in return. Most estimates of returns are not close to the 10 year Treasury. The TSP, a Federal Govt equivalent of the 401(K), is invested in an age based program. Why not move to that type of system?
-
Because there is no money there. The government would first have to front nearly $3T in cash to buy back all the bonds. Where are they going to find buyers?
If they then invest that in the US-stock market, the US government would then be a 10% stakeholder in the total US market. That would create some conflicts regarding us being a capitalist system. If they invested it across the board, the US government would be a 10% owner of every single company traded in the US.
The Reagan and Bush administrations proposed this as an option.
All I need is for my company to be 10% or more owned by the federal government. Boy, would that be fun. NOT!!!!!!!!! I do not want to think of the pressures that any private entity would face.
Think of it -- shareholder price or CEO pay? What do you think the federal government would focus on?
-
I'm with Pakuni on this one.
It's not workers' comp because there is no injury or illness arising out of the course of the employment. And, a 67 year old who isn't able to perform a "particular job" is not disabled. Growing old is not a disability. If they have a specific condition that prevents them from performing a wide variety of jobs, they might be disabled. But not if they just can't do things any longer because of the natural aging process.
One exception, however, would be that if they have purchased "same occupation" disability insurance that pays if they're unable to keep doing the same job -- but still would probably need to be because of a specific medical condition, not just age. Such insurance tends to be pretty expensive, and I suspect might not even be available to 67 year old (particularly in a physically demanding position).
Wrong.
https://blog.safetyculture.com/industry-trends/types-of-injuries-and-workplace-illnesses-that-qualify-for-workers-comp (https://blog.safetyculture.com/industry-trends/types-of-injuries-and-workplace-illnesses-that-qualify-for-workers-comp)
Occupational injuries are absolutely covered by work comp. Hearing loss, asbestos & related illness, repetitive strain, etc all can be acquired in the course and scope of employment. Don't need an occurrence to trigger work comp. Obviously, the insurance company is going to investigate, possibly use surveillance, get an independent medical examination, etc., (a lot of it depends on the state laws). A lot of the ALJs that hear work comp claims are very sympathetic to the employee side, so the burden of proof is further on the insurance company, for what is, in reality, a no-fault insurance coverage.
-
Wrong.
https://blog.safetyculture.com/industry-trends/types-of-injuries-and-workplace-illnesses-that-qualify-for-workers-comp (https://blog.safetyculture.com/industry-trends/types-of-injuries-and-workplace-illnesses-that-qualify-for-workers-comp)
Occupational injuries are absolutely covered by work comp. Hearing loss, asbestos & related illness, repetitive strain, etc all can be acquired in the course and scope of employment. Don't need an occurrence to trigger work comp. Obviously, the insurance company is going to investigate, possibly use surveillance, get an independent medical examination, etc., (a lot of it depends on the state laws). A lot of the ALJs that hear work comp claims are very sympathetic to the employee side, so the burden of proof is further on the insurance company, for what is, in reality, a no-fault insurance coverage.
Nothing I said was wrong. Frankly, nothing I said was inconsistent with what you wrote. If there is an illness or injury arising out of work, then workers’ comp is in play. That’s literally in the first sentence of my post.
-
Nothing I said was wrong. Frankly, nothing I said was inconsistent with what you wrote. If there is an illness or injury arising out of work, then workers’ comp is in play. That’s literally in the first sentence of my post.
Fair play.
-
Wrong.
https://blog.safetyculture.com/industry-trends/types-of-injuries-and-workplace-illnesses-that-qualify-for-workers-comp (https://blog.safetyculture.com/industry-trends/types-of-injuries-and-workplace-illnesses-that-qualify-for-workers-comp)
Occupational injuries are absolutely covered by work comp. Hearing loss, asbestos & related illness, repetitive strain, etc all can be acquired in the course and scope of employment. Don't need an occurrence to trigger work comp. Obviously, the insurance company is going to investigate, possibly use surveillance, get an independent medical examination, etc., (a lot of it depends on the state laws). A lot of the ALJs that hear work comp claims are very sympathetic to the employee side, so the burden of proof is further on the insurance company, for what is, in reality, a no-fault insurance coverage.
Nothing I said was wrong. Frankly, nothing I said was inconsistent with what you wrote. If there is an illness or injury arising out of work, then workers’ comp is in play. That’s literally in the first sentence of my post.
ZFB is just upset. His ongoing legal struggle with Visions over his "mop wrist" hasn't been going well.
-
https://deadspin.com/amazons-ransom-vs-stadium-deals-which-is-worse-1830467603
-
Money that goes to government is not "removed" from the economy. It goes to the government, which in turn spends it same as anyone else (such as with Medicare, to pay hospitals and medical providers).A dollar spent by the Dept of Education or Defense is worth no more or less than a dollar spent by me or you.
You could make the case - successfully in many instances - that money is spent more efficiently by private interests rather than the public sector, but it's not as if it vanishes into a black hole.
Money that goes to the government in part is removed. Used to pay for things like interest on the debt. Not all of it, not even most of it, but it isn't always spent back into the economy.
-
Oh good, ChicosBothSides has weighed in with his loaded "just askin'" shtick. Might as well lock the thread now.
You have been wrong since the start, don't stop now.
-
Money that goes to the government in part is removed. Used to pay for things like interest on the debt. Not all of it, not even most of it, but it isn't always spent back into the economy.
Who receives that interest and what is done with it?
(Hint: Banks, investors, pension systems, the Treasury, etc., which recirculate it back into the economy).
-
I haven't been following this thread, but I assume this is relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/v/rTb3GR6yrQI
-
Who receives that interest and what is done with it?
(Hint: Banks, investors, pension systems, the Treasury, etc., which recirculate it back into the economy).
Some of which are stagnate, some are which are put back into the economy. There is also the psychology of consumer spending. Consumers drive a significant chunk of the economy, which was really the purpose of my original question. Taxes can be a suppressor to spend money. See taxes on cigarettes as an example. Taxes are usually a good thing, if not over done. If a consumer feels they are being squeezed too much, they tighten their belt, and main street may suffer even if the money in the background is doing what you say it does all the time.
The influx of those dollars into the economy are different. Consumer spending vs government, business spending is different, would you not agree?
-
Both of my kids grew up in the greater Chicago area, and both wanted to stay in Milwaukee after graduation. My daughter managed to do it; my son couldn't for career reasons and is moving to the Left Coast.
My daughter loves the fact that her apartment is half of what it would cost in a similar Chicago neighborhood. She can get anywhere she wants in less than a half hour, and she has easy access to great restaurants, cultural events and pro sports.
Oh, yeah, and Marquette basketball.
It is a great when your kids have things figured out at a young age. She is going to be very successful at whatever she does.
-
Some of which are stagnate, some are which are put back into the economy. There is also the psychology of consumer spending. Consumers drive a significant chunk of the economy, which was really the purpose of my original question. Taxes can be a suppressor to spend money. See taxes on cigarettes as an example. Taxes are usually a good thing, if not over done. If a consumer feels they are being squeezed too much, they tighten their belt, and main street may suffer even if the money in the background is doing what you say it does all the time.
The influx of those dollars into the economy are different. Consumer spending vs government, business spending is different, would you not agree?
ChicosBothSides is suffering a remission, and ChicosSupplySide is resurgent. Can't help yourself, I know.
-
Some of which are stagnate, some are which are put back into the economy. There is also the psychology of consumer spending. Consumers drive a significant chunk of the economy, which was really the purpose of my original question. Taxes can be a suppressor to spend money. See taxes on cigarettes as an example. Taxes are usually a good thing, if not over done. If a consumer feels they are being squeezed too much, they tighten their belt, and main street may suffer even if the money in the background is doing what you say it does all the time.
The influx of those dollars into the economy are different. Consumer spending vs government, business spending is different, would you not agree?
This kind of goalpost shifting is might reminiscent of another guy who used to post around these parts.
Anyhow ...
1. All of which goes back into the economy. America's debt holders don't take their interest payments in cash, stuff it in mason jars and bury it in their backyards. They reinvest it. Or make it available to other borrowers. Or, in the case of institutional investors like pensions, pay off their own obligations. The money, as you said, is not removed from the economy.
2. Yes. consumers drive a significant chunk of the economy. So does the government. What's your point?
3. No, the influx of dollars from consumers, government or business is not different. A dollar is a dollar. A dollar paid a hospital from Medicare is no different than one from an insurance company, which is no different than one from an individual's checkbook. The only difference is in efficiency. The dollar is more efficiently spent going directly from patient to doctor than through the entire Medicare system first. But there are obvious reasons why that's not possible for a massive percentage of our seniors.
-
A dollar paid a hospital from Medicare is no different than one from an insurance company, which is no different than one from an individual's checkbook. The only difference is in efficiency. The dollar is more efficiently spent going directly from patient to doctor than through the entire Medicare system first. But there are obvious reasons why that's not possible for a massive percentage of our seniors.
Exactly. Which is both the argument for and against privatization.
Take away the direct payment for a moment, a dollar via private insurance vs. a dollar via Medicare both have the same efficiency hurdle in that there's a cost to administer. But the Medicare dollar should be more efficient because of a) scale and b) lack of a scrape (i.e. profit to the administrator). In simple terms - actual costs being equal - Medicare should be more efficient than private insurance, simply because there's no one taking a profit.
Unfortunately, our wonderful bureaucrats have bastardized the process such that government has been less efficient than the private sector in certain areas, which has opened the door to privatization which has a tendency to be less efficient than the government once entrenched. But the fact remains that in most instances, gov't can be more efficient than the private sector.
-
Amazon tells New York, we're scrapping it. No more HQ2 in New York.
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-cancels-new-york-hq2-2019-2
-
Amazon tells New York, we're scrapping it. No more HQ2 in New York.
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-cancels-new-york-hq2-2019-2
I believe that makes metro DC the undisputed winner, does it not?
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=55388.msg981500#msg981500
Not sure if there's a statute of limitations here, but it looks like I'm going to be retroactively collecting on a few lunch bets around the office from people who told me "You didn't say DC and NYC... you lose."
-
Is that like saying you got FoxConn'ed? Which works on so many levels.
-
I believe that makes metro DC the undisputed winner, does it not?
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=55388.msg981500#msg981500
Not sure if there's a statute of limitations here, but it looks like I'm going to be retroactively collecting on a few lunch bets around the office from people who told me "You didn't say DC and NYC... you lose."
Sure looks like some local and state officials eating their own. The backlash will be interesting to watch.
-
Amazon looks petty in this.
So do the politicians.
-
So the thinking here is that this is a win cause that $3B should have went to fund education and the subway...yet they weren't doing that before Amazon came along anyways. And LOL thinking subsidies are just a bag of money they reach into that can now be reached into and just handed off to something else.
I don't know if Amazon was the right play for NYC all along, or if NY would have done well with incremental tax revenue. But I do know that the people celebrating this as a victory over evil capitalism and an evil billionaire have little idea how everything works and their joy is more punitive than it is progressive and strategic.
-
So the thinking here is that this is a win cause that $3B should have went to fund education and the subway...yet they weren't doing that before Amazon came along anyways. And LOL thinking subsidies are just a bag of money they reach into that can now be reached into and just handed off to something else.
I don't know if Amazon was the right play for NYC all along, or if NY would have done well with incremental tax revenue. But I do know that the people celebrating this as a victory over evil capitalism and an evil billionaire have little idea how everything works and their joy is more punitive than it is progressive and strategic.
Eating their own
-
I believe that makes metro DC the undisputed winner, does it not?
Noooottt entirely.
Metro Nashville came out very well and could well pick up incremental benefit from no HQ2 in Long Island City, Queens.
I'm sure Metro Mayor David Briley is sending his Valentine's Day roses to AOC!!!!
-
It's hilarious to me how rabid capitalists on here simultaneously want the government (federal/state/local) to be in the business of choosing which companies to artificially prop up. Don't let inherently contradictory beliefs stand in your way...
Bezos can afford to build the next Amazon base on the moon. He doesn't need help. Perhaps there are more important causes to focus on.
-
They're going to Stamford, CT.
-
They're going to Stamford, CT.
That would be crazy if true. A shot in the arm we need right now.
-
It's hilarious to me how rabid capitalists on here simultaneously want the government (federal/state/local) to be in the business of choosing which companies to artificially prop up. Don't let inherently contradictory beliefs stand in your way...
Bezos can afford to build the next Amazon base on the moon. He doesn't need help. Perhaps there are more important causes to focus on.
Yep. I know states have gotten into the habit of throwing cash at wealthy corporations, but it seems ill-advised....
-
It's hilarious to me how rabid capitalists on here simultaneously want the government (federal/state/local) to be in the business of choosing which companies to artificially prop up. Don't let inherently contradictory beliefs stand in your way...
Bezos can afford to build the next Amazon base on the moon. He doesn't need help. Perhaps there are more important causes to focus on.
At this point I'm just ready to invest in water trains so in 10 year we can take a train to Hawaii and Europe...that's where it's at. Solar powered water train preferably.
-
They're going to Stamford, CT.
That’s a big win for them after the Dunder Mifflin branch closed a number of years ago.
-
At this point I'm just ready to invest in water trains so in 10 year we can take a train to Hawaii and Europe...that's where it's at. Solar powered water train preferably.
"The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty-a fad." - Advice from a president of the Michigan Savings Bank to Henry Ford's lawyer Horace Rackham.
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." - Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society.
"[Television] won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night." - Darryl Zanuck, movie producer, 20th Century Fox.
-
Yep. I know states have gotten into the habit of throwing cash at wealthy corporations, but it seems ill-advised....
Corporate welfare at its finest. Brought to you by the people who hate welfare - for poor people.
-
"The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty-a fad." - Advice from a president of the Michigan Savings Bank to Henry Ford's lawyer Horace Rackham.
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." - Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society.
"[Television] won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night." - Darryl Zanuck, movie producer, 20th Century Fox.
All fair, so you think high speed/maglev type rail systems will solve our long range transit issue? I get the argument that a high speed train can be run off of a new electric grid that is based on "sustainable" generation, but I don't see how it actually makes long range transit "better".
-
All fair, so you think high speed/maglev type rail systems will solve our long range transit issue? I get the argument that a high speed train can be run off of a new electric grid that is based on "sustainable" generation, but I don't see how it actually makes long range transit "better".
Oh, I have no idea. There are people far more educated in the subject than I - you, for example, I would imagine - who could speak to that far better. In this instance, it's better I stay in my lane.
My only point is that we shouldn't mock those with bold and imaginative ideas that could provide solutions to our problems or help create great technological leaps forward. Most of those who have done so in the past were mocked as fools and told their ideas were impossible or useless by cranky and cynical know-it-alls, as well.
-
"The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty-a fad." - Advice from a president of the Michigan Savings Bank to Henry Ford's lawyer Horace Rackham.
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." - Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society.
"[Television] won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night." - Darryl Zanuck, movie producer, 20th Century Fox.
You forgot to mention the 10 year part I put in there, for some reason. That's the current insanity being pushed. I'm all about progress, but 10 years. LOL. Way to bankrupt a nation.
-
All fair, so you think high speed/maglev type rail systems will solve our long range transit issue? I get the argument that a high speed train can be run off of a new electric grid that is based on "sustainable" generation, but I don't see how it actually makes long range transit "better".
My state just killed the choo choo train, and we can't be any more "progressive" or pushing sustainability as we lead it all. But the price tag they finally admitted was a joke. Positioned as $30B, went as high at $100B, finally killed most of the project earlier this week. All this stuff is great, when money is endless and other things are accounted for....somewhere in Utopia Land.
-
You forgot to mention the 10 year part I put in there, for some reason. That's the current insanity being pushed. I'm all about progress, but 10 years. LOL. Way to bankrupt a nation.
It would not bankrupt the nation. In fact, it would likely greatly enrich the nation, even if it was never implemented.
An example: The ROI on government spending on space exploration range from 7:1, to 40:1 (APOLLO program). That's because the technology that evolves from government spending/research in game-changing technology, revolutionizes the entire economy.
The goals outlined in these proposals are similar in ambition to the APOLLO program, and would return similar ROIs. Investing in pioneering new technology, that will not provide an ROI on a timescale short enough to inspire the private sector, should be a primary focus of the government.
Your views on this are miopic.
-
It would not bankrupt the nation. In fact, it would likely greatly enrich the nation, even if it was never implemented.
An example: The ROI on government spending on space exploration range from 7:1, to 40:1 (APOLLO program). That's because the technology that evolves from government spending/research in game-changing technology, revolutionizes the entire economy.
The goals outlined in these proposals are similar in ambition to the APOLLO program, and would return similar ROIs. Investing in pioneering new technology, that will not provide an ROI on a timescale short enough to inspire the private sector, should be a primary focus of the government.
Your views on this are miopic.
The little fun plan that the unicorns have come up with that has a 10 year implementation, would cause massive harm primarily because of the timeline and cost of capital. Over 50 years....sure, I'm on board....10 years, not a chance. My views aren't myopic at all, they are reasonable and tied to real timelines, not puffery and stupidity from 29 year olds that have no seasoning and are tied to utopian fantasies. Hell, I've had solar panels on my roof for years, way ahead of the curve. I'm all for sustainability, but it has to make sense in timing and capital allocation.
-
You forgot to mention the 10 year part I put in there, for some reason. That's the current insanity being pushed. I'm all about progress, but 10 years. LOL. Way to bankrupt a nation.
Investment in technology will bankrupt the nation.
Tax cuts that add trillions to the national debt, no problemo.
-
Investment in technology will bankrupt the nation.
Tax cuts that add trillions to the national debt, no problemo.
Debts and deficits were awesome only a few years ago, in fact doubling the debt. Now they aren't....I love hypocrisy.
-
Investment in technology will bankrupt the nation.
Tax cuts that add trillions to the national debt, no problemo.
We've already pushed a good chunk of the 99% to the bankruptcy edge. Wouldn't want to threaten the 1%
-
Delighted that Amazon pulled out of Long Island City. All that would have done is create an incredible traffic jam and make the airports in NY more miserable than they already are.
-
I heard there's a lot of room available in Kenosha these days
-
It would not bankrupt the nation. In fact, it would likely greatly enrich the nation, even if it was never implemented.
An example: The ROI on government spending on space exploration range from 7:1, to 40:1 (APOLLO program). That's because the technology that evolves from government spending/research in game-changing technology, revolutionizes the entire economy.
The goals outlined in these proposals are similar in ambition to the APOLLO program, and would return similar ROIs. Investing in pioneering new technology, that will not provide an ROI on a timescale short enough to inspire the private sector, should be a primary focus of the government.
Your views on this are miopic.
All true, but the Apollo program had a singular, measurable goal that people could literally see. The GND is esoteric at best and highly questionable that it is achievable from a technical standpoint. There is no doubt the moonshot was a very stretch goal but it was based on realistic growth.....GND is literally unachievable in its scope/timeline.
-
All true, but the Apollo program had a singular, measurable goal that people could literally see. The GND is esoteric at best and highly questionable that it is achievable from a technical standpoint. There is no doubt the moonshot was a very stretch goal but it was based on realistic growth.....GND is literally unachievable in its scope/timeline.
Although the end goal of the APOLLO program was very specific, much of the goals along the way were not, they were more general. The program overall was highly questionable that it would be achievable from a technical standpoint.
But current NASA investment, which is much more broad and general in scope, has an ROI of 7-1. Just because of the technology that is spurred out from the investment.
Imagine if we had an extra $8B lying around and we could invest it in technology research.
-
Although the end goal of the APOLLO program was very specific, much of the goals along the way were not, they were more general. The program overall was highly questionable that it would be achievable from a technical standpoint.
But current NASA investment, which is much more broad and general in scope, has an ROI of 7-1. Just because of the technology that is spurred out from the investment.
Imagine if we had an extra $8B lying around and we could invest it in technology research.
Imagine if we had another $132B per year around we pay on non citizens that we could invest in....if you wish to play that game let’s have at it. Or th amount we pay for foreign aid which is astronomical. Please
-
Imagine if we had another $132B per year around we pay on non citizens that we could invest in....if you wish to play that game let’s have at it. Or th amount we pay for foreign aid which is astronomical. Please
Our own defense department has a solution to save $125 billion in pure waste. Thank goodness for the media, as the report was buried internally for fear that they might actually have to carry out the plan.
How to save $125 billion (https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/investigations/defense-business-board-study-from-jan-2015-identifying-125-billion-in-waste/2236/?ref)
This is not even to mention the "functional" waste, stuff that we did pay for and receive that was practically worthless.
-
Imagine if we had another $132B per year around we pay on non citizens that we could invest in....if you wish to play that game let’s have at it. Or th amount we pay for foreign aid which is astronomical. Please
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/027/606/3690_plate.jpg)
-
All fair, so you think high speed/maglev type rail systems will solve our long range transit issue? I get the argument that a high speed train can be run off of a new electric grid that is based on "sustainable" generation, but I don't see how it actually makes long range transit "better".
I have flown between cities in Europe...and I have taken high-speed trains between cities in Europe.
If you try the same, you will definitely see how high-speed trains can make transit "better."
-
I have flown between cities in Europe...and I have taken high-speed trains between cities in Europe.
If you try the same, you will definitely see how high-speed trains can make transit "better."
Geography and infrastructure is key. Old European cities, tightly packed, make sense. There's a reason why even in Calif, we just killed the monstrosity rail here because of cost and engineering challenges. What works in some areas of the world, doesn't mean it works everywhere.
-
Geography and infrastructure is key. Old European cities, tightly packed, make sense. There's a reason why even in Calif, we just killed the monstrosity rail here because of cost and engineering challenges. What works in some areas of the world, doesn't mean it works everywhere.
I'll admit that I haven't read any green papers on this stuff, but my understanding is that the rail proposals have been primarily designed to reduce/eliminate regional air travel with series of local networks. Over time, maybe the connections among each regional network would increase, but I thought the aim was to clear air traffic for flights between long distance hubs, and utilizing a train system for more local routes and/or routes that are connecting flights today.
-
I have flown between cities in Europe...and I have taken high-speed trains between cities in Europe.
If you try the same, you will definitely see how high-speed trains can make transit "better."
I've travelled extensively in EMEA, via just about any and all modes of transportation and there is no doubting train is my favorite.
Having said that Europe is of sufficient density and size to make it practical. The same is not true in the US generally. Yes it probably makes sense in the Northeast, some parts of the midwest and maybe the LA/SD/Phoenix area but it can't possibly work at a national level. I want nothing to do with a 10 hour mag/lev ride between Chicago and Portland if I can get there in 4 hours on a non-stop flight.
Also this ignores all the negative impact to the environment that results by the infrastructure deployed and land "destroyed" in the various routes.
-
I'll admit that I haven't read any green papers on this stuff, but my understanding is that the rail proposals have been primarily designed to reduce/eliminate regional air travel with series of local networks. Over time, maybe the connections among each regional network would increase, but I thought the aim was to clear air traffic for flights between long distance hubs, and utilizing a train system for more local routes and/or routes that are connecting flights today.
Generally you are correct but if you look at the trade offs between transit times, efficiencies, etc it's really flights less than 90 minutes you could eliminate. That leaves a lot of space uncovered.
Don't get me wrong I'm for it as a general objective independent of the NGD but it's an incremental change at best
-
Having said that Europe is of sufficient density and size to make it practical. The same is not true in the US generally. Yes it probably makes sense in the Northeast, some parts of the midwest and maybe the LA/SD/Phoenix area but it can't possibly work at a national level. I want nothing to do with a 10 hour mag/lev ride between Chicago and Portland if I can get there in 4 hours on a non-stop flight.
You're forgetting the 2 hours for airport security, the increased susceptibility of air travel to weather-related delays (I have never seen a line of trains waiting to be de-iced) and the 3 hours it takes to straighten out your back after sitting in the fetal shrimp position in the airline seat.
Add it all up, and it might very well be a wash....
-
About 10 minutes for security with TSA Precheck. Point is, incredibly costly due to geography and size here in the States. Plus the enviornmental impact to build would be amazing to see the hypocrisy there. Building a fence or wall might keep a lizard from moving back and forth, but building railways all over this country wouldn't impact some wildlife? LOL
-
Imagine if we had another $132B per year around we pay on non citizens that we could invest in....if you wish to play that game let’s have at it. Or th amount we pay for foreign aid which is astronomical. Please
About 1% of the budget is foreign aid, or around 50 billion dollars. Of course that is a ton of cash to you and I, but your term astronomical, in relation to the overall budget seems a bit over the top.
The only way the US is gonna dig itself out of this hole is target sacred cows, entitlements and defense spending. This pearl clutching of foreign aid, food stamps, Department of Education, yadda yadda is peanuts, politicians know it’s peanuts, but sounds good on the TEEEEEVEEEEEE.
-
About 1% of the budget is foreign aid, or around 50 billion dollars. Of course that is a ton of cash to you and I, but your term astronomical, in relation to the overall budget seems a bit over the top.
So that makes The Wall .1% of the budget? What's the fuss about?
-
So that makes The Wall .1% of the budget? What's the fuss about?
Bada bing
-
So that makes The Wall .1% of the budget? What's the fuss about?
Exactly, happens on all sides.
-
Bada bing
See my response, both sides do it.
-
So that makes The Wall .1% of the budget? What's the fuss about?
Well, actually...most estimates out the cost of the wall north of 25 billion, so really it’s .5% of the budget.
;)
-
So that makes The Wall .1% of the budget? What's the fuss about?
Because we don't need a national monument built for purely vanity purposes on land that is currently privately owned? As we know there are multiple churches that will be bulldozed as a part of this, businesses, farms, etc.
Not only that but how many people are going to make the fence a destination for travel like Mount Rushmore, etc? At least we already have these people making the pilgrimage to shore things up.
(https://ijr-com.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Untitled-design-15-2.jpg?strip=all&lossy=1&quality=57&fit=758%2C379&ssl=1)
-
Because we don't need a national monument built for purely vanity purposes on land that is currently privately owned? As we know there are multiple churches that will be bulldozed as a part of this, businesses, farms, etc.
BINGO!
I would be fine with a wall if there was any evidence that it would put a real dent in illegal immigration and drug trafficking. It won't. Its sole purpose would be to serve as a monument to a narcissist.
-
About 1% of the budget is foreign aid, or around 50 billion dollars. Of course that is a ton of cash to you and I, but your term astronomical, in relation to the overall budget seems a bit over the top.
The only way the US is gonna dig itself out of this hole is target sacred cows, entitlements and defense spending. This pearl clutching of foreign aid, food stamps, Department of Education, yadda yadda is peanuts, politicians know it’s peanuts, but sounds good on the TEEEEEVEEEEEE.
That's direct aid, and over time that is till massive. 1/4 of a trillion dollars last five years. Here's where you and I agree, on defense we spend a crap ton in "foreign aid" that benefits Germany, Japan, Korea, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc. All under the guise of defense budget, but those dollars go into those countries, too.
-
Because we don't need a national monument built for purely vanity purposes on land that is currently privately owned? As we know there are multiple churches that will be bulldozed as a part of this, businesses, farms, etc.
Not only that but how many people are going to make the fence a destination for travel like Mount Rushmore, etc? At least we already have these people making the pilgrimage to shore things up.
(https://ijr-com.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Untitled-design-15-2.jpg?strip=all&lossy=1&quality=57&fit=758%2C379&ssl=1)
Vanity? Uhm, no. It's always fascinating to me that we get very upset when kids are killed by guns, and we should...but we don't say a damn word about kids dying at the hands of people that aren't supposed to be legally here. Fascinating. Do you know how many kids died via murder, car crashes, etc in that latter situation last few years....I'll give you a hint, far more than were killed by guns, but you don't hear a peep about it. Sad. How about we protect the kids, aina?
-
BINGO!
I would be fine with a wall if there was any evidence that it would put a real dent in illegal immigration and drug trafficking. It won't. Its sole purpose would be to serve as a monument to a narcissist.
Really, how about the evidence directly from the Border Patrol, you know...the experts. I guess we don't need to listen to them. Despite rapid drops in drugs and illegals crossing where barriers have been built in various sectors. Yup, let's not listen to them. Don't need one across the border, do need one in some areas per BP.
The 2015 GAO report says thousands of Americans each year die as a result....reminder the current narcissist wasn't in charge in 2015...a different one was....his GAO said that...2015. Does make you wonder how many have to die before people care.
-
We already have a human barrier set up and working perfectly (see above photo). According to them, nobody is getting by, so it has a success rate of 100% and is entirely staffed by willing volunteers. How can you beat that?
-
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/027/606/3690_plate.jpg)
Hmmm. Arby's.
-
We already have a human barrier set up and working perfectly (see above photo). According to them, nobody is getting by, so it has a success rate of 100% and is entirely staffed by willing volunteers. How can you beat that?
Right now my attention is helping to capture Jussie's attackers.....I'll focus on the other societal issues as soon as that crime is solved.
-
Right now my attention is helping to capture Jussie's attackers.....I'll focus on the other societal issues as soon as that crime is solved.
Why do you come on here?