Y’all got Bezos’ed

[mr.MUskie]

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.

[D'Lo Brown]

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.

[dgies9156]

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.

[Benny B]

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. 

[WarriorDad]

[WarriorDad]

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).

[GGGG]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[reinko]

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/

[GGGG]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

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.

[warriorchick]

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.

[Benny B]

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?

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[GGGG]

Workers should only plan for Social Security to supplement retirement.   

People should do a lot of things.

[Benny B]

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.]

[Pakuni]

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.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

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.

[forgetful]

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. 

[Spotcheck Billy]

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.)

[warriorchick]

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.

[warriorchick]

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.

[forgetful]

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.