Google didn't need any dog and pony show or significant forms of corporate welfare (that we know of) to announce a doubling of their presence in New York.
Exactly. The 25k number was just to make a splash and notice they aren't doing that again. Because there aren't really any other areas that could give them 25k skilled employees. They will scale up in Nashville which is expected since it is a growing area, and they will still be in NY due to the talent. The "HQ2" show was primarily to extract large concessions which almost worked. My initial reaction as a NY'er was "well that didn't go well" but now I think it was great that we did not fall for it.
I don't even think they're really gonna scale up in Nashville. At least not in any meaningful way. 10 years from now, both Amazon and Google will have right around 25 thousand workers each in NYC.
The reality is that NYC is not Wisconsin, they don't need to give out money.
EDIT: I'd even go a step further, and predict that both Amazon and Google will also have ludicrously large presences in the DC-NOVA area in 10 years as well. In fact, Amazon's presence in the DC-NOVA area will be even bigger than they initially said it would.
Wisconsin doesn't need to give out money, either. If anything, they need to not give out money.
The story of the Foxconn factory, for example, is one of Wisconsin acting as if you can give a bunch of money to a company that smells of technology, and they will plunk a bunch of jobs for highly educated and skilled people in the middle of a region with relatively few highly educated and skilled workers. Which, it never worked that way. It never will work that way.
Companies go to places that can fill their staffing needs. Wisconsin, which has been systematically defunding its education system in order to re-route that money toward corporate subsidies, is undercutting its own ability to fill those staffing needs. I don't know that everyone in the state realizes it, but Wisconsin is stumbling all over itself to become the darling dumping ground for companies that are founded[1] in cities and states with the kinds of intellectual and entrepreneurial ferments you get around well-run and well-funded university systems to put their call centers, distribution centers, big boxes mostly full of robots, and other things they don't want to waste money putting in a more affluent area.
[1] I think "founded" is a key word, here, too. Supporting local entrepreneurship is the key to prosperity. Which mostly means getting out of the way of your entrepreneurs. If you get into a bidding wars to acquire the office where a company puts all their jobs that didn't merit being located at HQ, not only do you end up overspending - the people deciding what to bid aren't playing with their own money, so what else did you expect? - but you're also draining the talent pool that supports their growth.
Kentucky was a perfect example of this. They gave the best corporate welfare money can buy. And everyone left. There were no decent roads, schools, police. So there were no decent workers. The companies were basically given the best deal in a place with no workers.
If anything the workers left even more because there was even less attractiveness to be there.
Its really hard to make a thoughtful reply to a thread like this without seeming like its just ivory tower dumping on red states. My feeling is that they've set up a basically every person for himself sort of society with (usually multinational or national) businesses as the primary benefactor rather than people.
If you keep participating in the race to the bottom, you eventually end up on the bottom. The belief that any price in tax cuts will benefit your citizens in the form of "jobs" is a particularly toxic form of economic fundamentalism, and its hollowing whole states out.
Totally agree. In my neck of the woods one county nearly bankrupted a neighboring one by offering an existing business a deal that led them to move a few miles away. The old county was stuck with sewer bonds and other costs while the revenue vaporized.
It’s difficult though as it’s a prisoner’s dilemma type situation.
Yes and no. I believe in this case they had an obligation to provide the sewer, and water/sewer ratepayers are responsible for costs. You can’t make an individual ratepayer responsible for the sewer.
Definitely a bad situation and a story told a thousand times in the US
Living in the DC-NOVA area, Amazon coming here seemed rather inevitable. There's a confluence of infrastructure, cheap office/datacenter space, and a stealthily growing engineering talent pool that Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon and the general smorgasbord of government contractors have built up over the years.
Additionally,it wouldn't surprise me if Amazon has seen the obscene amounts of money Microsoft is making pitching cloud security and general technical support to the government, and wants in on it.
I don’t know, cities rise and fall at lot more quickly than it feels like at the time.
New York City was on the verge of bankruptcy in 1975, less than 50 years ago.
Detroit’s population started declining as early as the 1950s as companies moved to the suburbs.
New York has a world-class, diverse economy, and I expect it to continue to be a central engine of the American and world economy for our lifetimes, but it does require good stewardship to nurture the economy.
We may be on the cusp of a reversal of the great urban migration of the last several decades, with populations moving into suburban satellite cities as remote work gains acceptance, driverless cars allow for easier commutes, logistics companies and drones allow for easy delivery of goods to your doorstep, and urban housing prices continue to relentlessly outpace wage growth.
There's absolutely no way they are scaling up NY to the same degree they would have with the subsidies. There's no reason to. The value proposition is gone, so now Amazon will slow-roll growth in NY like they will any other office.
The fact that you (and many others) consider this a win is an attempt to revise history. This tax deal was all about Amazon expanding very quickly. That deal is gone. But feel free to pat yourself on the back for not "falling for it". Maybe it works out great as other companies will lease those buildings and hire a combined ~20k employees averaging $150,000 in compensation, but that's likely not going to happen.
In this context, they're referring to the actions of NY (not the comment they're replying to), and TBH, there's nothing personally acidic; it's just a saying.
I was referring to feel free to pat yourself on the back for not "falling for it", which was a gratuitous bit of personal sarcasm, just the sort of thing which acidifies online discourse. Also, arguably, the bit about an attempt to revise history is an uncharitable escalation (though not personal).
It erodes discussion by slowly acidifying it. It's not that the remark was so bad in itself—it's that these effects compound, and if we allow them to compound very much, the problem will no longer be fixable. That's why we often ask people not to do this, even when they only did it a little.
I agree with Dan, and I wouldn't have commented had I not read this comment. It's easy to underestimate the happy-but-silent majority.
Dan was spot on when saying that this acidity compounds. It leads to a vicious circle of increasingly hostile comments unless someone decides to be the bigger person and break the chain. Having a neutral third party step in to play this role (i.e. a moderator) makes this chain-breaking far more likely and works to all of our benefit.
I don't see votes as useful signal on Hacker News: for example, during the course of some comments I make, the vote starts out as very negative (from people who skim the comment and think it's insulting) to very positive (from people who read it more carefully and realize it's insightful). So there is a temporal aspect to votes (I'm sure you know more about this than me).A
And often when I get votes, there's no signal whether it's due to tone, or content, or whether it's because I'm expressing something that is true, but makes people feel sad (seems to happen a lot, makes no sense to me).
While parent (and others) may be attempting to revise history, I think this outcome is probably for the best.
Whatever growth occurs in NY will be organic. Not government-subsidized hyper-growth which can throw things out of whack.
Real growth brings with it real increases in public funding, that can be used to fund real increases in infrastructure demands and demands on other public services.
When a local government has to bribe their way into increasing local business, they tip the scales in favor of one thing (i.e. jobs) while burdening other things (tax base, transit support, etc.)
When companies choose to do business in your area—because it's naturally the best place for them—it functions as a market verification that you're doing something right.
> Whatever growth occurs in NY will be organic. Not government-subsidized hyper-growth which can throw things out of whack.
It's not going to be organic. Instead, these same deals are going to be spread out to a bunch of other companies, most of which will pay less than Amazon on average and the "subsidies" will take longer to be a net positive.
Again, people confuse bribes with standard deals. Any company is eligible to receive the tax breaks that Amazon was going to. So New Yorkers have really "won" here. Same subsidies paid out to lower paying companies at a significant slower scale and significantly less economic upside.
> It's not going to be organic. Instead, these same deals are going to be spread out to a bunch of other companies, most of which will pay less than Amazon on average and the "subsidies" will take longer to be a net positive.
Only if you assume those other companies collectively hold the same bargaining power that Amazon did, which is an assumption I can't agree with
Man... the misinformation is so stunning. They don't NEED bargaining power because these tax deals were done through programs that already existed in New York. The overwhelming majority of the money involved in this requires you only meet the eligibility requirements.
The biggest aspect of this deal for Amazon was reduced regulatory burden. That was Amazon's actual goal here, the tax offsets were just the icing that every company is going to end up getting by making a major move like this.
Then why has Google announced a major expansion in New York City without making a show out of it? Did anyone protest about Google adding more than 7,000 jobs to the area? Amazon has clearly failed here to offer something everyone would be happy about.
> There's no way to turn this into a positive here.
I dunno. It seems like an unambiguous positive to me. The giveaway to Amazon was enormous -- so much so that it seems extremely dubious that New York would ever have been able to recoup that money, let alone increase it.
If they were going to buy the card for $30K anyway if you didn't discount it, yes. Even if they weren't going to buy the car without the discount, but someone else would likely come along and buy it for $30K, then still yes, you would have given away $5K.
Add on to the fact that if you sold that one car for $25K, you end up with other people who would've paid $30K but now want that same discount, so you may have given away a lot more than $5K.
>There's no way to turn this into a positive here.
Well, if you believe Amazon coming to NY was good, it's no more negative or positive than me not winning the lottery today, and I didn't buy a ticket either.
>Real growth brings with it real increases in public funding, that can be used to fund real increases in infrastructure demands and demands on other public services...
This.
That's exactly why what's now going to happen in NYC is what should happen in all cases. Wish we could get this going in Wisconsin.
If it was primarily a deal to ease the regulatory burden of building such a big thing, I'd be all for it. Admittedly NY has an issue now with too many layers of bureaucracy. But this isn't entirely what it is about. It was also about large tax concessions when plenty of large companies are hiring tech in NYC without any of them. A skilled employee in NYC does not last very long at all on the job market. The 25k employee campus thing was a sham that was geared to an area like NY from the start. They could never move to a smaller area and still get who they need at that scale.
The commodity these days is skilled workforce. Amazon will still be where they can get that commodity, economic incentives aren't needed. Cash is not the limiting factor it is the people they need. It was a smart business move to try to extract some cash too but they did not need that to expand in NY.
Ugh... any company moving into NY can get these same large tax concessions. Amazon got nothing special outside of reduced regulatory burden. Why is this not understood? This same subsidy is now going to go to 15 companies who all probably pay less on average than Amazon.
There are skilled workforces outside of NY, believe it or not. And they aren't going to go through the regulatory burdens to expand NY to a major campus, since that's really what this was about.
To be clear, since this point is being missed by so many people: This wasn't a special deal outside of the reduced regulatory burden. Any company that meets the eligibility requirements will get these exact same "subsidies".
What happened here is a bunch of local politicians and local people who are absolutely clueless about how corporate tax reductions work pushed against something that's still going to happen just, at least potentially, not with a high paying company like Amazon.
Not many corporations I know of get a deal brokered by the mayor and governor privately with multibillion dollar cut after a large spectacle. I realize you might think differently as an Amazon employee.
Are you aware that there are existing tax programs in NYC, and that most of the money "given" to Amazon came from those existing programs that are available to anyone who qualify?
I see what you're saying, but Amazon pretty much did that to themselves by making the whole thing such a public spectacle. Whether or not they were offered a special deal, that's the impression everyone got, and it should have been predictable that they'd provoke a lot more political backlash with this approach.
>"Ugh... any company moving into NY can get these same large tax concessions."
Really? Let look at what was offered:
1 $897 million from the city’s Relocation and Employment Assistance Program (REAP) and
2 $386 million from the Industrial & Commercial Abatement Program (ICAP)
3 $1.2 billion in “Excelsior” credits
4 $505 million in a capital grant
Yes the first 3 are existing programs. But the idea that those sums or anything remotely close to them would simply be made available to any company moving to NY is comical at best. Now lets look at number 4, a 505 million dollar capital grant. That's a pure giveaway compliment of the tax payer. And let's remember that both the city and state governments put together dedicated teams to find this money for Amazon. This was in addition to the work the city and state did for give Amazon data, such as "detailed information on the availability of machine-learning specialists, user-experience designers and hardware engineers."[1]
There is no way any of this is available to "any company moving to NY."
> Yes the first 3 are existing programs. But the idea that those sums or anything remotely close to them would simply be made available to any company moving to NY is comical at best.
> $897 million from the city’s Relocation and Employment Assistance Program (REAP)
That works out to $35,880 per employee that Amazon promised. Per the REAP program website[1], the credits available are $3000 per employee for 12 years. That actually works out to slightly more per employee ($36,000). So yes, any company not currently in NYC that creates 25,000 jobs in one of the designated areas would get the $897MM in benefits.
> $386 million from the Industrial & Commercial Abatement Program (ICAP)
ICAP is a property tax abatement available to any company willing to redevelop qualifying properties[2]. The value of the abatement is based on the final value of the property and which benefit schedule[3] it qualifies for. Any company willing to put in the same amount of redevelopment in one of the designated areas as Amazon was will get the same abatement value.
> $1.2 billion in “Excelsior” credits
I don't have the time at the moment to calculate how this was arrived at, but looking at the overview of credits available[4] it appears to follow similar formulas as the NYC programs.
In short, I do not see it as "comical" by any measure that any company offering to create 25,000 new jobs and redevelop hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property in designated areas would get these same values. Amazon didn't get these numbers because they were Amazon, but because of the scale of what they proposed to do. Whether that is a good idea to offer to any company is open for debate.
It looks like you left out the 505 million dollar capital grant part.
>"In short, I do not see it as "comical" by any measure that any company offering to create 25,000 new jobs and redevelop hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property in designated areas "
It sounds like you aren't familiar with NYC. Long Island City has long since been "developed." That building boom started 18 years ago. The volume and velocity of luxury high rises appearing across the East River has been incredible. LIC does not need to be "redeveloped" nor is it some basket case "designated" area that requires incentives and credits to build there.
> To be clear, since this point is being missed by so many people: This wasn't a special deal outside of the reduced regulatory burden. Any company that meets the eligibility requirements will get these exact same "subsidies".
You seem to have no understanding of local culture or the present state of Manhattan and Brooklyn as already massively gutted by wealthy transplants. Ask the majority of people who grew up in San Francisco and Seattle. This is a win. You also seem to have little understanding of the current situation of the NYC subway system infrastructure. You could argue Amazon’s workforce would have forced improvements, except this hasn’t happened in decades despite the increasing wealth and foreign investors here. Just read about Cuomo using $5mil of MTA to bail upstate ski resorts three years prior.
> There's absolutely no way they are scaling up NY to the same degree they would have with the subsidies. There's no reason to.
There's now way to. Campus expansions are blocked by layers and layers of NIMBYs. The big selling point of the deal was the state government ensuring Amazon would have a campus that could hold 25,000 people.
> This tax deal was all about Amazon expanding very quickly.
Anybody who thinks that through should see why it's such a terrible idea. Not even NY can "very quickly" absorb 25k people in a small area without screwing up quality of life for the people who already live there. That's a great way to make real estate prices sky rocket and screw over the existing residents. And it'll completely screw up infrastructure and transportation, because there's not enough money to pay for them when the company causing the issues is getting a huge tax break and not paying their fair share, and they're not things that can be fixed quickly in any case.
> Maybe it works out great as other companies will lease those buildings and hire a combined ~20k employees averaging $150,000 in compensation, but that's likely not going to happen.
If the current residents are qualified for $150k a year jobs then they presumably already have one - it's not like there are 25k unemployed software devs waiting around for companies to move to NY.
That whole competition was a shameful money grab by Amazon and I'm glad it didn't work out for them.
This was over a 10 year period. New York City would have absorbed this just fine. Population projections for the city over that same time span is an additional 600,000 people.
The "small area" that Amazon was relocating to (Queens) is expected to get 150,000 of those people. And we can ignore the assumption that people making 150k a year all want to live in Queens (or LIC) and not Manhattan.
You're vastly overstating the effects of 25k people in a metro area that's >20M people strong. You're taking for granted that all of those people are going to live in a few blocks radius in LIC, and that's simply not close to what would've actually happened.
New York City has no current shortage of jobs or growth. Incentives aren’t needed. If they wanted to offer incentives for companies to move to Buffalo, it might be worth it. But NYC will be fine without it.
Most companies are eligible for the same incentives. These tax deals will still happen, but they will be for lower paying jobs. Just read the press release at the very least. These are programs that existed before Amazon announced anything.
This is nonsense. I can't say that an enormous giveaway of public funds to attempt to buy jobs is categorically a bad idea in every situation, but if every one I can think of, and certainly this one, it is.
It is also amusing that you consider Amazon's assertion about the job count an iron truth of what would have happened. While Amazon does not have Foxconn's long history of scamming municipalities, there is also no reason to weight their words any higher than other companies who have played this game in the past, and the odds look significantly worse than a sure thing viewed that way.
Finally, the way you win these games is not to play, no different than the continual sports stadium scams or other "let's you and him fight" grifts.
Amazon is notorious for paying pennies. 25k jobs paying 150k on average is a pipe dream. ask whole foods delivery people for Amazon fresh or whatever its called. they are counting their pay including $5 mandatory tip they collect from customers.
First of all, these jobs were all white collar. Amazon's current new grad SDE's in NY and SF both have more than $150k in comp. New grads.
Second, the food delivery people for Amazon Fresh are employees of Amazon. The Amazon Flex drivers is what you are talking about, and there is no "mandatory" tip for that service. What you're talking about is something Instacart and DoorDash was doing. Those are entirely different companies.
The information in the second and third paragraphs is great, but it's being downvoted because the first sentence is unnecessarily antagonistic. HN has succeeded as a place for productive discussion for as long as it has because it still has an ethos of a joining together in a search for the truth. Prefacing a good comment with an insult (even one that might be true) damages the fragile ecosystem of cooperation. It's not that this particular insult is so bad on its own, but its presence encourages others to reply with escalated levels of confrontation. Downvotes help prevent the incivility from spiraling out of control.
>"The value proposition is gone, so now Amazon will slow-roll growth in NY like they will any other office."
So the "value proposition" had nothing to do with access to a talent pool of qualified candidates to fill those 25K jobs? Because that would be odds with the reasons Google, FB et al have set up shop in NYC.
>"This tax deal was all about Amazon expanding very quickly."
Yet there was never any specifics of when Amazon would arrive at that mythical 25K job number. The closest you can find to any time qualification is the phrase "within a decade." I guess you have a very different idea of "quickly."
>"The fact that you (and many others) consider this a win is an attempt to revise history."
No the "win" here is not giving out corporate subsidies, more especially to a company that absolutely does not need it. NYC will be just fine without Amazon. There is no shortage of tech jobs in NYC these days. It been that way for over 10 years now.
What if another state gave the concessions, and then it worked out spectacularly for them, completely reviving a city and building up a new ecosystem that funnels in new wealth and new money. Would NY be kicking itself then?
No because NYC doesn't need Amazon to be a large, thriving city with all the agglomeration benefits large cities have. Because it already has all those things. Amazon arguably needed NYC more than NYC needed Amazon.
On the other hand, smaller, not thriving cities may have indeed benefited from attracting an Amazon. But it's a bigger debate whether they would benefit more than the cost they might've had to pay to attract an Amazon.
Do we even have an example on record of a state or city making huge concessions to attract a company and it "completely reviving a city and building up a new ecosystem that funnels in new wealth and new money"?
Take Columbus, one of the other contenders for Amazon's bachelor-like charade, with 850,000 people living there. 25k jobs would have been a bigger deal. If you compare 25k jobs to NYC's population of over 8 million, it would be proportional to adding ~2.5k jobs to Columbus, not all of which are tech workers making 6 figures. It's a drop in the bucket for NYC, especially considering Amazon already has thousands of workers in NY and will likely reach that 25k figure in time without needing billions in concessions.
That's income per capita, which is a little bit different than wealth.
There is no place, in the US, that rivals the wealth and power of NYC. Now internationally, that's where you start to get your Beijing's, and your London's, and your Tokyo's, and your Monte Carlo's, and your Paris, and Shanghai's etc. But in the US it's NYC at the center of the preponderance of wealth and power. Only place in a position to make a run at NYC is DC, and they'll need a lot more than Amazon to do it.
(There's also LA and Chicago, but those cities are not as "powerful", nowhere near as wealthy, and to be frank, making a run at NYC is not their ambition.)
111 8th is a major internet traffic exchange point. It's also gargantuan, it's 2.9 million square feet and occupies a whole city block.
One of the interesting things about 111 8th is that it was designed for much higher than normal pounds per square foot floor loading. Which means that Google could convert the entire thing to datacenter space if they really wanted to. Already a significant portion of it is conditioned datacenter/telecom space run by tenants.
These real estate acquisitions were so large that they explicitly needed to be called out on the quarterly earnings calls to explain why CapEx exploded for that quarter.
At Google's densities, they would never run a datacenter in Manhattan. POPs, sure, like their peering with https://www.peeringdb.com/fac/16, but that's it.
Internap has never really been relevant as a large scale colo/datacenter provider, if you look at the square footage of their facilities compared to major competition like Equinix and Digital Realty Trust.
I imagine they're getting decent bang for their buck when hiring in NYC. Really the COL adjusted wages in NYC are some of the lowest for all American tech cities.
Why would they care about getting a good bargain in “COL adjusted wages”? Even in NYC there is not a currency exchange Google can go to to turn $100k Florida dollars into $200k New York dollars.
How do actual numbers pale in comparison to a number that was nothing more than projected for some hazy undetermined future date? That 25K number was only ever qualified as "over the next decade."
Google on the other hand bought 111 8th ave 8 years ago(houses 7K employees) and now they are opening a new space in the same area that will house an additional 12K more employees[1]. That will bring their total to 19K employees in a 10 year time frame.
And this was all done without extracting corporate subsidies and without all the pageantry.
I think that 7K is just employees: "employs more than...". That is a deliberate distinction from "workers". I wouldn't be surprised if the count passed 10K once you considered contractors. They're mostly in non-engineering roles: cafe staff, recruiters, marketing, physical security (did those get converted to employees like they were doing in Mountain View?), facilities, etc.
It is in the Amazon statement: "There are currently over 5,000 Amazon employees in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Staten Island, and we plan to continue growing these teams."
Disclaimer, I'm one of those 5k. Currently I work from home 99% of the time because the office spaces Amazon has in NY aren't fantastic. It would have been nice to have a new headquarters building, but I'll still be enjoying working from home now I guess.
> There are currently over 5,000 Amazon employees in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Staten Island
How many of those are working in tech? When I interviewed at Amazon NYC in 2016, I think there were only around 100 software engineers there. Has it grown a lot since then?
Thanks, I missed that (I stopped after a couple paragraphs). I did do a quick Google Search after I searched for how many Googlers are in NYC. (Was verifying there's actually 7K.)
It's pretty amazing how large some of the non-home offices are at these mega tech companies.
> Would be interesting to know how many employees Amazon currently has in NY. I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's already in the thousands.
Amazon already has an office in New York City, as well as a sizeable presence in New Jersey just outside the city limits (within commuting distance), split between two New Jersey offices, last I checked.
Uh, the statement itself says: "There are currently over 5,000 Amazon employees in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Staten Island, and we plan to continue growing these teams."
Google's expansion doesn't require its employees to live in a part of the city that lacks adequate schools and parks. Whereas if you work in LIC it's not like you can really commute into the city from New Jersey or Stamford.
Maybe you should just permit people to say "what are you talking about" as a form of "you seem to be confused" instead of trying to dictate which colloquialisms people use to express themselves. Your position on this is overbearing and absurd. FYI you have a history of being condescending over nitpicky nonsense to the point of incivility.
I won't argue that it's appealing but it is the norm if you live in the burbs. Not many people work right next to Penn/Grand Central/Atlantic Terminal/etc. Transferring to the subway is very common, and LIC is one of the best-connected neighborhoods by subway (NRW7EFG).
Out of all those, only the E runs through Penn Station, and only the 7 runs through Grand Central. Nowhere near as nice as being table to take any ACE train or any 456 train to get where you're going.
And god help you the days there are mets games if you're taking the 7.
It has good subway connections to Queens and Manhattan, and that's about it. There's no good LIC LIRR station (the existing one is not located on the line to Penn). Good luck if you're coming from Westchester, New Jersey, Staten Island, or the Bronx, because that's going to be a hell of a commute.
LIC has some amazing parks. Stop by Socrates Sculpture Park sometime — really cool art installations, great waterfront views of Manhattan, across the street from a cool museum (Noguchi of the coffee table fame), and you are quick walk down Broadway to some great restaurants in Astoria.
But as a thought experiment, say they did create 25,000 jobs at an average salary of 100,000. What type of taxes and secondary effects on the economy does this have?
Does the city get back more than the 3 billion in concessions and how long does that take?
Looking at it from a strictly "benefit to government's tax coffers" standpoint (since that's the argument for the tax breaks):
Would those new Amazon jobs cause 25k people to move to NYC? Or is it more likely to just make the local market more competitive? How would other businesses react? Would they move? Embrace remote? If they increase salary across the board and live with unfilled positions, how does that affect tax revenue? Even if those people do move, how does that influx affect people with lower paying jobs? Will they be pushed out? How does that affect tax revenues?
Those are the kinds of questions I saw raised by opponents, and it seems like there weren't clear answers to them.
Google announcing they <WANT> to double their presence in New York is not the same as Amazon signing an agreement of understanding with the city and state.
Google hasn't committed to anything. Once it does, it will most likely seek the same tax benefits that Amazon did from the pre-existing programs if it qualifies
What are we discussing here? Yes, Google wants to hire more people in NYC.
In NYC there are are tax incentive plans for relocating and hiring that companies can apply for if they qualify. Just because Google doesn’t include that portion in their announcement does not mean they won’t pursue it if they can.
A good article would be one where Google states it won’t take any tax incentives even if it qualifies for it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/17/google-...