What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread (2 Viewers)

Mario Kart said:
I can only speak with respect to Foxconn in Wisconsin. Apparently, the state was told Foxconn would bring in 13k jobs... new estimates report about 1,500 jobs. So, Wisconsin was sold a bill of goods that may be, what, 80% less than what was promised? I see no reason to believe Amazon would not have balked at their "job estimates" once the tax credit hit. The Foxconn deal is going, will continue to blow up in Wisconsin's face. I see no reason to think otherwise that the same would have happened with Amazon and these outrageous projections.
Click to expand...
It’s situational. The projections are not necessarily outrageous. You need to examine the details provided and decide if they make sense. In the case of Amazon and NYC, from what I read they did seem to make sense.

And it’s also worth pointing out that AOC didn’t appear to offer intelligent opposition from what I read. Had she said “it’s never going to produce that number of jobs and here’s why” I think a lot of people would have given her arguments much more respectful consideration. Instead she repeated somewhat stale leftist rhetoric about big corporations like Amazon taking over. As somebody who likes AOC and thinks her heart is in the right place, it was depressing to read. 

 
Slapdash said:
It is silly to act like sports owners are the only ones that promise things they never deliver in exchange for corporate welfare.  Amazon always was going to grow in NYC, it doesn't make sense to give them money to choose a specific site in the city.  Bad economic policy of picking winners and losers.  
Click to expand...
Well sports owners are more present in the news so I guess I pay more attention to them. But as to your overall point I don’t agree. It depends on the situation. We live in a competitive world. If I’m a native of Los Angeles, I don’t want my city council saying “oh it’s bad policy to pick winners and losers” while at the same time Chicago and San Francisco are offering companies big time benefits and we lose their business as a result. I want my government people pro-active. 

 
timschochet said:
Well sports owners are more present in the news so I guess I pay more attention to them. But as to your overall point I don’t agree. It depends on the situation. We live in a competitive world. If I’m a native of Los Angeles, I don’t want my city council saying “oh it’s bad policy to pick winners and losers” while at the same time Chicago and San Francisco are offering companies big time benefits and we lose their business as a result. I want my government people pro-active. 
Click to expand...
OK, that doesn't make it the best use of money.  There are many things that go into making a city desirable for a company to located to and these things reduce money for more valuable things.  I can see a better argument in more rural locations with weak economies (like auto manufacturing around the Southeast) 

 
Rick Scott and AOC have something in common. Scott killed the film industry, which jump started around the time of Miami Vice, by stopping tax credits.  The industry took a long time to build. Now, most of those jobs have gone to Georgia and other southern states, which have aggressively courted a multibillion industry by giving  tax incentives. Both Scott and AOC didn't budge from views on somewhat opposite extremes. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/03/10/burt-reynolds-blames-gov-rick-scott-for-floridas-dying-film-industry%3fmedia=AMP%2bHTML

 
Slapdash said:
OK, that doesn't make it the best use of money.  There are many things that go into making a city desirable for a company to located to and these things reduce money for more valuable things.  I can see a better argument in more rural locations with weak economies (like auto manufacturing around the Southeast) 
Click to expand...
The studies that New York did showed it would generate $30 billion in new tax revenues vs. The $3 Billion that were offered in incentives.  In what friggin universe is that 'reducing money for more valuable things'?  

 
Don't even compare sports team to what the Amazon deal was.  Sports teams use ego and generated business revenues to extract large ransoms out of cities far beyond tax revenues generated.  This Amazon deal was a slam dunk winner for the state of New York.  It was really a once in a lifetime opportunity and this tiny 1500 jobs is nothing in comparison. 

 
jon_mx said:
Don't even compare sports team to what the Amazon deal was.  Sports teams use ego and generated business revenues to extract large ransoms out of cities far beyond tax revenues generated.  This Amazon deal was a slam dunk winner for the state of New York.  It was really a once in a lifetime opportunity and this tiny 1500 jobs is nothing in comparison. 
Click to expand...
I wasn’t really comparing them, I was responding to Slapdash’s argument that it’s bad policy for government to pick economic winners and losers. That’s not always true. I don’t think it was true in the case of Amazon. But on the other hand it’s sometimes true and sports stadiums are a good example. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
Rebecca Davis O'Brien @rebeccadobrien

Amazon agrees to lease 335,000 square feet in NYC's Hudson Yards neighborhood, in a deal without any financial incentives from the city or state.

I really thought this thread would be full of apologies by now.  :kicksrock:
Click to expand...
Did you say this without knowing the details? With all due respect, you're way off on this one and that surprises me.

 
Mr Anonymous said:
Did you say this without knowing the details? With all due respect, you're way off on this one and that surprises me.
Click to expand...
Which parts are you referring to? I’m assuming the job numbers. 
 

The year one jobs promise from Amazon in the original deal was 700 jobs. The big numbers were speculative thoughts within ten years.  
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/15/amazon-has-listed-its-first-two-job-openings-for-hq2-in-new-york-city.html

They are currently setting up with 1500 jobs in Manhattan.  

 
parasaurolophus said:
Of course year 1 was 700 jobs. How do you staff a building that isnt built yet? 

Those 700 jobs were an expansion in existing offices. Your link states that. 
Click to expand...
Right.  This coming first year will be 1500 jobs according to the reports about Amazon coming in to Manhattan, right?

They’re leasing an extra 335,000 square feet of office space which is not yet built out?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And Facebook and Google, who would have asked for similar subsidies, will also be coming in for millions more square feet for their offices nearby at the same time, right? Facebook is leasing 1.5 million square feet. 
 

It feels like New York dared them not to take advantage of their tech infrastructure and talent, and big tech blinked. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Right.  This coming first year will be 1500 jobs according to the reports about Amazon coming in to Manhattan, right?

They’re leasing an extra 335,000 square feet of office space which is not yet built out?
Click to expand...
The hq2 deal was to build a 500k sq ft amazon building and 4 million of extra mixed use commercial space. 

This new deal is amazon leasing 335k of existing space and will be a total of 1500 jobs. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
The hq2 deal was to build a 500k sq ft amazon building and 4 million of extra mixed use commercial space. 

This new deal is amazon leasing 335k of existing space and will be a total of 1500 jobs. 
Click to expand...
To start, for sure, for Amazon.  Facebook is adding 1.5 million square feet, Google 1.7 million... no subsidies for any.  That seems way more sustainable. Amazon will still expand, I would imagine.  And all 1500 of those jobs will be 6 figure plus. 

 
bananafish said:
But yes, let's talk some more about what an idiot AOC is for voting against $3B 
Click to expand...
1. She didnt vote against it as she is a us rep. 2. She isnt an idiot for voicing displeasure about 3 billion. She looks foolish for spiking the football and trying to gaslight the american public into believing that the deal happened anyway. 

Also this is the AOC thread. Not sure about you but this would be where I choose to discuss AOC on this board. Would be really weird of me to go into other threads and carpet bomb them with AOC quotes. 

 
jon_mx said:
Don't even compare sports team to what the Amazon deal was.  Sports teams use ego and generated business revenues to extract large ransoms out of cities far beyond tax revenues generated.  This Amazon deal was a slam dunk winner for the state of New York.  It was really a once in a lifetime opportunity and this tiny 1500 jobs is nothing in comparison. 
Click to expand...
Well the Raiders are headed to Vegas.

FWIW Amazon stayed in NY state, it even stayed in NYC. It sounds like a borough vs borough thing now. IIRC this was originally slated for Astoria? I just wonder what people there and Cortez’s district think, that’s all. If they support the decision, then great. Let’s face it, dumping incentives in to attract programs or businesses - whether tax incentives or infrastructure investment- is a very Republican *and Democratic thing, no matter how you shake it. Some folks just blew the whistle on this one. Here it went to the west side of Manhattan and the Hudson Yards have been passed around since the 1970s, and the already super rich holding that finally have a bonanza there for free. Congratulations?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John Blutarsky said:
Do the math. 25,000 high paying jobs=good.

$27 billion in tax revenue less $3 billion in tax subsidies =good.
Click to expand...
25,000 high paying jobs=good

$27 billion in tax revenue less $0 billion in tax subsidies=better.

The jobs are happening regardless.  Amazon isn't going to stop growing.  Maybe we should spread some of the $3 billion to to small business to help them compete.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Well the Raiders are headed to Vegas.

FWIW Amazon stayed in NY state, it even stayed in NYC. 
Click to expand...
Come on.  Don't be ridiculous.  This is in no way 'stayed in NYC.'  This is not a headquarters with 25,000 to 40,000 very high end jobs.  It is 1500 jobs.  Let's be honest with this. 

 
AOC is correct, was proven correct, and will continue to be correct.

Corporate numbers are always inflated. (See Foxconn). If there was going to be 25k jobs, the timeline for those jobs was what? I haven't seen 25k jobs pop up out of nowhere since Amazon didn't move into NYC yet. Poof!

America needs more AOC's.

 
BassNBrew said:
25,000 high paying jobs=good

$27 billion in tax revenue less $0 billion in tax subsidies=better.

The jobs are happening regardless.  Amazon isn't going to stop growing.  Maybe we should spread some of the $3 billion to to small business to help them compete.
Click to expand...
Amazon already has 8k jobs in NYC as well.

 
bananafish said:
Thanks for the reply, though I disagree with who looks foolish. I'm not saying AOC is beyond criticism, but it's hard to take that criticism seriously considering the other positions held by most of those leveling it. Is Amazon a failing, fraudulent company that doesn't deserve government contracts or is it a super-employer that should be paid to grace NY with its presence? The answer changes depending on which thread you're in or which way the wind is blowing. 

Finally, my criticism was specifically not directed at you, who I find to be one of the more consistent posters around these parts and an asset to the board. It's ironic that you're the one who replied, but I appreciate it regardless. 
Click to expand...
I didnt take the criticism to be directed at me. I havent really criticized her for the amazon deal. I dont remember specifically what it was but i think i just had an issue with the way she presented part of it. But not wanting to give subsidies to businesses is a position i often support(exceptions being if say a neighboring state was going to land it stealing workers across the border or if the deal has very specific guarantees etc). 

I just think it should be ok to criticize her when she says/does some of these things. 

Anyway sorry for the snark. 

 
Why don't be pass a federal law to ban these corporate incentives?  For the country as a whole,  that would seem to be a net positive for taxpayers.  We're almost at the point were any large employer that wants to relocate or add offices feels like they should get incentives to do so.  And it's even quite likely they'd move there regardless.  

 
This is simply ridiculous.  I can't even believe people are seriously equating 1500 jobs to 25000 to 40000 higher paying jobs.  And yes there still will be tax incentives.  Amazon would have gotten $1 billion automatically in existing tax incentives even without any special deal.  The state kicked in $2 billion in extra incentives. 

AOC to sit there pompously on the couch sarcastically saying she is waiting for all the apologies to roll is is something I would expect from Trump.  Now liberals here are actively defending such obscene antics.  Really shameful. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
This is simply ridiculous.  I can't even believe people are seriously equating 1500 jobs to 25000 to 40000 higher paying jobs.  And yes there still will be tax incentives.  Amazon would have gotten $1 billion automatically in existing tax incentives even without any special deal.  The state kicked in $2 billion in extra incentives. 

AOC to sit there pompously on the couch sarcastically saying she is waiting for all the apologies to roll is is something I would expect from Trump.  Now liberals here are actively defending such obscene antics.  Really shameful. 
Click to expand...
People aren't equating...they are rightfully saying the 25,000 may not actually be 25,000.  And showing examples of when such things have been promised inly to not happen...at great cost to a community.

 
Look why does this have to be so either-or with you guys? 

1. AOC’s initial comments about this, months ago, were ridiculous. She was spouting leftist ideology for high schoolers. It was stupid. Sad too, because she’s a much smarter person than was reflected in those comments and I think her heart is in the right place. 

2. AOC didn’t kill the deal. In fact she had very little to do with killing the deal; but she was a convenient scapegoat for both Amazon and conservatives. 

3. The new deal is good. Is it better or worse than before? Who knows and it’s irrelevant anyhow. Take it from somebody who spends his whole life in commercial real estate: you have to have a very short memory and move on. It’s a positive for New York; they should be happy. 

4. AOC’s recent self congratulatory tweet is a bit Trump like. 

5. Life is messy. You guys need to stop automatically jumping to defend or attack this or that position based on who is “on your side.” These stories  are usually a lot more complicated that purist ideology tries to make them. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
People aren't equating...they are rightfully saying the 25,000 may not actually be 25,000.  And showing examples of when such things have been promised inly to not happen...at great cost to a community.
Click to expand...
Then $3 billion would not have been $3 billion.  That is the low end of Amazon estimate to obtain the full incentives.  Amazon was planning for 40,000 jobs there.  

 
timschochet said:
Look why does this have to be so either-or with you guys? 

1. AOC’s initial comments about this, months ago, were ridiculous. She was spouting leftist ideology for high schoolers. It was stupid. Sad too, because she’s a much smarter person than was reflected in those comments and I think her heart is in the right place. 

2. AOC didn’t kill the deal. In fact she had very little to do with killing the deal; but she was a convenient scapegoat for both Amazon and conservatives. 

3. The new deal is good. Is it better or worse than before? Who knows and it’s irrelevant anyhow. Take it from somebody who spends his whole life in commercial real estate: you have to have a very short memory and move on. It’s a positive for New York; they should be happy. 

4. AOC’s recent self congratulatory tweet is a bit Trump like. 

5. Life is messy. You guys need to stop automatically jumping to defend or attack this or that position based on who is “on your side.” These stories  are usually a lot more complicated that purist ideology tries to make them. 
Click to expand...
2 is wrong.  She alone did not do it, but she was the loudest mouth criticizing the $3 billion in tax incentives which was THE reason Amazon pulled out.  She was very integral to it.  

3 is wrong too.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mile High said:
Over 10 years. 
Click to expand...
Wow! So many people are acting like the 25k jobs were going to be there right away. New York is growing and who is to say those 25k jobs won't be there in those 10 years? Amazon moving there now proves they didn't need a tax incentive to move there anyway. What a weird argument to make against AOC. Just weird.

 
Mario Kart said:
Wow! So many people are acting like the 25k jobs were going to be there right away. New York is growing and who is to say those 25k jobs won't be there in those 10 years? Amazon moving there now proves they didn't need a tax incentive to move there anyway. What a weird argument to make against AOC. Just weird.
Click to expand...
The 25k jobs were going to be there asap.  It was the incentives which is spread over 10 years, not the jobs.  

 
zoonation said:
700 jobs year one.  The 25k was a goal, not a guarantee.  
Click to expand...
How many jobs once the building was built?

How many people would it take to build 4 million square feet of mixed use commercial space?

It's ok to be against tax breaks for companies. I can actually make a solid argument it is underhanded and sleezy. I actually actively campaigned against two TIF projects in my city based on them being unfair to two long term existing local small businesses in the area. 

I just think the talking points being brought up here are very misleading. Saying it might be less than 25k jobs is a legit criticism. Saying it was 700 jobs year one is pointless since the building wouldn't be built yet and of course requires substantial labor to build. Those 700 jobs were just an increase in the space they already had occupied. 

What are they supposed to do? Hire all the new employees and just pay them to stay home?

We will text you when the building is finished and then you will have to come in to work, but for now enjoy your 387 days paid vacation!

 
zoonation said:
700 jobs year one.  The 25k was a goal, not a guarantee.  
Click to expand...
The 25,000 was not a goal.  They planned the faucilty for more tha 40,000 employees, which was their plan.  The 25k was the minimum they guaranteed to get the full tax credits.  

 
Juxtatarot said:
Why don't be pass a federal law to ban these corporate incentives?  For the country as a whole,  that would seem to be a net positive for taxpayers.  We're almost at the point were any large employer that wants to relocate or add offices feels like they should get incentives to do so.  And it's even quite likely they'd move there regardless.  
Click to expand...
I think we're past almost.

 
Mario Kart said:
AOC is correct, was proven correct, and will continue to be correct.

Corporate numbers are always inflated. (See Foxconn). If there was going to be 25k jobs, the timeline for those jobs was what? I haven't seen 25k jobs pop up out of nowhere since Amazon didn't move into NYC yet. Poof!

America needs more AOC's.
Click to expand...
She was wrong and this declaration just puts a stamp on it.  This is her Spartacus.  It is, though, a great example of socialism at work - drag the whole ship down so the inhabitants are at a more equal level.  

And there is a massive difference between the second largest firm in the world and a medium/small Chinese assembly company.  

 
Mario Kart said:
Wow! So many people are acting like the 25k jobs were going to be there right away. New York is growing and who is to say those 25k jobs won't be there in those 10 years? Amazon moving there now proves they didn't need a tax incentive to move there anyway. What a weird argument to make against AOC. Just weird.
Click to expand...
NYC is shrinking.  Microsoft basically established Seattle's fortunes as it grew;  Amazon could have done the same for her borough.  The lost opportunity there is hard to quantify.

 
Sand said:
And there is a massive difference between the second largest firm in the world and a medium/small Chinese assembly company.  
Click to expand...
Foxconn isn't Chinese and certainly isn't "medium/small".  It has the 23rd highest revenue in the world.

 
Juxtatarot said:
Why don't be pass a federal law to ban these corporate incentives?  For the country as a whole,  that would seem to be a net positive for taxpayers.  We're almost at the point were any large employer that wants to relocate or add offices feels like they should get incentives to do so.  And it's even quite likely they'd move there regardless.  
Click to expand...
I've argued in favor of this before.  If people elect leaders who create a lousy environment for business, they should have to live with the consequences, and not get bailed out by individually-negotiated one-off deals.

 
Mario Kart said:
Wow! So many people are acting like the 25k jobs were going to be there right away. New York is growing and who is to say those 25k jobs won't be there in those 10 years? Amazon moving there now proves they didn't need a tax incentive to move there anyway. What a weird argument to make against AOC. Just weird.
Click to expand...
They didnt "move there anyway." They are leasing an existing much smaller warehouse instead of building a huge new facility.

Those arent even close to the same thing. You are either completely unaware of the details of either deal, or are just trying to argue. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
They didnt "move there anyway." They are leasing an existing much smaller warehouse instead of building a huge new facility.

Those arent even close to the same thing. You are either completely unaware of the details of either deal, or are just trying to argue. 
Click to expand...
If you read articles on the day Amazon announced they were not going to open a headquarters in New York, they clearly stated they still plan to increase there presence in New York.  So the revelation that Amazon has acquired some additional space is no different than what they already stated. 

 
Amazon moved there anyway = Fake News

Fake News is great when it comes from my side. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Slapdash said:
Using $3 billion in tax incentives to lure a company to one borough vs another is not really a good use of resources
Click to expand...
It was never one borough v another.  Those jobs were coming regardless.  The day Amazon said they were going to move the HQ elsewhere, Amazon said they were still going ahead with planned expansions elsewhere in the city.  The tax incentives were from the state who did not care which borough.  New York is still the largest city and will have no problem thriving.  But for  city with supposedly crumbling infrastructure, pissing away $27 billion seems really dumb. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Axios: Democrats Fear MAGA Republican Kari Lake Could Be Arizona's Next Governor (10/21/22 01:52 PST)
Replies
18
Views
774
Snotbubbles
Snotbubbles
GordonGekko
OP/ED: J6 Committee's Liz Cheney Embodies The Worst Character Traits Of Donald Trump (6/24/22 18:05 PST)
Replies
26
Views
804
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top