Skip to main content

For Once, Amazon Loses a Popularity Contest

Personally, I was against the deal, but I had mixed feelings, even afterward. For some portions of our economy Amazon coming might have been good news, e.g., real estate, technology, and support industries. For others, and for infrastructure services in NYC, my sense was that it would have been a strain and a drain, taxing our resources and us subsidizing it with tax breaks, leading to higher costs for local inhabitants. My later thoughts had to do with evening out our economy, so heavily reliant on finance.

For myself, I've worked in technology for 30 years, mostly in finance but lately medical. I live in Manhattan, in one of the more densely tech-inhabited areas, and Amazon would have likely been good for me personally, although that is debatable. A large number of tech job, and with Amazon's higher pay, might have both made tech jobs more competitive while also making it more lucrative. Even then, Amazon has reached out to me several times about working for them, but then again, I am always getting emails and call about roles, many of it the equivalent of spam.

In the end, on one hand, I'm glad Amazon was rebuffed because of its potential harm to NYC, but then again, I likely would have liked to see the gleaming towers and growth that it would have brought. Regardless, NYC will still grow, will still be highly unequal, and technology will still take over more jobs, but maybe not so quickly as if Amazon been able to stay.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/amazon-new-york-city.html?comments#permid=30635150

@citizennotconsumer - I think you underestimate how much this hurts Amazon. Publicly, Amazon can decry the local politics to the media, but internally, they will have to blame themselves for the ignorance and bad decision-making that went ahead with the plan. A high-level decision should have been smarter, should have taken into account the potential pushback, should have done better PR. It is a failure of decision-making at a high-level within Amazon...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/business/amazon-new-york-city.html?comments#permid=30634885:30635376




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Review - The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies

The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies by Scott E. Page My rating: 4 of 5 stars Generally, I found the book most engaging for understanding perception, heuristics and decision making, although this did not seem to be the primary premise of the book. As for the writing, it was a bit long-winded, using analogies to make points, even though the concepts themselves are readily accessible without elucidation. As to its purported focus, it provides academic, empirical, and statistical support for diversity, not necessarily racial or ethnic, with the premise being that diversity of viewpoint within groups is powerful, so much so that it trumps individual excellence. View all my reviews
Post a Comment
Read more

A Response to Twilight of the Polymaths (NY Times)

Since you are aware of the fox and hedgehog dichotomy, you might be aware of Tetlock’s book and long-term study showing how foxes best hedgehogs in political prediction, Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Although depth in specialties has its merits, I can see how that depth also leads to a kind of blindness, a ‘man with a hammer’ problem, while polymaths, or people with broad awareness can sometimes pull together diverse facts to form insights that are not bound by one’s expertise. Along the same lines, many insights in technology don’t come so much from depth, but by ‘cross-pollination’ of ideas, of taking the basic concepts of one specialty and applying them to a peripherally-related one.
Post a Comment
Read more

How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care?

I'm am often reminded of a statement, paraphrased from Amartya Sen, that one person's equality is another man's inequality when discussing social welfare. Making the system work could mean increasing taxes on the wealthy, reducing the military expenditure, reducing payments for unproven medications, reducing the power of insurers, doctors, and medical/pharmaceutical companies. American wellbeing, on the whole, might improve substantially, but the flip side is that all of those impinged upon would take umbrage as if their freedom was reduced. In the end, we have to realize there is a greater good to human welfare and life, and that the interests of the powerful matter less. Even then, if we tried, expect lawsuits and smears, accusations of socialism and tyranny... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/opinion/sunday/medicare-for-all-universal-health-care.html?comments#permid=30660804
Post a Comment
Read more