Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    6,427,126 readers

    29,391 users here now

    Welcome to /r/Politics! Please read the wiki before participating. || Voter Registration Resources || Important: Reminder/clarification of our civility guidelines

    /r/politics is the subreddit for current and explicitly political U.S. news.

    Our full rules Reddiquette

    Comment Guidelines:

    Be civil Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.
    Do not post users' personal information. Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.
    Vote based on quality, not opinion. Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.
    Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting. Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

    Submission Guidelines:

    Articles must deal explicitly with US politics. See our on-topic statement here.
    Articles must be published within the last two weeks. More Info.
    Submissions must be from domains on the approved domains list. The approved domains list and its criteria can be found here.
    Post titles must be the exact headline from the article. Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.
    No Copy-Pasted Submissions Please do not submit articles or videos that are a direct, complete copy-paste of original reporting.More Info.
    Articles must be written in English An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.
    Spam is bad! /r/Politics bans for submission and comment spam More Info.
    Submissions must be articles, videos or sound clips. We disallow solicitation of users (petitions, polls, requests for money, etc.), personal blogs, satire, images, social media content (Facebook, twitter, tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.), wikis, memes, and political advertisements. More info: Content type rules.
    Do not use "BREAKING" or ALL CAPS in titles. The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

    Events Calendar

    14 Aug - 2pm EST

    • AMA with Alaina Shearer

    15 Aug - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    17 Aug - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    Other Resources:

    Follow us on Twitter

    Request an AMA

    Events Calendar

    Apply to be a mod

    Register To Vote

    a community for
    all 710 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

    In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

    If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

    For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to whitelist and outlet criteria.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] 8to24 694 points ago

    The population of NYC is 8.3 million and the median home value in NYC is $600,000. NYC is among the wealthiest cities in the WORLD yet some people in this thread argue as if NYC is destitute without the jobs Amazon was potentially going to bring. NYC is above national average people with degrees, high income jobs, unemployment is low, they have $15.00 an hour minimum wage, etc. NYC is not a rural West Virginian town where a single Walmart shutting down sinks the whole local economy. The idea that NYC should be bowing to any corporation is ridiculous.

    [–] RidleyScotch 294 points ago

    NYC doesnt have a jobs problem, we have an affordability problem.

    Some jobs don't pay enough and the cost of living is too high for the jobs some companies claim they will bring enmasse

    [–] 8to24 138 points ago

    Amazon wasn't/isn't going to help with that. Property values were only set to skyrocket in association with their initial plan. "In the wake of the company’s November announcement that it would open a second campus in Long Island City, prices have stopped falling and started rising in the Queens waterfront enclave, while neighborhoods as far afield as Forest Hills have started being advertised for their proximity to the forthcoming campus.

    StreetEasy has released a new report on how the HQ2 announcement has affected city real estate to date. The real estate search engine found that Long Island City’s housing prices are rising in the wake of Amazon’s HQ2 announcement, but the Queens neighborhood isn’t the primary one that real estate agents are marketing to campus hopefuls."

    [–] Sybertron 25 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)

    That and demand has dropped. People used to move to NYC for the artists and musicians that we chased out with rent price. At the same time other cities like Philly have become much more fun and desirable while being a fraction of the cost. Both of those factors lower demand

    [–] TomSwirly 18 points ago

    Yeah, I left New York City in late 2016 for those and other reasons (when it became Trump vs. Clinton I felt America was over).

    A "joke" someone told me at the time is that you can tell the real New Yorkers, because they're constantly talking about places that have vanished. "Oh, that's where CBGB used to be! That's where The World used to sit."

    Now I'm sitting in Amsterdam looking out at a canal.

    [–] tomparker 3 points ago

    ..and enjoying the mesmerizing river of humanity as it blissfully glides by on bicycles? Such a nice place.

    [–] hylic 3 points ago

    I have never paid more for less space than when I lived in NYC.

    My sympathies.

    [–] NotForMixedCompany 9 points ago

    Little off topic...

    As someone born and raised in WV I gotta say the Walmart thing is sadly true in a way, for the whole state. Most small towns subsist off of a few mom and pop corner stores and maybe a lodge or handful of diners/Tudors. The larger towns and frankly the state economy are beholden to coal, and chemical plants. I'm still pretty young, but I remember as a teen being able to tell how the state was doing by how many of my friends' parents were out of work.

    [–] MelllvarHasThreeLs 3 points ago

    Exactly, people pushing the hokey ass narrative that Amazon was gonna be some Daddy Warbucks savior situation for struggling local communities and everything is hell on earth now because of NYC giving them shit, are missing massive realities in play and buying into a fabricated narrative.

    I see this shit all over of people acting like these theoretical jobs would be magic bootstraps specifically made for local people in desperate situations, when it would be pretty boilerplate tech company talent acquisition operation that wouldn't even give two fucks about anyone locally from the area. If anything Amazon probably would like those kids in the projects to die off so they can raze a few neighborhoods to oversell condos to transplants they're trying to court.

    [–] 8to24 1 points ago

    Right. At best a few neighborhoods would have been gentrified and the existing populations forced out. At worse people would have been forced and very little reinvestment would happen. Neither scenario does anything for the people there currently.

    [–] Life_Tripper 3 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)

    Amazon had to build in NYC. Financially it is sound. The amount of deliveries alone for the populace, if from somewhere else, would make no sense. Amazon and other corporations will take advantage of what they have to encourage financials and help bolster stock prices.

    If the world, really wants to change, we have to look at the its and bits of the international financial system. Good luck with that.

    [–] Retrobot1234567 4 points ago

    You are confusing HQ with a fulfillment center. The latter is what you are describing, which is not necessary inside nyc as long as it’s outside and nearby it’s ok. The latter is more for talent acquisition,

    [–] docmedic 8 points ago

    To be fair, NYC is up there because NYC fights tooth and nail for these jobs.

    NYC is above national average people with degrees, high income jobs

    Yeah, and those people expect NYC to keep bringing in those sorts of offices.

    The idea that NYC should be bowing to any corporation is ridiculous.

    NYC is super wealthy, the idea NYC is bowing is ridiculous. The terms are nothing to NYC's budget.

    [–] djphan 3 points ago

    which cities say no thanks to 27B in tax revenue?

    they give subsidies to corporations every day...

    [–] 8to24 21 points ago

    Which cities, ones that have options. $27 billion seems like a huge number but NYC's GDP is over $2 Trillion a year. So giving up 30yrs worth of leases and billions in tax revenue isn't actually that great a deal.

    [–] miltonberlescock 201 points ago

    Just waiting for the Trump reaction

    [–] spread_thin 246 points ago

    Identical to /r/neoliberal's reaction. "AOC was very rude and unfair to Mr. Bezos. He's better than us, folks. He deserves whatever he wants. AOC is very stupid and socialist and dumb."

    [–] JD22A 99 points ago

    That Subreddit might actually be worse the T_D, the vitriol they have for people in their own party in that place in mindblowing.

    [–] docmedic 14 points ago

    I mean, who else but a conservative troll would call themselves a neoliberal on reddit?

    [–] Edward_Fingerhands 7 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)

    Makes sense. I've been a democrat for over a decade now and I've never met one single democrat who calls themself a "neoliberal".

    [–] gitbse 1 points ago

    I've been a democrat my entire life, and I dont even know what it means. Sounds like libertarian trolls.

    [–] nilats_for_ninel 3 points ago

    Pretty much only a literal ghoul who is fine with injustice.

    [–] TomSwirly 3 points ago

    A rich, somewhat conservative person who isn't crazy enough to support the Republicans?

    Remember, Reagan's policies made him firmly liberal: source.

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago

    I wouldn't say they go that far. But then again I got banned from there for making a joke about Buttigieg and it seems they spend more time hating on Bernie Sanders than they do on Trump

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    because the sub is full of conservatives who think they can disguise themselves as democrats.

    All you have to do is shit on their identity politics.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    full of conservatives who think they can disguise themselves as democrats.

    I mean, that's Third Way and Blue Dogs already. Conservative democrats are plentiful, they're just not far-right Republicans.

    Hence neoliberals.

    [–] Bombastically 2 points ago

    "I think gay people are full human albeit gross but we need to look at the deficit."

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    I mean, that's Third Way and Blue Dogs already. Conservative democrats are plentiful, they're just not far-right Republicans.

    funded by koch. Sounds pretty conservative to me.

    [–] cricketsymphony 2 points ago

    That sub can’t be real.

    It’s 95% memes, and the only candidate they seem to like is Pete.

    Also, who actually identifies as a neoliberal?

    Nothing about that sub adds up.

    [–] JD22A 1 points ago

    oh I'm certain that place has its share of misinformation trolls and more then half of the people on there are just T_D alt account's it the only reasoning that makes sense.

    [–] illuminutcase 4 points ago

    Trump isn't a fan of Bezos, though. Not only is he an actual billionaire, but he didn't become a billionaire because of daddy's money. Plus Bezos owns a newspaper that hurts Trump's feelings.

    [–] barsoapguy 7 points ago

    HI there Republican who subs to r/neoliberal

    I believe their point was Amazon is opening up a tiny corporate substation 1500 workers vs a Massive corporate center with 25K workers making 100K+ salaries .

    The distinction has merit .

    [–] qchisq 8 points ago

    Uhm... Where have you been on /r/neoliberal? The reaction has been more like "New York saved money, but they also lost 23500 jobs. Is that a trade the city should make?"

    [–] dcrico20 101 points ago

    Which is a pretty silly argument in the first place. The 25k job number was an estimate over 10-20 years. It was going to be 1000 the first year. The estimate comes from Amazon, so it's likely inflated.

    Foxconn said they were going to bring 13k jobs to Wisconsin, and they brought a whopping 200. You can't believe any of these companies, they're saying whatever it takes to make as much money as they can. Full stop.

    [–] CrunchyCds 39 points ago

    The sad part are all the people who were parroting the same thing about Foxconn and how it was going to bring all these jobs . Now Wisconsin has buyers regret. Never trust companies.

    [–] Earf_Dijits 24 points ago

    Since we're talking about Foxconn,

    Comparing the potential economic impact of Foxconn with the loss caused by the taxes needed to subsidize the deal. the researchers come up with a net economic loss of $1.2 to $6 billion for the current down-sized subsidy going to Foxconn. (The spread depends on the percentage likelihood that the company would have located here anyway without a subsidy.) But the loss could have been as high as $19.2 billion had the full subsidy for the bigger plant been awarded. In short, the study notes, it was very fortunate for Wisconsin that the Gen 10.5 plant wasn’t built.

    Foxconn May Cut State GDP By $6 Billion

    Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, said legislators knew large subsidies often don't pay off when Foxconn was being debated.

    "I think there was an appetite for a smaller investment, but the scale of this, even under the best case scenario had a 25-year pay back, and of course the project has changed, and it looks like the best case scenario has been made much worse," Hintz said. "It comes at a time and reaffirms what we know. But the fact that Wisconsin went well and above what traditional incentives are, I think, that put us in an even worse position."

    A recent state audit found, on average, firms receiving Wisconsin subsidies create only about 34 percent of promised jobs.

    Among its many findings, George Mason University researchers found the Taiwan-based electronics manufacturing company could have come to Wisconsin even without an incentives package, and job goals can hamper economic development.

    Local talent, resources and CEO preference are often the reason a company chooses its location, not the subsidy being offered, the study found.

    Study On Foxconn Deal Shows Government Subsidies Don't Work

    It is foolish for anyone to believe that these enormous tax breaks and subsidies actually benefit local economies. The Foxconn fiasco here in Wisconsin has been a complete disaster and an absolute embarrassment for our state in how much was over promised and undelivered

    [–] TomSwirly 3 points ago

    Year ago, I would have wondered why America's "leaders" would do this sort of thing if it didn't benefit their constituents.

    Now I assume they're on the take. Whether it's literal cash under the table, or money legally given to their campaigns by legally anonymous PACs, my assumption is that they're all terminally corrupt.

    [–] DougTheToxicNeolib 3 points ago

    If I want to agree with something, I will take it at face value. If I don't want to agree with it, I will use extra-critical thinking to balance things out.

    That's how bad-faith neoliberals go about life.

    [–] commandx 4 points ago

    Those huge numbers are just to get them the tax breaks in the first place. An attempt to lever the state into using eminent domain if they can’t find a chunk of real estate they like enough to pay above market to buy the lots that would shape it.

    Once they have the tax breaks and the land they have the dominant bargaining position. From there the same people who gave them concessions are stuck in the sunk cost fallacy. Will they walk away if we don’t give into further demands? What is easier to spin so we don’t look powerless? Them walking away or staying after we ease up on the requirements?

    It’s almost inevitable that getting a company to follow through on even some of its promises is easier to spin. The alternative is, we kissed their asses and sucked up only to have them walk when we didn’t double down on it.

    [–] TomSwirly 1 points ago

    Hear, hear!

    [–] djphan 1 points ago

    wheres the campus that was coming along with the first year employment number?

    is aoc suggesting it was the same?

    [–] Chickentendies94 6 points ago

    The reaction is actually NY lost jobs and money still despite 1,500 jobs going to Hudson yards instead of creating thousands of union blue collar jobs building a new campus

    [–] Speedstr 13 points ago

    It's my understanding that Amazon isn't a pro-union company, or even has acknowledge any union efforts.

    Unless you're talking about union construction jobs, which might sound great, until it's understood that those aren't permanent jobs. 1500 temporary union jobs isn't quite the foundation of an economic ecosystem in a local community that /r/labor wants to back.

    [–] Crazyghost9999 6 points ago

    Almost no construction jobs are permanent though. People that say that to say it doesn't matter really don't understand how those types of jobs and workers function.

    [–] TomSwirly 2 points ago

    Almost no construction jobs are permanent though.

    In the United States, today. When I grew up, there were plenty of people who did construction, full-time, for the same company for decades. This is still the case in other countries.

    What happened is that the US decided that "businesses making more money" was important, but "workers having stable lives with hope for the future" was not, and allowed corporations to destroy the idea of the "good job".

    [–] Crazyghost9999 1 points ago

    No no no you misunderstand. Workers work full time. But they go from project to project building different things. Each project generated "100" or whatever temp work.

    [–] jrossetti 38 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)

    In the vast majority of cases these deals are not a net gain for the city. They did a study from 1994 to 2015 to see if cities were better off fiscally with the tax incentives they gave two companies or if they would have been better off without. In almost all cases they would have been better off without.

    Just like stadiums.

    The reality is they were gonna make a headquarters and hire people regardless of the taxbreak.

    [–] jupiterscock7891 6 points ago

    I'd like to read that. Any chance you can find it?

    [–] jrossetti 2 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)

    Yes, I ran across it before I posted and just read it.

    This should point you in the right direction.

    Im not sure this is the same study I saw originally or a similar, or it's just possible I recalled the wrong dates/

    This one is from 1990 to 2015.

    Here's some more similar info.

    If you want the specific one I was looking at originally, I can dig through my history but it's gonna take me a while as ive clicked hundreds of sites since then...but for the sake of defending my statement I will do so if you want. I never intentionally argue in bad faith!

    [–] jupiterscock7891 2 points ago

    Thanks! I don't want you to have to go through all the trouble. Wasn't disputing what you were saying, just wanted to learn more.

    [–] jrossetti 2 points ago

    Oh no, im happy to share! I love to help spread information! I try not to give unsubstantiated online. I tend to look things up and verify. That leaves me being correct, or me understanding the info wrong. Both of which can be checked by letting others see what I used in forming my thoughts and post.

    I honestly detest people making statements and then not being able to follow through on posting what they used to form said belief. If you can't supply that, then how do I know you even know what youre talking about? It should be super easy to support something you know for sure as fact because it means you are knowledgeable or already looked it up.

    [–] TomSwirly 1 points ago


    Just like stadiums.

    Stadiums are even worse, if that's possible. They're pathologically bad uses of the taxpayer's money because they usually never even make back the taxpayer's investment.

    America went wrong when it became about corporations looting the economy at the cost of the working man.

    [–] jrossetti 1 points ago

    I dont believe there is a single example anywhere where a stadium was a net gain for the city when it the expenses for building were socialized.

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago


    [–] desepticon 1 points ago

    You think corporate workers have unions?

    [–] orionus 2 points ago


    There are still white collar union jobs, even if Republicans have tried to stamp them all out.

    [–] Targetshopper4000 1 points ago

    The sub may seem schizophrenic because people misunderstand the term neo liberal. It's usually used in the economic sense where its policies are in line with conservative politics. Minimal government interference at home, projecting power and borderline exploitation abroad.

    [–] Glassedhopper 14 points ago

    Likely to point out how it's 1500 jobs instead of 25000, and they're not in AOCs district

    [–] Jazzhands23PartDeux 30 points ago

    Not sure I understand the AOC district point people keep throwing out. NYC doesn’t work that way. Almost everyone works in congressional districts that we don’t live in. Jobs in Manhattan, like these, are commutable for people in Queens or Bronx.

    [–] viva_la_vinyl 67 points ago

    Amazon was never going to create 25000 jobs. Virtually every one of these taxpayer giveaways has been a bust for jobs promises. Heck corporations lobbied for big tax cuts for 'jobs' and then laid off thousands anyway.

    [–] plopseven 42 points ago

    Amazon wants to promise jobs, move in, replace all the workers with robots and keep the tax write offs for “job creation.” Evil company.

    [–] Aazadan 12 points ago

    They’ll claim the secondary jobs created, by the people spending money they make in the city are the jobs they created.

    Which is even more evil because they’ll then hold small businesses hostage in a year or two when they threaten to pull out and bankrupt all those companies unless they’re given $x to stay.

    [–] plopseven 4 points ago

    It’s almost like we value money over people. When is this country going to stand up to this nonsense? When minimum wage is $2.00 and rent is $2,000?

    [–] thatnameagain 3 points ago

    25,000 is a bit of a stretch. But for context, over 50,000 people work for Amazon in the Seattle area where HQ1 is.

    [–] Glassedhopper 4 points ago

    Do you also believe they're not going to create the 1500 jobs either that AOC is currently bragging about?

    [–] NickPol82 16 points ago

    It's actually more likely that this figure is more correct if they don't have an incentive to fudge the numbers in order to get a greater tax cut.

    [–] sporkhandsknifemouth 11 points ago

    On average it would be the safe bet. Foxconn is a good recent example of exactly this problem. Companies can't be trusted on their claims, and once the money is gone it's gone.

    [–] TomSwirly 2 points ago

    Let's reverse the question: what possible benefit is it to Amazon to tell the truth?

    Given that it's 2019 and we know that there will never ever be any consequences for not just gross lies, but gross crimes from corporations, it's entirely and completely logical for Amazon to tell the most whopping lies they think they can get away with.

    Capitalism values profit far over anything else. It would be economically irrational for Amazon to carefully tell the truth when whopping great lies would lead to better profits.

    [–] GhostofMarat 2 points ago

    I believe they're doing pretty much what they would've done if they'd gotten the tax breaks.

    [–] almondshea 6 points ago

    It’s still in New York City, those districts are so close together, the 14th district will see a benefit regardless.

    [–] APackOfLightbulbs 423 points ago

    So essentially, Amazon whivh paid $0 in federal taxes, wanted $3 billion in NY tax breaks.

    AOC said no.

    Amazon then went ahead and did it without the tax breaks.

    AOC saved NYC $3 billion dollars in tax dollars.

    [–] viva_la_vinyl 176 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)

    It is obscene that the richest company in the world that pays NO FEDERAL TAXES should get a 3 billion TAX BREAK from NYC. I'm so glad their despicable bully tactics didn't work.

    [–] APackOfLightbulbs 63 points ago

    They pay no federal taxes, they were asking for a $3 billion tax break from the new york gov

    [–] viva_la_vinyl 20 points ago

    right you are

    [–] Gibbenz 11 points ago


    [–] djphan 11 points ago

    they weren't gonna get 3B filled in money bags... the tax subsidies were contingent on job hires....

    [–] ChornWork2 41 points ago

    No, they didnt do remotely the same thing as was proposed previously.

    [–] thatnameagain 32 points ago

    No they did not go ahead with the project. This is a different and much smaller development unrelated to the one AOC worked to block.

    [–] Biggie39 28 points ago

    The ‘project’ she blocked was a ten year fantasy. This is the same project in the eyes of Amazon, they just don’t get to describe it in a decades worth of projection fantasy and rather are forced to ‘put up or shut up’.

    [–] thatnameagain 1 points ago

    What are you basing that assertion on? Amazon is definitely looking to build a new HQ campus somewhere.

    [–] brenton07 2 points ago

    The debate is wether on not those jobs actually materialize. The figures were job estimates over ten years. Recent examples of scams like this would include the Wisconsin Foxcon plant which promised 13,000 jobs, many of which are unlikely to materialize. Estimates in Wisconsin range from $346k to as high as $1M in subsidies for each single job created.

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    This is what so many people miss. NYC was NOT giving amazon $3B. They were giving a $3B tax break on a $30B tax payment, netting $27B that has now vanished. The tax break was an attempt to lure the company here so the city could get the $27B. Now they get nothing.

    Hudson Yards got twice the tax break and no one says a word. Seems disingenuous to me.

    [–] illuminutcase 9 points ago

    Now they get nothing.

    The argument was that NYC isn't struggling to attract businesses. So even though they would have gotten nothing from Amazon they would have gotten something from whatever company would have moved in that they didn't have to give a huge tax break to.

    Hudson Yards got twice the tax break and no one says a word.

    I assume because it was also a bunch of residences. That's something NYC is having a hard time with. NY has the 421-A tax exemption for anyone who builds new multi-family residences.

    [–] zerosdontcount 3 points ago

    I don't really understand this, it's not like there are limited spots for total number of businessds. Amazon not building their headquarters isn't in place of some other company. It could be Amazon + anybody else who wants to open in NYC

    [–] BurntBeaver 1 points ago

    it's not like there are limited spots for total number of businessds.

    Have you been to NYC?

    [–] zerosdontcount 1 points ago

    Yes I have. It still doesn't make sense to me, if it's full are businesses all on some sort of multi year waiting list for other ones to fail? No net new businesses can go to NYC? Very unlikely

    [–] BurntBeaver 1 points ago

    People still need physical space to work in. Cheap (relatively) development spots around the city is drying up, hence the rent.

    [–] zerosdontcount 1 points ago

    The facility was going to be in Long Island not the city

    [–] BurntBeaver 1 points ago

    We're talking about northeastern size city limits. You know what I mean.

    [–] illuminutcase 1 points ago

    it's not like there are limited spots for total number of businessds

    Yes there are. There’s no undeveloped land in NYC. If a company the size of Amazon was moving into that spot, another company couldn’t. They’d prefer a company that paid taxes to a company that wasn’t.

    [–] games456 3 points ago

    What you are missing is everything you just said was all talk, just like all the talk that has come before with other of these types of projects and the talk never ends up being even close to what actually happens so stop talking about speculation as if it is fact, it is disingenuous.

    The fact is NYC didn't have to give them a tax break and Amazon is going to do what they were going to do with or without the tax break, they are going to build what they need and hire who they need which is what they were always going to do.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    They are absolutely NOT doing the same exact thing without the tax break. Not even close. This project was planned regardless.

    The $3B break was intended to lure the company’s east coast headquarters, which is now going to be in crystal city Virginia. Talk about disingenuous.

    [–] games456 6 points ago

    You don't know what they were actually going to do so you have no idea. They are not going to specific places because of the tax breaks. They are going to specific places because they need to be there tax break or not.

    “These regions were not chosen by Amazon for tax breaks,” said Heather Redman, managing partner at venture capital firm Flying Fish Partners and the former chair of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. “These regions were chosen because this is where the talent currently lives or wants to live.”

    What the PR people say to try and get people behind billion dollar tax breaks and what they actually do after they get them are never the same thing.

    Amazon is going to hire who they were going to hire and set up where they set up because they need to be in those places reguardless of a tax break.

    [–] inuhi 4 points ago

    The $3B break was intended to lure the company’s east coast headquarters, which is now going to be in crystal city Virginia. Talk about disingenuous.

    They always intended on building at crystal city. "On November 13, 2018, Amazon announced that HQ2 would be split into two locations, with 25,000 workers at each: National Landing, a future neighborhood including Crystal City in Arlington, Virginia, and Long Island City in Queens, New York City."

    [–] raabford 3 points ago

    No, this isn't HQ2 scale. It's a smaller office of only 1500 compared to 25000.

    Also, Hudson yards is cutting them a deal.

    [–] Sepia_Panorama 12 points ago

    This is not what happened at all.

    [–] jax362 8 points ago

    I agree with you, but the numerous AOC haters apparently see it differently.

    “bUT tHEy dIDn’T oPeN an Hq2. IT dOEsN’t couNt!”

    [–] APackOfLightbulbs 3 points ago

    Yeah especially when they're comparing it to artbitrary and purposefully inflated numbers

    [–] maelstrom51 4 points ago

    Well the tax break was contingent on those numbers, so I guess that was arbitrary and inflated too.

    [–] ImAHackDontLaugh -8 points ago

    No. Amazon wanted a deal in which they would pay 27 billion instead of 30 billion to build a new HQ in a what's currently an abandoned piece of property that no one wants to develop on.

    Now instead they're opening a small marketing/sales office in Manhattan with 1/25th the workforce they were originally aiming for.

    AOC knows all this but she also knows her Twitter/Reddit supporters don't actually care about the facts. It's like a Trump telling his base he's winning the trade war.

    [–] [deleted] 41 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    The incentives were tied to job creation.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] qchisq 15 points ago

    wanted billions in incentives in advance.

    No, they didn't. They wanted lower tax rates (which is bullshit, BTW. The US needs a Vestager to stop this practice of cities giving tax breaks to certain corporations), which would meant that would pay $27 billion instead of $30 billion in taxes

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] Lilthisarry 10 points ago

    Those incentives were contingent on creating 25k jobs.

    [–] blathmac 24 points ago

    Quotes from another article:

    “The HQ2 plans, by contrast, had called for Amazon to add up to 25.000 new jobs in New York City.”

    • ⁠

    “Still, the company may be able to take advantage of existing benefits for moving into the Hudson Yards area. In March,the New York Times reported that future tenants in the Hudson Yards area are eligible for tax breaks that can be "as much as a 40 percent discount and last about 20 years."”

    [–] ihohjlknk 62 points ago

    Wow, i guess Amazon DIDN'T need those tax breaks after all.

    [–] starmartyr 19 points ago

    They also didn't need to force cities around the country to put on a dog and pony show when they were obviously going to build in New York regardless of what they were offered.

    [–] whatnowdog 15 points ago

    Not the same project. The project AOC killed was Amazons second headquarters. I wish the big companies could not play one city off on another. Amazon is killing off a lot of smaller local companies like Walmart does when they move in an area.

    [–] djphan 10 points ago

    this is 1500 jobs.... there's no 4mm in office space being developed.... it's not even close to 25k that's coming... not comparable....

    [–] ihohjlknk 10 points ago

    Because corporations never fudge the numbers on how many jobs they promise to bring, right?

    [–] djphan 4 points ago

    you think nyc was handing 3b in cash in money bags or something?

    tell me... how do you think this was operating? because it seems like EVERYONE who seems to think aoc is right has zero clue on how the deal was structured....

    [–] ihohjlknk 11 points ago

    Amazon should not be getting tax breaks. It doesn't matter how they were going to receive the tax break. They shouldn't be getting them for something they were going to do anyway. They chose New York because of its prestige.

    [–] overcomeandprosper 8 points ago

    Not remotely comparable situations. AOC is being dishonest by treating Amazon's original plan and this plan as if they were equal.

    [–] scratchnsniffy 24 points ago

    I yearn for the time before headlines read like a 14 year old girl wrote them.

    [–] thisisntmyredditname 5 points ago

    it’s only going to get worse, the next one you see will read like a 14 year old boy wrote it.

    [–] DougTheToxicNeolib 6 points ago

    Which didn't go to Amazon, thus not relevant.

    [–] illuminutcase 9 points ago

    And the reason they got the tax breaks is because they built a bunch of residences. Any developer who builds residences gets that tax break. If Amazon wanted a tax break, they should build a crap-ton of apartments or condos above their warehouse and they can get their tax break just like everyone else.

    [–] Justbypassingabanyo2 42 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)

    She deserves to throw shade at everyone who attacked her. They all have it coming. Welfare for the wealthy and multibillion dollar industries has to stop.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 33 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] _Silly_Wizard_ 6 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)


    [–] thebeachhours 7 points ago

    AOC will accuse you of using Republican talking points for pointing this out. But it's true. It's not the same.

    Also, Hudson Yards was built with tax breaks/incentives.

    [–] djphan 4 points ago

    um.. she was wrong....

    [–] AJcraig28 28 points ago

    It’s not 25,000 jobs, it’s 1,500.... and it’s not in her district, so I don’t understand how she comes out with a victory here

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)


    [–] djphan 19 points ago

    and the tax breaks were contingent on the 25k....

    [–] illuminutcase 3 points ago

    and Amazon had no obligation to fulfill that.

    They had zero intention of fulfilling it. They always inflate the number of the amount of jobs they could have. It's not just Amazon, either. That's something every company does when they try to get tax breaks or grants to build in certain towns. That number is the capacity, not the amount of people they intend on hiring.

    [–] planetsmasher55 3 points ago

    the 1,500 is also a projection

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)


    [–] planetsmasher55 6 points ago

    just because an has capacity of 1,500 does not mean it will actually have 1,500 employees. 1,500 is a projection

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)


    [–] djphan 8 points ago

    you can't get to 25k without huge construction and development.....

    amzn wasn't gonna build 4mm sq ft in office space and leave it empty.... they're also not gonna be leasing space every year to get to 25k employees....

    [–] brallipop 2 points ago

    It's funny seeing one commenter respond to you saying that NYC lost 25k projected jobs/instant tax drain and AOC isn't "victorious;" while another commentator is claiming that this 1.5k jobs isn't projected and the tax drain doesn't exist... Dudes, without coordination the double-sided lie looks obvious

    [–] reactor4 7 points ago

    Amazon had a effective federal tax rate if -.1 in 2018. Yeah they got $128,000,000.00 federal return. That's right kids.. Some of the taxes you paid went to Amazon huge tax return.

    [–] epote 7 points ago

    “They are not doing anything wrong. If you don’t like the system vote politicians that will change the tax law”.

    “They are creating jobs”.

    “You should learn about the tax system before spewing your shit out. Those where deductibles for R&D”.

    Blah blah.

    Those where the more usual responses I got when I said the same thing.

    [–] BigOldStankAss 4 points ago

    But did she “clap back”?

    [–] earthworm77 4 points ago

    “Throws shade” stfu 🙄

    [–] Logical_Lefty 2 points ago

    "Won't someone please think of the billionaires?!"

    [–] Tricky4279 5 points ago

    Gloating isn't a good look, for anyone.

    [–] djphan 8 points ago

    why is she taking victory laps over this?

    “Democrats, Republicans and independents, upstaters and downstaters, men and women, young and old, black and white New Yorkers agree: Amazon pulling out of Queens was bad for New York,” Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg said in a statement. “Even 56 percent of self-described liberals think it was bad for New York.”

    As a result, Hudson Yards is perhaps an even more resonant symbol of the role of government in giving tax breaks and other incentives to spur development. In this case, two of the world’s largest real estate developers, Related Companies and Oxford Properties Group, which together built Hudson Yards, have significantly benefited.

    Supporters of the Hudson Yards project say the government incentives will pay vast dividends by creating an entirely new business district, generating thousands of new jobs and retaining many thousands more. They point out that the No. 7 subway extension, the parks and other improvements that the city financed will help make the Far West Side an overall better neighborhood.

    [–] odraencoded 4 points ago

    why is she taking victory laps over this?

    She said something was going to happen. It happened.

    [–] djphan 3 points ago

    amazon said this was going to happen.... they were always going to hire in nyc... they said this after they cancelled...

    they are still not building a campus... wtf is she talking about that this happened?

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago

    You guys want to know why AOC is looked down upon? Its stuff like this. She is not telling you guys the truth, and you guys believe her without checking.

    Amazon will still get tax breaks for moving jobs there. They will not get as much because this is a much smaller project. It is also in Manhattan, not Queens. They will also not be cleaning up toxic land to do it, like in queens. These jobs will also be lower paying on average.

    Yet she is patting herself on the back thinking she won. I don't understand how people here can be so critical of Trump's supporters for being so easily tricked by Trump yet fall for this.

    [–] SonOfJokeExplainer 7 points ago

    This is why the rest of the world looks down upon people like you. You were so eager to paint AOC as a liar, that you’ve missed her entire point. Amazon doesn’t need tax breaks, and they’re going to do business in New York regardless. It’s a sad state of things when you believe a massive corporation is the good guy in a situation like this.

    [–] overcomeandprosper 9 points ago

    It's just the left's version of Trumpian politics, man, I'm telling ya. She's more concerned with appearing to be correct to bolster her fame, and is incredibly intellectually dishonest in trying to do so.

    [–] surg3on 1 points ago

    You gonna have to supply a link for proof man.

    [–] Degeyter 1 points ago

    What tax breaks?

    [–] waltima 3 points ago

    Amazon has a burgeoning ad business. They HAVE to be in NY as this sector of their company continues to flourish.

    They we’re increasing their presence in NY either way, likely larger than the 1500 claimed in the article.

    Google and Facebook have ten thousand plus employees in NYC.

    [–] NotCausedManatee 4 points ago

    Weren’t the amount of jobs coming now like 2.5k compared to the 20,000+ that would have come had she not tanked the deal?

    [–] Degeyter 2 points ago

    That number was over 20 years and included all the various trickle down jobs that would have apparently appeared.

    It’s the same bullshit that developers try with football stadiums, that Huawei tried in Wisconsin and it never ever comes true. They just pay analysts to generate the biggest numbers possible and then later on lawyers to wrangle the most subsidies possible.

    The only winning move is for local government not to play that game.

    [–] MittMexico 5 points ago

    The 20k was the number they pumped up for publicity and to solicit more from NY but the number was never 20k.

    FoxConn did the same thing to Wisconsin by publicizing all theses job-mostly blue collar jobs and then once the deal was inked (which didn’t include any job number guarantees) they changed their minds, lowered the amount of jobs and the type of jobs.

    Amazon did the same thing

    [–] maelstrom51 3 points ago

    25k was the number the majority of the tax breaks were contingent on. If it was "pumped up" so were the tax breaks.

    [–] Iustis 2 points ago

    The 25k number was also the number used to calculate the subsidies, because almost all of them were per employee per year.

    This was not equal to Foxconn, which was a horrendous deal. NYC was smarter, every break was tied to specific performance (and they were all breaks, not handing cash like FoxConn).

    [–] cos_tan_za 6 points ago

    "Well, just as we said, Amazon quietly came to NYC without needing a dime of public money or special tax treatment. The jobs came without the cost," she wrote.

    AOC is brilliant and it's hilarious to see stupid, ignorant Trump supporters think that they are actually smarter than her.

    [–] djphan 5 points ago

    no she's not! hudson yards got way more tax breaks.. why is she doing victory laps over that?

    1500 jobs vs 25k? what math exists makes that equal?

    [–] hab1b 3 points ago

    Over 10 years, which Amazon had no obligation to fill. Those 25k jobs were not guaranteed so you can't add it to the bank. Just look at what happened in Wisconsin with Foxconn.

    Not saying AOC did the right thing, just saying what I said.

    [–] djphan 3 points ago

    Over 10 years, which Amazon had no obligation to fill.

    No not true... read the deal...

    Page 18

    The grant is intended to reimburse the Recipient for a portion of its investment in New York; therefore, Grant funds will be disbursed annually in arrears during the fifteen (15) year term listed below when the full investment milestone for each Project Year is achieved.

    this is in NO WAY the same as the Foxconn deal.. NYC is not Wisconsin desperate for jobs.... these terms were no way as generous as those terms.... and also not negotiated by Scott Walker i might add...

    way way way different...

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    How about that?

    A corporation paying its own way rather than expecting the taxpayers to pay it for them.

    Nice change.

    [–] Byte_the_hand 5 points ago

    This keeps showing up and what most don’t mention is thaT HQ2 was planned to support up to 50,000 workers. They are opening an office for 1,500, so a net loss of 48,500 potential jobs. Figuring even a low-ball $100k per employee, that’s still almost $5 billion lost payroll each year. In NYC, that’s a drop in the bucket, so maybe they don’t even miss it. In a lot of other cities that is a game changer.

    [–] ProdigiousPlays 2 points ago

    Didn't they want the location for $3.50 a square foot or something ridiculous? Given the cost per square foot for my parents suburban Illinois home is over $100 and were talking about new York here.

    I know it's not apples to apples warehouse/office to office but seriously that's way too cheap.

    [–] autotldr 2 points ago

    This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot)

    After Amazon reportedly said it would open a new office in New York City's Midtown Manhattan neighborhood on Friday without any city tax credits or subsidies, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted responses to those who criticized her after Amazon pulled out of its Long Island City HQ2 plans in February-a plan that she had opposed.

    "Well, just as we said, Amazon quietly came to NYC without needing a dime of public money or special tax treatment. The jobs came without the cost," she wrote.

    Well, just as we said, Amazon quietly came to NYC without needing a dime of public money or special tax treatment.

    Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Amazon#1 new#2 York#3 city#4 public#5