It’s also not a loss of jobs. Losing jobs is a loss of jobs.
-
-
Replying to @anildash @kimmaicutler and
It's a loss of jobs. They might not have been filled yet, but they were coming. Amazon wasn't planning to open an empty building.
5 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @danprimack @kimmaicutler and
The jobs were likely not coming to people from those neighborhoods, which was the point of those who objected. Jobs for people who already have, or would have, high-paying jobs isn’t really that compelling.
3 replies 0 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @anildash @kimmaicutler and
1/ neither of us know that cuz Amazon didn't disclose the positions it wanted to put there. 2/ Any giant facility has the need for lots of more "blue collar" jobs. 3/ Indirect businesses (food, hospitality, transport, retail). 4/ Objection was over tax breaks. Not job types.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @danprimack @kimmaicutler and
Right, so my assumption is if Amazon won’t share its plan, and threatens those who try to share its plan, then the plan is almost certainly not one that will help people.
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @anildash @kimmaicutler and
You can obviously disagree w/ the analysis, but city obviously believed deal would be net positive in terms of revenue, which results in more $$ for city services, etc. Separate issue than jobs, per se, but still about helping residents.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @danprimack @anildash and
I think that’s a more complex calculation. Ed Lee adding tech basically enabled the SF city budget to grow from something around $6 to $11B/budget but then probably res real estate went up in value by $200B+, which implies many voters who were here a decade ago can’t afford the
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @danprimack and
the current city even if the city was able to almost double tax collections. From their perspective, what’s the point of doubling tax revenues of the city if the people this is intended to help can’t stay there in a decade’s time?
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @danprimack and
Displacement is a feature, not a bug here.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JRBinSV @danprimack and
I don’t know if, in SJ’s case, that it’s like something Sam really wants to do so much as SJ has large obligations & no way to pay for them under the current rev structure & therefore anyone in Sam’s position, even if they were more progressive, would be making similar trade offs
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Like De Blasio is ostensibly progressive and was for the Amazon deal, given his incentives & responsibilities.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.