I think it’s telling that Amazon caved so easily and hasn’t announced that they’re going someplace else, say Camden where they were offered $6BB in incentives and they’re investing $700MM in an electric car company. Poor Amazon. Seems also that they weren’t very transparent on who would be filling those 25K in jobs.
What do you mean by this? Amazon said they likely wouldn't build a second site now, only Virginia. The 25k jobs would be dispersed through existing sites. They wanted to establish a NYC presence and were very open about it.
I’m reading that there was some questions raised about who would actually fill the 25K in jobs and where they would come from, local or from out of state. Amazon was reportedly non-commital.
Of course you would be non-commital. If I were hiring 25k people, I'd be hiring the 25k most qualified people for the job, from wherever in the US they came from. This is hardly some nefarious conspiracy to import the heathens from NJ, Boston and other horrible places. Now your bias is going to be local because then you don't have to pay relo, which is very expensive. Plus the start dates are usually more immediate.
So the people in the neighborhood see a huge influx of outsiders, get rent increased out of where they live and don’t get hired too? Yea, sounds about right. And what’s wrong with asking where the hires are coming from or asking for a commitment in exchange for $3BB? Free money with no strings attached for billionaires that don’t need it.
Well they are exchanging 3 billion for 20 billion, so there is that important detail. I don't know how they are "outsiders". Is that what you call people that move into your neighborhood or businesses that relocate to your city? I don't. I call them Americans or American businesses and I welcome them. Plus, with the low unemployment rate, do you think there are 25k unemployed people in that Queens neighborhood that qualify for these jobs? Seems like these are unreasonable expectations.
The city I work in regularly works with and requires that major companies that build large facilities hire a % of people from the city, including typically low income, public housing residents. It’s a public/private partnership and it helps strengthen the existing neighborhoods. They also tightly regulate the number of parking spaces and encourage subsidized public transportation, bike share, etc. I know, the horror.
What city are you speaking of? I know that's not something Richmond typically negotiated, and I worked for largest employer in the metro area. I'm not being sarcastic, but the general feeling was the people in the area are qualified to compete for the jobs, so there was no push to make it mandatory. Plus, there was the feeling that bringing people in from out of town only grew the tax base, which was desirable. This is all particularly true in an era of low unemployment. You couldn't only rely on existing citizens.
I wouldn’t expect a “southern” city to conduct its business in this manner but my point was that city governments do ask for things in return for tax breaks and such. And it works and it helps the community at large. They sometimes ask for internship programs or job training opportunities for local youth, etc. They don’t require all jobs be filled by locals, just that a % be.
"southern"? Check the electoral map on VA. Also, check the color of the city of Richmond and surrounding counties. And while you're at it, check the Congressional map of NOVA, where Amazon will be located. NYC is an outlier on how to do business, not Virginia.
Power to NOVA. Can’t wait to hear the complaints about the traffic, overburdened schools and urbanization of what previously had been open space. Some people want unlimited growth and what it brings and others don’t. Go VA.
I think it’s telling that Amazon caved so easily and hasn’t announced that they’re going someplace else, say Camden where they were offered $6BB in incentives and they’re investing $700MM in an electric car company. Poor Amazon. Seems also that they weren’t very transparent on who would be filling those 25K in jobs.
What do you mean by this? Amazon said they likely wouldn't build a second site now, only Virginia. The 25k jobs would be dispersed through existing sites. They wanted to establish a NYC presence and were very open about it.
I’m reading that there was some questions raised about who would actually fill the 25K in jobs and where they would come from, local or from out of state. Amazon was reportedly non-commital.
Of course you would be non-commital. If I were hiring 25k people, I'd be hiring the 25k most qualified people for the job, from wherever in the US they came from. This is hardly some nefarious conspiracy to import the heathens from NJ, Boston and other horrible places. Now your bias is going to be local because then you don't have to pay relo, which is very expensive. Plus the start dates are usually more immediate.
So the people in the neighborhood see a huge influx of outsiders, get rent increased out of where they live and don’t get hired too? Yea, sounds about right. And what’s wrong with asking where the hires are coming from or asking for a commitment in exchange for $3BB? Free money with no strings attached for billionaires that don’t need it.
Well they are exchanging 3 billion for 20 billion, so there is that important detail. I don't know how they are "outsiders". Is that what you call people that move into your neighborhood or businesses that relocate to your city? I don't. I call them Americans or American businesses and I welcome them. Plus, with the low unemployment rate, do you think there are 25k unemployed people in that Queens neighborhood that qualify for these jobs? Seems like these are unreasonable expectations.
The city I work in regularly works with and requires that major companies that build large facilities hire a % of people from the city, including typically low income, public housing residents. It’s a public/private partnership and it helps strengthen the existing neighborhoods. They also tightly regulate the number of parking spaces and encourage subsidized public transportation, bike share, etc. I know, the horror.
What city are you speaking of? I know that's not something Richmond typically negotiated, and I worked for largest employer in the metro area. I'm not being sarcastic, but the general feeling was the people in the area are qualified to compete for the jobs, so there was no push to make it mandatory. Plus, there was the feeling that bringing people in from out of town only grew the tax base, which was desirable. This is all particularly true in an era of low unemployment. You couldn't only rely on existing citizens.
I wouldn’t expect a “southern” city to conduct its business in this manner but my point was that city governments do ask for things in return for tax breaks and such. And it works and it helps the community at large. They sometimes ask for internship programs or job training opportunities for local youth, etc. They don’t require all jobs be filled by locals, just that a % be.
"southern"? Check the electoral map on VA. Also, check the color of the city of Richmond and surrounding counties. And while you're at it, check the Congressional map of NOVA, where Amazon will be located. NYC is an outlier on how to do business, not Virginia.
Power to NOVA. Can’t wait to hear the complaints about the traffic, overburdened schools and urbanization of what previously had been open space. Some people want unlimited growth and what it brings and others don’t. Go VA.
Great point. But me thinks NYC is already way past that point. And NOVA is pretty damn crowded already.
would those complaining about lost jobs have given AOC credit for the new jobs if Amazon had come into LIC? me thinks not
Was she part of the committee that pitched Amazon?
Ummm but she wasn’t. This is a really weird argument.
I think the point is that you can't make that reverse claim because the circumstance are completely different. It's a whataboutism based on a non-existent situational.
The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.
Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.
In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.
I don't think Amazon pulled out because of her, certainly not solely or mostly. The point regarding her is the celebration that she tweeted when they did leave. At least that's my point. The memes are a natural political consequence of the tweets, whether they are fully accurate or not.
The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.
Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.
In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.
Also, that's admirable for sure. The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else. Each member has a specific budget. So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k. If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.
The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.
Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.
In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.
Also, that's admirable for sure. The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else. Each member has a specific budget. So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k. If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.
I doubt any lawyer being paid 52g sticks around. Any lawyer I've dealt with like their money.
The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.
Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.
In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.
Also, that's admirable for sure. The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else. Each member has a specific budget. So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k. If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.
That's the minimum. I've heard she will just have a smaller staff to make it work. Some of these staff members working on the hill apparently just get minimum wage, which isn't enough to live on in DC.
The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.
Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.
In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.
Also, that's admirable for sure. The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else. Each member has a specific budget. So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k. If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.
That's the minimum. I've heard she will just have a smaller staff to make it work. Some of these staff members working on the hill apparently just get minimum wage, which isn't enough to live on in DC.
So I'm not doggin' her out on this one, because it's an interesting mini-economy here. Smaller staff=fewer jobs. Good for people who are employed, bad for the people who are on the outside now, who would have had a job had they worked for a different representative. The C.O.L. is enormous in DC, that's for sure. Congress needs to look at the budgets for staffers, but this is an interesting exercise she is going through and will learn that there are no easy answers.
The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.
Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.
In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.
Also, that's admirable for sure. The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else. Each member has a specific budget. So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k. If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.
That's the minimum. I've heard she will just have a smaller staff to make it work. Some of these staff members working on the hill apparently just get minimum wage, which isn't enough to live on in DC.
So I'm not doggin' her out on this one, because it's an interesting mini-economy here. Smaller staff=fewer jobs. Good for people who are employed, bad for the people who are on the outside now, who would have had a job had they worked for a different representative. The C.O.L. is enormous in DC, that's for sure. Congress needs to look at the budgets for staffers, but this is an interesting exercise she is going through and will learn that there are no easy answers.
We already complain about traffic. We already have overcrowded schools. Rents are already outrageous. Nothing new here. Absorbing 25,000 additional people isn't really going to be that big a deal, if all of them even come from elsewhere. Amazon already has warehouses in NOVA, we've got a Google headquarters, IBM, AT&T. Bezos himself has lived in DC for a year or so now after buying the WaPo. Highly educated tech people already reside here. Basically it's going to be a restructuring of an already sprawling landscape. People are excited to see what happens.
They're going into an area near National Airport (aka Reagan) called Crystal City that had been developed decades ago for exactly this kind of thing, but that plan fell flat, never living up to its promise. My understanding is that there's already a lot of empty warehouse space waiting for them. There's a transit line, with a history of malfunction we're used to, but bringing in Amazon has spurred renewed commitment to upgrade it. I imagine the airport itself might feel some strain. Reagan can't really expand much because of the geography, and it's not that big of an airport. So there's that.
Retailers and restaurants can't wait for the increased foot traffic. It's not a high density residential area, so those kinds of businesses in that area generally struggle. There will be a boom for them, for sure, and maybe some new residential building. There aren't really a lot of current residents to displace. In fact, I read an article about a lot of condos and apartments sitting empty. This will actually vitalize an area that's been waiting for it. I haven't read one single negative piece of press or heard one person gripe. I guess that's how we're different than NY???
I'm neutral about the whole thing. We like welcoming big companies here. We like jobs, even though, yes, the fucking traffic sucks. If you drive the 95 corridor you expect gridlock, but there's already plans to widen south of DC to about halfway to Richmond. There are hardly any more trees to cut down in the process, so that's not a concern. Maybe it will become a slightly bigger pain in the ass to get to the airport, but that's about the extent of how it might impact me personally. I don't have any other reason to head over to that part of the burbs. But who knows? It could become super trendy like all the hipsters remade Brooklyn, and then I'll have hang out there to be cool.
The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.
Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.
In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.
Also, that's admirable for sure. The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else. Each member has a specific budget. So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k. If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.
That's the minimum. I've heard she will just have a smaller staff to make it work. Some of these staff members working on the hill apparently just get minimum wage, which isn't enough to live on in DC.
So I'm not doggin' her out on this one, because it's an interesting mini-economy here. Smaller staff=fewer jobs. Good for people who are employed, bad for the people who are on the outside now, who would have had a job had they worked for a different representative. The C.O.L. is enormous in DC, that's for sure. Congress needs to look at the budgets for staffers, but this is an interesting exercise she is going through and will learn that there are no easy answers.
I guess I heard wrong that she would have a smaller staff, the top wage earners will take a pay cut.
Those poor 22 years-olds, having to work a side gig to make ends meet as they start their first jobs. I was 40 years old before I made enough to work one job in the DC metro area. Did it suck? Yes. Do I regret the experience of hard work? Absolutely not -- and I'm not willing to take a pay cut now so that some young whipper-snapper can make as much as I do after an entire lifetime of work equal to their current age. "Divide it up," that one guy says in the article. If that's what millenials want -- because it's so unfair that people twice their age earn what their experience is worth -- let them grandfather that shit in, so to speak. They can remake the world after I'm retired and dead, thank you very much, if that's what they call fair. God help us with this entitled narcissistic generation entering the workforce. If this is where the Democratic Party is going, I'm out.
The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.
Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.
In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.
Also, that's admirable for sure. The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else. Each member has a specific budget. So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k. If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.
That's the minimum. I've heard she will just have a smaller staff to make it work. Some of these staff members working on the hill apparently just get minimum wage, which isn't enough to live on in DC.
So I'm not doggin' her out on this one, because it's an interesting mini-economy here. Smaller staff=fewer jobs. Good for people who are employed, bad for the people who are on the outside now, who would have had a job had they worked for a different representative. The C.O.L. is enormous in DC, that's for sure. Congress needs to look at the budgets for staffers, but this is an interesting exercise she is going through and will learn that there are no easy answers.
I guess I heard wrong that she would have a smaller staff, the top wage earners will take a pay cut.
Those poor 22 years-olds, having to work a side gig to make ends meet as they start their first jobs. I was 40 years old before I made enough to work one job in the DC metro area. Did it suck? Yes. Do I regret the experience of hard work? Absolutely not -- and I'm not willing to take a pay cut now so that some young whipper-snapper can make as much as I do after an entire lifetime of work equal to their current age. "Divide it up," that one guy says in the article. If that's what millenials want -- because it's so unfair that people twice their age earn what their experience is worth -- let them grandfather that shit in, so to speak. They can remake the world after I'm retired and dead, thank you very much, if that's what they call fair. God help us with this entitled narcissistic generation entering the workforce. If this is where the Democratic Party is going, I'm out.
Why so angry? If this is the environment that these people choose to work in why do you care so much?
Because "these people" are changing work environments everywhere, in some small subtle ways and in some large obvious ways. I don't happen to believe that their overall social impact is a win for humanity.
The middle class is already burdened- they walk a fine line between a balanced home budget and a good quality of life.
And I'm not sure why people feel good about watching people struggle? Just because we did doesn't mean everyone else should as well. There might be a better way.
The middle class is already burdened- they walk a fine line between a balanced home budget and a good quality of life.
And I'm not sure why people feel good about watching people struggle? Just because we did doesn't mean everyone else should as well. There might be a better way.
Where did anybody say anything about watching people struggle...
what dreams point is simple... I think you've been teaching for over 10 years my friend... you ok making the same money as a 22yo that just started with the same credentials and zero experience? No? Me neither
The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.
Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.
In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.
Also, that's admirable for sure. The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else. Each member has a specific budget. So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k. If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.
That's the minimum. I've heard she will just have a smaller staff to make it work. Some of these staff members working on the hill apparently just get minimum wage, which isn't enough to live on in DC.
So I'm not doggin' her out on this one, because it's an interesting mini-economy here. Smaller staff=fewer jobs. Good for people who are employed, bad for the people who are on the outside now, who would have had a job had they worked for a different representative. The C.O.L. is enormous in DC, that's for sure. Congress needs to look at the budgets for staffers, but this is an interesting exercise she is going through and will learn that there are no easy answers.
I guess I heard wrong that she would have a smaller staff, the top wage earners will take a pay cut.
Those poor 22 years-olds, having to work a side gig to make ends meet as they start their first jobs. I was 40 years old before I made enough to work one job in the DC metro area. Did it suck? Yes. Do I regret the experience of hard work? Absolutely not -- and I'm not willing to take a pay cut now so that some young whipper-snapper can make as much as I do after an entire lifetime of work equal to their current age. "Divide it up," that one guy says in the article. If that's what millenials want -- because it's so unfair that people twice their age earn what their experience is worth -- let them grandfather that shit in, so to speak. They can remake the world after I'm retired and dead, thank you very much, if that's what they call fair. God help us with this entitled narcissistic generation entering the workforce. If this is where the Democratic Party is going, I'm out.
I can't find sources I like enough yet (http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/nycdata/income-taxes/med_hhold_income-age.htm, https://www.incomebyzipcode.com/newyork), but it's looking like 2017 household income with householders <25yo made a median of $31,000 annually. Some other sites I found (again, I'll try to find better sources), the average rent was between $2,100-$3,000 a month. That's $25,200 - $36,000 annually in rent alone. If AOC wants young people (along with their youthful tenacity, eagerness to please, and the desire to innovate) on her team, she needs to make sure they can afford to be on her team with their minds sharp - and she likely wants them able to put in extra hours for her team, instead of those hours being dedicated to flipping burgers at McDonald's to make ends meet.
There's no obligation for a politician to structure her office the way her predecessors did, and the most senior employees who don't want to participate in this will just leave, as there are no locks on the doors.
The ratio between income and cost of living absolutely needs to get better as ages (or at least years of service) increase, but the household incomes must always be larger than the cost of living as a bare minimum (unless you want your team in debt), and AOC wants focused employees clearly. Sorry this is so upsetting to you. Interesting that you call this entitled and narcissistic; I think it's pretty logical.
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The middle class is already burdened- they walk a fine line between a balanced home budget and a good quality of life.
And I'm not sure why people feel good about watching people struggle? Just because we did doesn't mean everyone else should as well. There might be a better way.
It's getting to the point where only the wealthy can afford jobs like these because they are subsidized by their rich families. That's not a world I want to live in.
The middle class is already burdened- they walk a fine line between a balanced home budget and a good quality of life.
And I'm not sure why people feel good about watching people struggle? Just because we did doesn't mean everyone else should as well. There might be a better way.
Where did anybody say anything about watching people struggle...
what dreams point is simple... I think you've been teaching for over 10 years my friend... you ok making the same money as a 22yo that just started with the same credentials and zero experience? No? Me neither
You and others completely missed the point, it's not about everyone making the same, it's about everyone making a livable wage.
The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.
Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.
In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.
Also, that's admirable for sure. The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else. Each member has a specific budget. So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k. If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.
That's the minimum. I've heard she will just have a smaller staff to make it work. Some of these staff members working on the hill apparently just get minimum wage, which isn't enough to live on in DC.
So I'm not doggin' her out on this one, because it's an interesting mini-economy here. Smaller staff=fewer jobs. Good for people who are employed, bad for the people who are on the outside now, who would have had a job had they worked for a different representative. The C.O.L. is enormous in DC, that's for sure. Congress needs to look at the budgets for staffers, but this is an interesting exercise she is going through and will learn that there are no easy answers.
I guess I heard wrong that she would have a smaller staff, the top wage earners will take a pay cut.
Those poor 22 years-olds, having to work a side gig to make ends meet as they start their first jobs. I was 40 years old before I made enough to work one job in the DC metro area. Did it suck? Yes. Do I regret the experience of hard work? Absolutely not -- and I'm not willing to take a pay cut now so that some young whipper-snapper can make as much as I do after an entire lifetime of work equal to their current age. "Divide it up," that one guy says in the article. If that's what millenials want -- because it's so unfair that people twice their age earn what their experience is worth -- let them grandfather that shit in, so to speak. They can remake the world after I'm retired and dead, thank you very much, if that's what they call fair. God help us with this entitled narcissistic generation entering the workforce. If this is where the Democratic Party is going, I'm out.
I can't find sources I like enough yet (http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/nycdata/income-taxes/med_hhold_income-age.htm, https://www.incomebyzipcode.com/newyork), but it's looking like 2017 household income with householders <25yo made a median of $31,000 annually. Some other sites I found (again, I'll try to find better sources), the average rent was between $2,100-$3,000 a month. That's $25,200 - $36,000 annually in rent alone. If AOC wants young people (along with their youthful tenacity, eagerness to please, and the desire to innovate) on her team, she needs to make sure they can afford to be on her team with their minds sharp - and she likely wants them able to put in extra hours for her team, instead of those hours being dedicated to flipping burgers at McDonald's to make ends meet.
There's no obligation for a politician to structure her office the way her predecessors did, and the most senior employees who don't want to participate in this will just leave, as there are no locks on the doors.
The ratio between income and cost of living absolutely needs to get better as ages (or at least years of service) increase, but the household incomes must always be larger than the cost of living as a bare minimum (unless you want your team in debt), and AOC wants focused employees clearly. Sorry this is so upsetting to you. Interesting that you call this entitled and narcissistic; I think it's pretty logical.
Great post. As usual you've done a better job than me explaining this.
The original article went into this but I suspect some here didn't read it.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.
In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.
The C.O.L. is enormous in DC, that's for sure. Congress needs to look at the budgets for staffers, but this is an interesting exercise she is going through and will learn that there are no easy answers.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-call-living-wage-starts-office
I guess I heard wrong that she would have a smaller staff, the top wage earners will take a pay cut.
i do wonder what her staff will look like since the top earners will make almost 50% of top earners on other staff.
We already complain about traffic. We already have overcrowded schools. Rents are already outrageous. Nothing new here. Absorbing 25,000 additional people isn't really going to be that big a deal, if all of them even come from elsewhere. Amazon already has warehouses in NOVA, we've got a Google headquarters, IBM, AT&T. Bezos himself has lived in DC for a year or so now after buying the WaPo. Highly educated tech people already reside here. Basically it's going to be a restructuring of an already sprawling landscape. People are excited to see what happens.
They're going into an area near National Airport (aka Reagan) called Crystal City that had been developed decades ago for exactly this kind of thing, but that plan fell flat, never living up to its promise. My understanding is that there's already a lot of empty warehouse space waiting for them. There's a transit line, with a history of malfunction we're used to, but bringing in Amazon has spurred renewed commitment to upgrade it. I imagine the airport itself might feel some strain. Reagan can't really expand much because of the geography, and it's not that big of an airport. So there's that.
Retailers and restaurants can't wait for the increased foot traffic. It's not a high density residential area, so those kinds of businesses in that area generally struggle. There will be a boom for them, for sure, and maybe some new residential building. There aren't really a lot of current residents to displace. In fact, I read an article about a lot of condos and apartments sitting empty. This will actually vitalize an area that's been waiting for it. I haven't read one single negative piece of press or heard one person gripe. I guess that's how we're different than NY???
I'm neutral about the whole thing. We like welcoming big companies here. We like jobs, even though, yes, the fucking traffic sucks. If you drive the 95 corridor you expect gridlock, but there's already plans to widen south of DC to about halfway to Richmond. There are hardly any more trees to cut down in the process, so that's not a concern. Maybe it will become a slightly bigger pain in the ass to get to the airport, but that's about the extent of how it might impact me personally. I don't have any other reason to head over to that part of the burbs. But who knows? It could become super trendy like all the hipsters remade Brooklyn, and then I'll have hang out there to be cool.
All hail Amazon and more limp dick tech boys... RIP Anthony
https://www.nolabels.org/blog/congressional-compensation-how-much-do-members-of-congress-get-paid/
The middle class is already burdened- they walk a fine line between a balanced home budget and a good quality of life.
And I'm not sure why people feel good about watching people struggle? Just because we did doesn't mean everyone else should as well. There might be a better way.
what dreams point is simple... I think you've been teaching for over 10 years my friend... you ok making the same money as a 22yo that just started with the same credentials and zero experience? No? Me neither
There's no obligation for a politician to structure her office the way her predecessors did, and the most senior employees who don't want to participate in this will just leave, as there are no locks on the doors.
The ratio between income and cost of living absolutely needs to get better as ages (or at least years of service) increase, but the household incomes must always be larger than the cost of living as a bare minimum (unless you want your team in debt), and AOC wants focused employees clearly. Sorry this is so upsetting to you. Interesting that you call this entitled and narcissistic; I think it's pretty logical.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The original article went into this but I suspect some here didn't read it.