Jump to content

TheWorldNewsOrg

Amazon is ditching its plans to build a new headquarters in New York

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

TheWorldNewsOrg -
admin -
2
49

Top Posters


Recommended Posts


The company said it will not be building a large headquarters in NYC as originally planned, adding the biggest twist of all to the marathon HQ2 search that began in 2017.

Still unclear: Whether Amazon’s 30-day return policy applies to $2.5 billion corporate campuses.

Why Bezos backed down

  • “For Amazon, the commitment to build a new headquarters requires positive, collaborative relationships with state and local elected officials who will be supportive over the long-term.”
  • “While polls show that 70% of New Yorkers support our plans and investment, a number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence...”

Let’s talk about the (now overjoyed) opposition

That Amazon (-1.06%), one of the largest public companies in the world, had been promised roughly $3 billion in government incentives didn’t sit too wellwith many activists and local leaders in NYC.

They criticized the lack of transparency in the search process and highlighted the potentially disruptive effects the massive new campus would have on the local community. In the end, Amazon didn't want to fight this battle.

This is a mess...

  • ...for stakeholders (like prominent New York politicians and real estate professionals) eagerly anticipating the more than 25,000 high-paying jobs and $27.5 billion in tax revenue Amazon was expected to generate.
  • ...and for Amazon, which thought it could bully any U.S. city into submission. Urban studies expert Richard Florida called it a “site selection disaster of epic proportions.”

Looking ahead: Amazon said it’s going to double down on its new locations in Northern Virginia (the big one) and Nashville (the smaller one), while growing its other existing locations around the country.

Zoom out: As Amazon became the target of an angry grassroots movement over the past year, fellow tech giants Google and Apple quietly announced their own (more modest) U.S. expansions to positive press. Amazon might want to take notes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By admin
      Jeff Bezos first named the company as Cadabra, after the magic slogan “Abra-Cadabra”. When he first mentioned this to his lawyer over the phone, his lawyer misheard it as “Cadaver ???” . Bezos knew right then, that the name would not stick.
      Bezos had the customer-centric approach to the business, right from the start. So, he had proposed to change the name to “Relentless Inc”, a way of saying that the company would be relentless in its approach to customer satisfaction. In 1994, the company’s then de-facto CTO was Shel Kaphan. He was not very amused by the proposal. So, Bezos continued to look for options for the company name.
      In the 1990s, the number of websites were finite, and countable by humans. The websites were sorted alphabetically on the “internet directory” of those days. After a bunch of research, Bezos settled on Amazon Inc for two reasons -
      Amazon river has the largest collection of flora and fauna in the world. Amazon Inc will represent the largest collection of retail items on the internet Amazon-dot-com will appear in the first pages of the internet directory, making it easier to attract users and customers. Source
    • By TheWorldNewsOrg
      Some Amazon customers received an email from the company telling them their names and emails had been exposed due to a "technical error." Several customers shared the emails on social media Wednesday. Amazon said the problem was resolved, but did not provide clarity on how many users were affected nor for how long. In the email to affected customers, Amazon said it was unnecessary to reset passwords since it was "not a result of anything you have done."
    • Guest
    • By admin
      A lobbyist working for Amazon registered for Georgia’s ethics commission, sparking rumors that the e-commerce giant is eyeing Atlanta for its much-hyped “HQ2.” The company responded Tuesday saying Jacob Oster’s presence isn’t related to the search for Amazon’s second headquarters — although Atlanta is an odds-on favorite in the race. 238 cities and regions submitted bids to win the $5 billion HQ2, which promises to bring thousands of high-paying jobs to the chosen location.
  • Forum Statistics

    61,680
    Total Topics
    114,508
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,506
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Jimmie Crenshaw
    Newest Member
    Jimmie Crenshaw
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary. Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again.  Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though.  There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support.  On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is: Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE. That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture. From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death.  The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand. I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching. True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here: (1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around. By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
    • If only you would stop quoting outside sources, and just be more basic with your comments, then i may understand them . Yes I understand 'if your throw out all the good, only the bad is left.  But the reverse is, if you only see the good, you are not being honest with yourself or others.  @Arauna is a case in point.  
    • @JW Insider Quote " The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. " That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say.  However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs.  However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself.  doctrine a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.   It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.     Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom -  Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. "   Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine.    Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.   (This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?)    Matthew 22 v 44    ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ?    As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures.    What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ?    And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?    
    • I confess that I am falling well short of the 100 times a day that I ought. I ask your forgiveness. Human limitations is the only excuse I have to offer. If you negate the upside, then all there is left to look at is the downside, and that is the case with many here.  I keep coming back to a line from The Scarlet Letter: “It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nobody speculates more boldly, departing from the herd-like thinking of this world, than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True to that Hawthorn line, they have no difficulty conforming to the “external regulations of their society.” Though Hawthorn does not say it, the reverse is also true. Those who cannot “conform to the external regulations of that society” and so leave it, perhaps guys like Shiwiiiii, are the most non-bold thinkers of all. They are individualistic in superfluous ways, but conformist in all the ways that matter.
    • Perhaps you are reading something into the book of Jude that I haven't been able to see. To me, the reason for the letter was this: Jude 4 I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. This was similar to the problem in Corinth, where certain brothers were PROUD that they could put up with a notorious case of incest, due to a misunderstanding and misuse of "undeserved kindness." (1 Corinthians 5:1, 2) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? Such persons who used the idea of forgiveness, mercy, and undeserved kindness (grace), as an excuse for loose/brazen conduct were not blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, but were PROMOTING wrongdoing. It was the same as dismissing and speaking abusively against things that Jesus himself had said to "prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." Michael wouldn't even speak abusively of the Devil and yet these people are going to go further than that and think it's OK to speak abusively of Jesus and the angels? It's also possible that the leaders (elders) are considered the "glorious ones" but this makes less sense to me. Perhaps a topic for further discussion?
    • :)) sorry for poor quality of video. Language is Croatian with few Italian refren. Train To Genoa I haven't seen you for a long time And now I am on my way to you On the cold window glass I wrote Your name and Rijeka - Genoa   I haven't seen you for a long time Are you still the one I know? This train is cozy But I'm restless I'm drinking my third coffee On the train to Genoa   [Refrain] Do you still love me, tell me What does your heart say Are we still together If that's not love Tell me what is love Tell me truthfully   I remember everything You can see the bay Ships' lights from your room But I, I don't want it to end This train is running late I hope you're waiting for me https://lyricstranslate.com/en/il-treno-genova-train-genoa.html
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.