Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Incentive have ALWAYS been specific to companies. There is a framework ... but each company negotiates their package separately ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
I've never been against incentives however what irks me is incentives for one specific company. This happens all the time in the airline industry, as new entrants to markets are offered free or grossly reduced fees to come in.
How are shareholders benefiting exactly again?
Why can't people in Raleigh become shareholders? What's preventing them exactly from purchasing shares? Shares are for sale on the open market for everyone to buy.
The excess money companies are sitting on is going primarily towards boosting shareholder returns, not towards investment. (see link from previous post)
I'm not saying people can't become shareholders, but the point of this conversation is what impacts the local community, regardless of affiliation with Amazon.
The excess money companies are sitting on is going primarily towards boosting shareholder returns, not towards investment. (see link from previous post)
I'm not saying people can't become shareholders, but the point of this conversation is what impacts the local community, regardless of affiliation with Amazon.
Perhaps I should have been more precise. In any given situation when incentives are offered, the company is not the only beneficiary. The state and city benefit too, and thus does the average person. The relative amount of benefit is irrelevant. In this case, Amazon is investing more than Raleigh will, so of course they benefit more. As long as the city gets a positive fiscal impact, they are better of than they were before.
Of course the company isn't the only beneficiary. I've conceded that long ago. Where we disagree is the relative amount of benefit, as you mentioned, and how the current distributions of benefit only contribute to further income inequality and problems for working and middle class Americans. And that's where I just don't see how cities like San Francisco, Seattle and Austin are necessarily better off. I'd say they're worse off in many ways. Go ask most of the locals and I'm sure they'll have a lot to say about this.
We need to stop swallowing the idea that technological innovation or progress is going to always benefit the majority for the greater good. Facebook, Amazon, etc. are just ruthless corporations that sold out long ago. They're literally collecting data and selling your personal, private information for profit. Not to mention the various humans rights abuses associated with these companies https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...periment-users. People need to stop defending these companies as saviors of society and start holding them accountable for all the negative they bring.
That's not the point I'm trying to address. I'm not disagreeing with you about that, I just think people are overly optimistic about companies like Amazon. You see all the innovation upfront and all the economic growth, but at what cost behind the scenes?
I see more positives than negatives. Companies like Amazon have made our lives better and easier. As a 20+ year employe of various High tech companies in the triangle ( and the pacific NW) ... I want to believe that the work I have done has benefited tons of people positively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarHeelTerritory
That's not the point I'm trying to address. I'm not disagreeing with you about that, I just think people are overly optimistic about companies like Amazon. You see all the innovation upfront and all the economic growth, but at what cost behind the scenes?
I see more positives than negatives. Companies like Amazon have made our lives better and easier. As a 20+ year employe of various High tech companies in the triangle ( and the pacific NW) ... I want to believe that the work I have done has benefited tons of people positively.
Easier, sure, but better is a whole 'nother debate. One could argue that Amazon has made it easier for humans to behave more materialistically and impulsively, all for the purpose of consuming more and more and more. After all, isn't that the point of Amazon Prime?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why increased depression, anxiety, loneliness, suicide, etc. rates have all skyrocketed (no pun intended) ever since humans have been hooked to their mobile devices, social media, instant gratification/entertainment etc. My final point is for people to exercise caution about the potential negatives involved as technology progresses and why we should be wary of many of these companies' ulterior motives and true intentions. The bottom line is, we need to be grounded and realistic when it comes to the consequences (both good and bad) of tech.
If you have a book/further reading you'd like to suggest on this, I'd be happy to oblige. You should check out what I linked, too, if you're open to it.
Since Amazon started , I have completed a handful of full marathons, over 50 half marathons, raised a family, traveled the world a few times, started a new business venture, volunteered countless hours ... etc.
I'm sorry, but I believe we make choices ... what we do with our times is a choice we make. Those who are blaming technology would be blaming something else anyway (the weather? the immigrants? )... It is just more convenient to blame Amazon today. Microsoft was blamed yesterday ... got to find a boogie man somehow...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarHeelTerritory
Easier, sure, but better is a whole 'nother debate. One could argue that Amazon has made it easier for humans to behave more materialistically and impulsively, all for the purpose of consuming more and more and more. After all, isn't that the point of Amazon Prime?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why increased depression, anxiety, loneliness, suicide, etc. rates have all skyrocketed (no pun intended) ever since humans have been hooked to their mobile devices, social media, instant gratification/entertainment etc. My final point is for people to exercise caution about the potential negatives involved as technology progresses and why we should be wary of many of these companies' ulterior motives and true intentions. The bottom line is, we need to be grounded and realistic when it comes to the consequences (both good and bad) of tech.
If you have a book/further reading you'd like to suggest on this, I'd be happy to oblige. You should check out what I linked, too, if you're open to it.
Easier, sure, but better is a whole 'nother debate. One could argue that Amazon has made it easier for humans to behave more materialistically and impulsively, all for the purpose of consuming more and more and more. After all, isn't that the point of Amazon Prime?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why increased depression, anxiety, loneliness, suicide, etc. rates have all skyrocketed (no pun intended) ever since humans have been hooked to their mobile devices, social media, instant gratification/entertainment etc. My final point is for people to exercise caution about the potential negatives involved as technology progresses and why we should be wary of many of these companies' ulterior motives and true intentions. The bottom line is, we need to be grounded and realistic when it comes to the consequences (both good and bad) of tech.
If you have a book/further reading you'd like to suggest on this, I'd be happy to oblige. You should check out what I linked, too, if you're open to it.
I agree. I think the world is on a dangerous path and we're really going to see the affects of the social media generation(s).
I also think there is a link between technology/social media and increased violence, especially in schools.
Cool discussion going on here. I think as time goes on the urban/rural, depressed/vibrant area divide will grow. Technology and certain parts of the country advancing faster than others is the cause for this combined with the increasing inequality gap. Though I wonder if an increased inequality gap could spur innovation? During the industrial revolution income gaps were certainly higher and there was no shortage of innovation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
