Thanks dude. I think this has some potential for a good thread.
I honestly do not feel that I have a sufficient grasp of micro- and macro-economics to comment intelligently, but I hope that some people do. If no discussion starts, I’ll throw a few balloons into the air solely to generate some discussion.
Here’s my brief (layman’s) take:
The PRO of getting HQ2 is all those fancy new high-paying jobs! Bringing people with high-paying jobs into the economy does more than just bring those people in - it also means more people in town buying houses, cars, groceries, yoga classes, CrossFit memberships, etc. Bring it on!
The CON is that the areas in Pittsburgh which are still struggling are, IMO, unlikely to see much benefit from HQ2. How will this help places like Braddock and/or Wilkinsburg? Are the new tech workers that move in with HQ2 going to spend any dollars there? Probably not. They’ll buy houses in “trendy” areas or in the burbs, and they’ll buy everything they want from Amazon or Whole Foods anyway.
Of course, there are some interesting sidebar factors that can make this better or worse. From what I’ve read, Amazon purposely does not provide a cafeteria or coffee shop in their corporate offices, with the idea being that their workers are forced to engage with their surroundings to get their lattes and lunches, giving at least some vibrancy to the local economy (in contrast, some other tech giants reportedly build an entire luxury campus that provides everything the workers need onsite…which is cool for them, but means they also don’t really stimulate much activity in the surrounding area). Touches like that could make a difference in how I’d perceive this.
Anyway, that’s just enough to start some discussion. There are a million angles to take this. Let’s get some smarter people in the room, please.