Amazon planning second headquarters with 50,000 jobs

[SeeGeeWhy]

Apparently it's pretty brutal working for amazon. A very Darwinian, cutthroat style "meritocracy". Are there 50,000 people like this in Calgary? Do we want that sort of impact on our city's culture?

Check out the 12 principles embedded in this article

[SeeGeeWhy]

For the record I think this city could stand to benefit from a company culture that is pretty relentlessly driven at driving forward and taking chances. Everyone talks about how entrepreneurial Calagry (and largely Alberta) is, and that's somewhat true... but one thing we are not is innovative. Not yet anyways. Perhaps good at incrwme realization, but awful at innovation.

There is an urge to build a valley of innovators here... just go to the rainforest meeting next Wednesday afternoon if you don't believe me.

[AltaGuy]

I really think Toronto might get it. In the end, I just don't think Calgary is big enough - hiring 5% of a city's workforce is quite a bit. I wouldn't completely rule out Montreal either: Qc government is happy to subsidize heavily when it suits them, and the costs in Montreal would be relatively low.

[surferguy]

These wouldn't all be local hires would they? There must be a relocation staff that would come with it? Thoughts?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

So Denver and Austin are popular choices even though they don't have great access to Amazon's major market, are landlocked, and don't stack up in the air cargo department, and are on the wrong half of the top 50 Metro populations.

It's almost like the logistical requirements you think they're looking for aren't the ones they're actually looking for.

Popular choices? I wouldn't go so far as to say that. They are cities that have expressed interest in tossing their hat into the ring, and the people writing the articles suggest they would be good landing areas for Amazon. There was obvious bias to certain criteria by those working on those articles. For example the reliance on the cost of housing by the reference from Zillow. There's a lot more to the decision than where cheap housing is. I can understand the idea of referencing this as part of the criteria for the articles though, but I think they may have gone a little overboard in this regard.

I can understand the appreciation for Denver. It is a beautiful city and does have some interesting options in its favor. Denver has pretty good infrastructure and is a fairly new city in the big picture. It has a great airport which acts as a hub for many carriers, and it does handle a decent amount of cargo. Denver does have a good tech sector, ranked in the top 10 markets for tech workers. Denver does offer some decent educational options with Colorado State (Denver), University of Denver, Regis University, and Metropolitan State, servicing about 65,000 students.

Denver does has its drawbacks. Cost of living isn't cheap, with an 79.83 CLI score. At 2.85 million people, can it handle the requirements of adding another 50,000 to the workforce? Can the infrastructure handle the increase demand for almost everything? You have to consider the climate and the impact it could have on business operations. For example, Denver ranks top five for flight delays for American airports. It is isolated because of its geography. Being the mile high city does have its drawbacks.

Another city that jumps out at me as a potential candidate is Dallas/Ft. Worth. 4th largest metro city in the nation with a population of over 7 million people. Great infrastructure and logistical systems. DFW is one of the biggest airport hubs in the nation and handles a massive amount of air cargo. DFW is also a hub for rail and truck traffic. The city also boasts being top 20 for tech jobs and can rely on a number of great universities (U of T Dallas, Texas A&M, SMU, TCU, University of Dallas, etc.) and colleges for filling the job pool. With a CLI of 67.86 it comes in as one of the lowest in the nation. Coupled with low taxes Dallas seems like a natural target.

I just don't see how a small Canadian city can compete. If Amazon was thinking of a small city, they would be best to target Memphis, where everything is cheap. Meets all measures from a business point of view. The only thing hurting it is the lack of a tech sector, but based on Amazon's business, Memphis might be the best place for them in the long run. I just don't see how a city that size could deal with the massive rapid increase in people and the pressure it would place on the infrastructure.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Apparently it's pretty brutal working for amazon. A very Darwinian, cutthroat style "meritocracy". Are there 50,000 people like this in Calgary? Do we want that sort of impact on our city's culture?

After reading the NYT article about Amazon's work culture, it's pretty clear it would not be a good fit for this city. Sure, Calgary has a lot (for a smaller city) of skilled and tech-savvy workers. But those workers are accustomed to a corporate culture that could scarcely be more different from Amazon's. With its flex days, generous vacation, flex hours, maternity and paternity leave, and informal workplace atmosphere, Calgary's oil patch culture came about because of a severe worker shortages. Companies bent over backwards to make themselves as attractive as possible to employees, and so created one of the more employee-focused and agreeable workplace environments around.

Amazon is the opposite. I doubt there are enough highly skilled, ferociously competitive workaholics in this city to fill 10 per cent of the positions. And Amazon churns through employees at an incredible rate, with most lasting only a year. Where are the replacements going to come from for that rate of attrition? Amazon isn't going to want to pay for expensive international relocation for thousands of positions a year. A city in the population and education dense northeast U.S. makes far more sense.

[GGG]

People are missing that it isn't 50,000 people tomorrow.

They are asking for 500,000+ sqft by 2019. So at most that is 5000 people. Then it will expand from there. Then you have probably 20 years to build to 50k. So if you look at the Calgary economic region population during the oil boom in 2003 it was 1.1 million in 2016 it was 1.5 million. So the Calgary economic region added 400k people to support an oil and gas boom. So adding 200k people to support a tech boom over a similar time frame doesn't seem out of the question.

The East Coast vs Weat Coast option is interesting. To me it's not a clear advantage to have your second head office a 3hr time zone difference from your first. Amazon is big enough that people come to it so from a supplier standpoint it can be wherever. Amazon needs logistics facilities in every city of a million or more in order to do one day service so an eastern office might make sense.

I think the big reason for this is that they need a different population base to recruit from. Tech people will move for you but your lower level employees aren't moving and if the goal is to churn you need wider net to draw from. That would for sure exclude Vancouver but possibly not Calgary.

The biggest reason for a Canadian city would be immigration risk and possibly branding to the rest of the world. And in the Canadian city competition I think Calgary would win unless you could convince them that Kitchener/Waterloo is an option.

The big test in any Calgary bid isn't competing against US cities. It's convincing Amazon that its in their long term interest not to have all their eggs in the US basket.

That said Denver, Dallas, or North Carolina would be my picks to win.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

After reading the NYT article about Amazon's work culture, it's pretty clear it would not be a good fit for this city. Sure, Calgary has a lot (for a smaller city) of skilled and tech-savvy workers. But those workers are accustomed to a corporate culture that could scarcely be more different from Amazon's. With its flex days, generous vacation, flex hours, maternity and paternity leave, and informal workplace atmosphere, Calgary's oil patch culture came about because of a severe worker shortages. Companies bent over backwards to make themselves as attractive as possible to employees, and so created one of the more employee-focused and agreeable workplace environments around.

Amazon is the opposite. I doubt there are enough highly skilled, ferociously competitive workaholics in this city to fill 10 per cent of the positions. And Amazon churns through employees at an incredible rate, with most lasting only a year. Where are the replacements going to come from for that rate of attrition? Amazon isn't going to want to pay for expensive international relocation for thousands of positions a year. A city in the population and education dense northeast U.S. makes far more sense.

While I do agree with your conclusion about how Calgary may not be the best fit for Amazon, I would say the oil patch office mentality is in the minority in this city and simply not available for a large segment of the population. Hence why many of those individuals right now are on the outside looking in during this time of economic hardship. Many hiring managers in non-O/G fields do exclude former O/G office workers from consideration for those reasons, which does create a different work cultures in this city. I know some companies have already slashed some perks like flex days and unless times get really bad again, I doubt they will be in any rush to bring them back.

If Amazon is looking for a large logistics or retail oriented workforce that isn't used to those types of perks, Calgary certainly does have a significant supply of that.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by surferguy

These wouldn't all be local hires would they? There must be a relocation staff that would come with it? Thoughts?

There'd be a significant amount of relocation staff for that first Phase no doubt. They'd get the ball rolling by setting Amazon up in the new city and then I imagine it would grow organically from there.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GGG

The East Coast vs Weat Coast option is interesting. To me it's not a clear advantage to have your second head office a 3hr time zone difference from your first. Amazon is big enough that people come to it so from a supplier standpoint it can be wherever. Amazon needs logistics facilities in every city of a million or more in order to do one day service so an eastern office might make sense.



The biggest reason for a Canadian city would be immigration risk and possibly branding to the rest of the world. And in the Canadian city competition I think Calgary would win unless you could convince them that Kitchener/Waterloo is an option.

The big test in any Calgary bid isn't competing against US cities. It's convincing Amazon that its in their long term interest not to have all their eggs in the US basket.

That said Denver, Dallas, or North Carolina would be my picks to win.

To me the whole point of a second 'headquarters' in a different city is that it is a 3hr time difference, if you didn't want that why would you bother setting up in a different city? the most common sense thing for the around 25th richest company in the world would be to have one office in Seattle, if you are planning a second headquarters not in Seattle it's because the west doesn't work for what they want that location to do.

People need to think of this beyond N America, 4 hours is not a big deal within the US but its 8 hours to Europe, an East Coast office allows workable teleconferencing to the EU throughout most of the day.

[Enoch Root]

New Era gets an idea in his head and then anyone that doesn't agree 100% with everything he says is an idiot or is speaking emotionally. Pot: kettle.

Of course there are criteria and logistics that need to be met, but if they were the only issues at play, Amazon would have simply analyzed them internally themselves and quietly made a decision.

This was made public because it is primarily a political decision. Sure, the logistics are important, but it will mostly come down to which city wants it the most and is willing to cut them the best deal.

So it is entirely reasonable to discuss Calgary as a possible destination, because Calgary has two things that make it potentially hungry enough to make an aggressive bid: high current unemployment, and a need to diversify the economy.

Calgary has the youngest and most highly educated populace in Canada. And considering that Canada is better educated than the US in the aggregate, I think it is safe to assume that Calgary would compare favourably to most US cities in that regard as well.

Also, Calgary is in the unique position that much of its well educated workforce is currently unemployed. Typically, the unemployed ranks are dominated by the unskilled and poorly educated. But Calgary currently has an army of engineers, professionals, and well trained people out of work. I doubt there is another city in NA in a comparable situation.

As for your rebuttal (New Era) that the workforce is mostly in one industry, and thus its

reliance on a single industry makes it subject to wild fluctuations in the economy and human resource availability...

this just illustrates your personal bias to mold the facts to your own narrative. You yourself have argued as loudly as anyone on these threads that Alberta needs to diversify the economy. This is precisely what the Amazon opportunity would be about. Also, regardless of the fact that there are large fluctuations in demand for labour in Calgary because of the volatile nature of the O&G industry, the fact of the matter is that the availability does exist at the moment. And that's the important thing, no?

The idea that Calgary would look at this as on opportunity to diversify the economy, and thus might have the motivation to bid aggressively, suggests that it is entirely reasonable to be having this discussion.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

To me the whole point of a second 'headquarters' in a different city is that it is a 3hr time difference, if you didn't want that why would you bother setting up in a different city? the most common sense thing for the around 25th richest company in the world would be to have one office in Seattle, if you are planning a second headquarters not in Seattle it's because the west doesn't work for what they want that location to do.

People need to think of this beyond N America, 4 hours is not a big deal within the US but its 8 hours to Europe, an East Coast office allows workable teleconferencing to the EU throughout most of the day.

By that logic put the thing in the UK or Ireland for tax purposes. Same Language and then you have coverage throughout the world. Again your vendors come to you when you are Amazon so they will accommodate the time zone issues so it really doesn't matter too much.

The purpose of the second head quarters (based on the RFP) is most likely risk mitiagation, access to talent, and most importantly corporate subsidy.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GGG

By that logic put the thing in the UK or Ireland for tax purposes. Same Language and then you have coverage throughout the world. Again your vendors come to you when you are Amazon so they will accommodate the time zone issues so it really doesn't matter too much.

The purpose of the second head quarters (based on the RFP) is most likely risk mitiagation, access to talent, and most importantly corporate subsidy.

They have a headquarters in Europe already, in Luxemburg I believe, that's who you have to talk to and they go home around 10 or 11am Pacific Coast time

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

To me the whole point of a second 'headquarters' in a different city is that it is a 3hr time difference, if you didn't want that why would you bother setting up in a different city? the most common sense thing for the around 25th richest company in the world would be to have one office in Seattle, if you are planning a second headquarters not in Seattle it's because the west doesn't work for what they want that location to do.

People need to think of this beyond N America, 4 hours is not a big deal within the US but its 8 hours to Europe, an East Coast office allows workable teleconferencing to the EU throughout most of the day.

In theory, I agree that it makes sense for them to want to be in the Eastern time zone. But, if this was actually one of the important criteria to them, wouldn't they have listed that with the other criteria? The fact that they didn't list this as important to them probably means that it isn't actually a big consideration.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

They have a headquarters in Europe already, in Luxemburg I believe, that's who you have to talk to and they go home around 10 or 11am Pacific Coast time

So there you go they are covers round the world. The absense or presence of a EST head office doesn't change Seattles need to talk to luxumberg. All 3 offices will need to be in communication. I don't see this as a primary factor.

And I say this as a person who has done a ton of ####ty oversees workshare projects.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

They have a headquarters in Europe already, in Luxemburg I believe, that's who you have to talk to and they go home around 10 or 11am Pacific Coast time

They are already working with Seattle. Whether the next office is in the eastern time zone, or mountain, it is still between the other two, and thus doesn't really change anything.

I agree that eastern would be an improvement on mountain for this issue, but like GGG said, if it were a huge issue for them (which I doubt), it would likely have been addressed in the criteria

edit: and mikephoen

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

In theory, I agree that it makes sense for them to want to be in the Eastern time zone. But, if this was actually one of the important criteria to them, wouldn't they have listed that with the other criteria? The fact that they didn't list this as important to them probably means that it isn't actually a big consideration.

Or they are trying to get the various cities and states and countries to bid against each other in order to get the best possible deal knowing full well there are only 2 or 3 candidates they would actually consider.

This is Amazon we are talking about, not the Red Cross

[Enoch Root]

It's all about the deal they can cut - location is a minor concern by comparison

[GGG]

I'd argue that they have placed a dollar value on all these Criteria and have a big decision matrix that they will plug in all the data. Then it will spit out the winner.

So while an EST bid vs a MST bid that are otherwise identical might favour EST I doubt the reduction in operating costs from being in EST will move the needle relative to average employee wage, rent, access to talent, and corporate subsidy. Especially when that communication with the co-head office in Seattle will also be an important part of the job when execs will have the choice of either office.

In other words there are plenty of reasons to discount Calgary. EST vs MST isn't one of them.

[afc wimbledon]

One small point, Amazon know exactly where they want to go, the RFP has no bearing on their decision what so ever and the criteria within it are about as meaningful as buying a lotto ticket is to a pension plan.

The RFP acts as a huge political tool for the company across the US right now, I have no doubt the major Republican politicians are being told 'well we would look at Wisconsin Mr Ryan' or 'Kentucky is high on our list of possibilities Senator McConnell' 'except for this immigration issue we are having with the Presidents future plans'
The company will stretch this 'decision' out for the full 3 years left of the Trump Presidency'.

On top of that the massive level of grants, tax breaks and general butt licking every jurisdiction in N America will bend over backwards to offer up will make the actual location they have already chosen much cheaper and easier to get the massive planning and infrastructure improvements they will demand