Commentary — November 15, 2018, 11:51 am

Certain Certainties

What Amazon HQ2 means for New York City

The announcement that Amazon is moving one of its two new headquarters to New York brought the state’s two leading politicians, Governor Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio, together in perfect harmony yesterday. For nearly five years, New Yorkers have had to watch these dueling mediocrities feud over any number of petty disputes, while the infrastructure of the state and the city slowly crumbled away. But here they were, on the same stage at last, blushing like schoolboys, grinning and chuckling and shaking hands as they gave us the good news. 

There’s nothing like a massive corporate giveaway to bring runaway egos back together. For the low, low price of just $1.2 billion in tax subsidies and another half a billion in public improvements, Amazon has agreed to place one of its two new corporate headquarters in Long Island City, in the borough of Queens. This, in a city and state where Governor Cuomo cannot get the subway or commuter trains to run on time. Where he has largely shrugged at the looming disaster awaiting New York and the entire Eastern seaboard should one of the Hudson River tunnels, badly damaged by Hurricane Sandy, have to shut down (“It’s not my tunnel,” he has said). Where little to nothing has been done to address the rising sea levels that climate change is certain to bring, where the public schools still struggle for resources. Where the massive amount of sewage created by all the new high-rises in Amazon’s new home of Long Island City cannot now be adequately dealt with, local residents being advised not to flush their toilets when it rains.

What Amazon promises in return—sort of—is to bring 25,000 new jobs, averaging $150,000 in salary—to Queens. The corporate behemoth further pledged, according to the New York Times, to “donate space on its [new] campus for a tech start-up incubator, artists, industrial businesses and a new school.  It also said it would make investments in infrastructure and green space” and fork over “$5 million for training and internship programs and a promise to participate in ‘job fairs and resume workshops’ ” at a local housing development.

All of these “improvements” are, of course, the sorts of things that government used to do routinely. And certainly the $1.7 billion New York is forking over could create a hell of a lot of jobs fairs and pocket parks.

 Amazon baited this particular scam perfectly, getting city after city to bid against one another for its new executive campuses in the East. And like a couple of out-of-town rubes buying the Brooklyn Bridge, de Blasio and Cuomo fell for it hook, line, and sinker. 

In the quasi-republic we now live in, the deal New York cut was done as undemocratically as possible. Amazon will get to skip the land-use review process designed to study the environmental and societal impacts of any massive new business. The neighbors will not be consulted at all—“there could be local input but no local veto,” as the Times put it—and Amazon’s subsidies will not even be subjected to a vote by the state legislature or the city council. The trillion-dollar company, Mayor de Blasio assured us, “needed a certain amount of certainty.” (Amazon founder and czar Jeff Bezos, we are told, is also getting a helipad, because New York is not now noisy enough.)

For all the endless palaver about New York “investing in the tech center,” what our governor and mayor are really bringing to town is the world’s largest ever sweatshop. For most of its employees, Amazon is a throwback to the Dickensian workplace; it is notorious as the company that would rather line up (publicly funded) EMT crews outside its vast warehouses than provide its workers with sufficient air and water. (For a full account of just how grotesque Mr. Bezos and his company really are, read—here in the pages of Harper’s and in her stunning, brilliant book, NomadlandJessica Bruder’s firsthand accounts of how Amazon deliberately targets and exploits senior citizens as temporary workers because they are less likely to complain about the backbreaking work pace. If they do, they are immediately fired without so much as a word.) For all that Cuomo and de Blasio act as though the future will be reinvented here, the only future tech Amazon is really interested in is replacing these underpaid and mistreated workers with robots and drones. If this is the future, we are all in a heap of trouble.

Of course, nothing so jejune as a warehouse is coming to New York with Amazon. These will be just the corporate suites, thank you. The other day on WNYC, New York’s own public radio station, some sunny snake-oil salesman from Crain’s Business was trying to make out that these $150,000 positions would be open to everyone. For instance, all New York women now making $18,000 a year had to do, he assured us, was avail themselves of a small retraining program and voila! in maybe a year they would be executive material at Amazon.

This is the sheerest hooey. Amazon’s promised 25,000 workers, who may or may not ever appear, will most likely be drawn from the existing corporate ranks the world over. Far from upgrading the jobs of struggling New Yorkers, they will serve as one more wedge to push them out of this ridiculously overpriced and underserved city.

The unkindest cut of all is that this fraud is being perpetrated by two leaders who never miss a chance to show off the progressive credentials they wear on their sleeves. “We’re both pragmatists,” claimed de Blasio at their joint news conference—“pragmatist” apparently now being a synonym for greed.

De Blasio as a mayoral candidate deplored the vast wealth divide in New York as a “tale of two cities,” but now he seems to have signed over his whole administration to the machinations of Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen, a Goldman Sachs recruit who never met a corporate subsidy she didn’t like. But then, Big Bill was long ago revealed as a political featherweight, with no future in the business after his term expires at the end of 2021.

Governor Cuomo is a more curious case, his face, it seems, always turned firmly toward the past. New York is now a fabulously wealthy city, but he still relentlessly seeks out corporate giveaways such as this one. The city entertains nearly 65 million tourists a year, but Cuomo has pushed repeatedly for building it new convention centers, and he has forged ahead with plans for a new, subsidized casino upstate, even as the gambling industry continues to collapse like so many dominoes all over the country. Other projects, such as his “Buffalo Billions” program for reviving that city, have long been besieged by rumors of massive corruption. It is as if, for Cuomo, it is always the 1970s, and New York must beg and bribe everybody to come live and work here. 

The greater tragedy of what our leaders are doing is that New York now has the wherewithal to build a city that will readily attract worthwhile people and businesses of all sorts. Fix the subways, fix the sewers, fix the tunnels, fill the schools with more teachers, support a living wage, pay attention to small businesses, tax our international corporations, and New York will be a place that the Amazons of the world will pay us to move to. This used to be the liberal idea—“If you build it, they will come”—but our born-again, “progressive pragmatists” are apparently too scared to try it.

So who does want Amazon? Well, a Times reporter found just the man, one Richie Wissak, who owns a cab company in Long Island City and is hoping that the company will replace a local strip club that tragically  closed down six months ago. “The community’s not going to dig it too much, but I think it’s going to be great for this area,” Mr. Wissak informed us. With any luck, Wissak’s cabs will be carting home a much higher class of inebriates. Maybe that should become our new municipal slogan.

Share
Single Page

More from Kevin Baker:

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

January 2019

Machine Politics

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Polar Light

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Donald Trump Is a Good President

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Resistances

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Long Shot

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Machine Politics·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip,” Ronald Reagan said in 1989. He was speaking to a thousand British notables in London’s historic Guildhall, several months before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Reagan proclaimed that the world was on the precipice of “a new era in human history,” one that would bring “peace and freedom for all.” Communism was crumbling, just as fascism had before it. Liberal democracies would soon encircle the globe, thanks to the innovations of Silicon Valley. “I believe,” he said, “that more than armies, more than diplomacy, more than the best intentions of democratic nations, the communications revolution will be the greatest force for the advancement of human freedom the world has ever seen.”

At the time, most everyone thought Reagan was right. The twentieth century had been dominated by media that delivered the same material to millions of people at the same time—radio and newspapers, movies and television. These were the kinds of one-to-many, top-down mass media that Orwell’s Big Brother had used to stay in power. Now, however, Americans were catching sight of the internet. They believed that it would do what earlier media could not: it would allow people to speak for themselves, directly to one another, around the world. “True personalization is now upon us,” wrote MIT professor Nicholas Negroponte in his 1995 bestseller Being Digital. Corporations, industries, and even whole nations would soon be transformed as centralized authorities were demolished. Hierarchies would dissolve and peer-to-peer collaborations would take their place. “Like a force of nature,” wrote Negroponte, “the digital age cannot be denied or stopped.”

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Long Shot·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Ihave had many names, but as a sniper I went by Azad, which means “free” or “freedom” in Kurdish. I had been fighting for sixteen months in Kurdish territory in northern Syria when in April 2015 I was asked to leave my position on the eastern front, close to the Turkish border, and join an advance on our southwestern one. Eight months earlier, we had been down to our last few hundred yards, and, outnumbered five to one, had made a last stand in Kobanî. In January, after more than four months of fighting street-to-street and room-by-room, we recaptured the town and reversed what was, until then, an unstoppable jihadi tide. In the battles since, we had pushed ­ISIS far enough in every direction that crossing our territory was no longer a short dash through the streets but a five-hour drive across open country. As we set out to the north, I could make out the snowy peaks in southern Turkey where they say Noah once beached his ark. Below them, rolling toward us, were the wide, grassy valleys and pine forests of Mesopotamia, the land between the Euphrates and the Tigris where our people have lived for twelve thousand years.

The story of my people is filled with bitter ironies. The Kurds are one of the world’s oldest peoples and, as pioneers of agriculture, were once among its most advanced. Though the rest of the world now largely overlooks that it was Kurds who were among the first to create a civilization, the evidence is there. In 1995, German archaeologists began excavating a temple at Göbekli Tepe in northern Kurdistan. They found a structure flanked by stone pillars carved with bulls, foxes, and cranes, which they dated to around 10,000 bce. At the end of the last Ice Age, and seven thousand years before the erection of Stonehenge or the pyramids at Giza, my ancestors were living together as shamans, artists, farmers, and engineers.

Fighters of the YJA-STAR, the women’s force in the PKK, Sinjar, Iraq, November 2015 (detail)
Article
Polar Light·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To get oriented here is difficult. The light is flat because the sky is overcast. The sun’s weak rays create only a few anemic shadows by which to judge scale and distance. Far-off objects like mountain peaks have crisp edges because the atmosphere itself is as transparent as first-water diamonds, but the mountains are not nearly as close as they seem. It’s about negative-twelve degrees Fahrenheit, but the wind is relatively calm, moving over the snow distractedly, like an animal scampering.

[caption id="attachment_271890" align="aligncenter" width="690"]True-color satellite image of Earth centered on the South Pole during winter solstice © Planet Observer/Universal Images Group/Getty Images. True-color satellite image of Earth centered on the South Pole during winter solstice © Planet Observer/Universal Images Group/Getty Images.[/caption]

Four of the six people living here are in their tents now, next to their cookstoves, two by two, warming up and preparing their suppers. I’m the fifth of the group, almost motionless at the moment, a hundred yards south of the tent cluster, kneeling on a patch of bluish ice in the midst of a great expanse of white. I’m trying to discern a small object entombed there a few inches below the surface. Against the porcelain whites of this gently sloping landscape, I must appear starkly apparent in my cobalt blue parka and wind pants. I shift slowly right and left, lean slightly forward, then settle back, trying to get the fluxless sunlight to reveal more of the shape and texture of the object.

A multiple-exposure photograph (detail) taken every hour from 1:30 pm on December 8, 1965, to 10:10 am on December 9, 1965, showing the sun in its orbit above the South Pole, Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station © Georg Gerster/Panos Pictures
Article
Donald Trump Is a Good President·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In all sincerity, I like Americans a lot; I’ve met many lovely people in the United States, and I empathize with the shame many Americans (and not only “New York intellectuals”) feel at having such an appalling clown for a leader.

However, I have to ask—and I know what I’m requesting isn’t easy for you—that you consider things for a moment from a non-American point of view. I don’t mean “from a French point of view,” which would be asking too much; let’s say, “from the point of view of the rest of the world.”On the numerous occasions when I’ve been questioned about Donald Trump’s election, I’ve replied that I don’t give a shit. France isn’t Wyoming or Arkansas. France is an independent country, more or less, and will become totally independent once again when the European Union is dissolved (the sooner, the better).

Illustration (detail) by Ricardo Martínez
Article
Resistances·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The prepositions you’re most likely to encounter after the title of a poem are “for” or “to” and sometimes “after”—“for my daughter”; “to Bobby”; “after Pound”; etc. They signify dedication, address, homage, imitation. In the recent poems of Fred Moten, we encounter “with,” a preposition that denotes accompaniment. The little difference makes a big difference, emphasizing collaboration over the economy of the gift, suggesting that the poet and his company are fellow travelers, in the same time zone, alongside each other in the present tense of composition. (Given Moten’s acclaimed critical work on jazz, the “with” is immediately evocative of musical performance, e.g., “Miles Davis with Sonny Rollins.”) Not all “withs” are the same—there is a different intimacy in the poem “fifty little springs,” which is “with aviva,” Moten’s wife’s Hebrew name (which means springtime), than there is in “resistances,” which is “with” a critic and an artist, interlocutors of Moten’s. (The poem “13. southern pear trees” has no preposition after the title, but is excerpted from another responding to the work of Zoe Leonard, and so is still a work of fellowship.) The scale of that “with” can be small (“with aviva, as if we were all alone”) or vast (“with everybody we don’t know”), but either way the poem becomes an instance of alongsidedness instead of belatedness; the poems request, with that subtle prepositional shift, that we think of ourselves as participants in the production of meaning and not mere recipients of someone else’s eloquence.

“Untitled,” 1989, by Zoe Leonard © Zoe Leonard (detail)

Estimated number of times in the Fall of 1990 that George Bush told a joke about his dog asking for a wine list with her Alpo:

10

French researchers reported that 52 percent of young women exposed to Francis Cabrel’s ballad “Je l’aime à mourir” gave their phone numbers to an average-looking young man who hit on them, whereas only 28 percent of those exposed to Vincent Delerm’s “L’heure du thé” did so.

Migrant children were teargassed; carbon dioxide levels have reached three to five million year high; missionary killed by remote tribe

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today