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.

Single Page

More from Kevin Baker:

From the May 2019 issue

Where Our New World Begins

Politics, power, and the Green New Deal

Get access to 169 years of
Harper’s for only $23.99

United States Canada



October 2019


Good Bad Bad Good·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

About fifteen years ago, my roommate and I developed a classification system for TV and movies. Each title was slotted into one of four categories: Good-Good; Bad-Good; Good-Bad; Bad-Bad. The first qualifier was qualitative, while the second represented a high-low binary, the title’s aspiration toward capital-A Art or lack thereof.

Some taxonomies were inarguable. The O.C., a Fox series about California rich kids and their beautiful swimming pools, was delightfully Good-Bad. Paul Haggis’s heavy-handed morality play, Crash, which won the Oscar for Best Picture, was gallingly Bad-Good. The films of Francois Truffaut, Good-Good; the CBS sitcom Two and a Half Men, Bad-Bad.

Constitution in Crisis·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

America’s Constitution was once celebrated as a radical and successful blueprint for democratic governance, a model for fledgling republics across the world. But decades of political gridlock, electoral corruption, and dysfunction in our system of government have forced scholars, activists, and citizens to question the document’s ability to address the thorniest issues of modern ­political life.

Does the path out of our current era of stalemate, minority rule, and executive abuse require amending the Constitution? Do we need a new constitutional convention to rewrite the document and update it for the twenty-­first century? Should we abolish it entirely?

This spring, Harper’s Magazine invited five lawmakers and scholars to New York University’s law school to consider the constitutional crisis of the twenty-­first century. The event was moderated by Rosa Brooks, a law professor at Georgetown and the author of How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales from the Pentagon.

Life after Life·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

For time ylost, this know ye,
By no way may recovered be.

I spent thirty-eight years in prison and have been a free man for just under two. After killing a man named Thomas Allen Fellowes in a drunken, drugged-up fistfight in 1980, when I was nineteen years old, I was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Former California governor Jerry Brown commuted my sentence and I was released in 2017, five days before Christmas. The law in California, like in most states, grants the governor the right to alter sentences. After many years of advocating for the reformation of the prison system into one that encourages rehabilitation, I had my life restored to me.

Power of Attorney·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In a Walmart parking lot in Portsmouth, Virginia, in 2015, a white police officer named Stephen Rankin shot and killed an unarmed, eighteen-­year-­old black man named William Chapman. “This is my second one,” he told a bystander seconds after firing the fatal shots, seemingly in reference to an incident four years earlier, when he had shot and killed another unarmed man, an immigrant from Kazakhstan. Rankin, a Navy veteran, had been arresting Chapman for shoplifting when, he claimed, Chapman charged him in a manner so threatening that he feared for his life, leaving him no option but to shoot to kill—­the standard and almost invariably successful defense for officers when called to account for shooting civilians. Rankin had faced no charges for his earlier killing, but this time, something unexpected happened: Rankin was indicted on a charge of first-­degree murder by Portsmouth’s newly elected chief prosecutor, thirty-­one-year-­old Stephanie Morales. Furthermore, she announced that she would try the case herself, the first time she had ever prosecuted a homicide. “No one could remember us having an actual prosecution for the killing of an unarmed person by the police,” Morales told me. “I got a lot of feedback, a lot of people saying, ‘You shouldn’t try this case. If you don’t win, it may affect your reelection. Let someone else do it.’ ”

Secrets and Lies·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1973, when Barry Singer was a fifteen-year-old student at New York’s Yeshiva University High School for Boys, the vice principal, Rabbi George Finkelstein, stopped him in a stairwell. Claiming he wanted to check his tzitzit—the strings attached to Singer’s prayer shawl—Finkelstein, Singer says, pushed the boy over the third-floor banister, in full view of his classmates, and reached down his pants. “If he’s not wearing tzitzit,” Finkelstein told the surrounding children, “he’s going over the stairs!”

“He played it as a joke, but I was completely at his mercy,” Singer recalled. For the rest of his time at Yeshiva, Singer would often wear his tzitzit on the outside of his shirt—though this was regarded as rebellious—for fear that Finkelstein might find an excuse to assault him again.

Cost of renting a giant panda from the Chinese government, per day:


A recent earthquake in Chile was found to have shifted the city of Concepción ten feet to the west, shortened Earth’s days by 1.26 microseconds, and shifted the planet’s axis by nearly three inches.

A federal judge authored a 69-page ruling preventing New York City from enforcing zoning laws pertaining to adult bookstores and strip clubs.

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


Happiness Is a Worn Gun


“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