Amazon's growth is a systemic risk to Seattle(geekwire.com)
geekwire.com
Amazon's growth is a systemic risk to Seattle
http://www.geekwire.com/2015/commentary-amazons-unprecedented-growth-is-too-risky-for-seattle/
2 comments
Amazon has 24,000 workers in Seattle and is building office space for 70,000 more. Why?
* Are they relocating 70,000 workers from other areas?
* Are they adding 70,000 new jobs?
* Are they building office space without intending on using it?
This brings up an interesting question: how should city planners make decisions about long term infrastructure if their populations are unstable?
Will the trend of working for many companies for shorter periods of time, and therefore perhaps moving more often, make certain city populations less stable than others?
Will the trend of working for many companies for shorter periods of time, and therefore perhaps moving more often, make certain city populations less stable than others?
I know Facebook's second largest office is here, Palantir just opened an office, and it seems every week or so I hear of another SV company opening a satellite. That's not to say this isn't a real problem, but Amazon's success (and how frickin' awesome Seattle is) is attracting other people to cushion the blow.
An important note here is that the revenue sources and the markets for these are very diverse. The 5-10 notable companies with notable presence have probably 5-10 mostly discrete markets driving their growth.
Silicon Valley, on the other hand, has hundreds of companies but 90%+ are entirely dependent on ads (or the ad bubble, depending on which side of that fence you're on).
Any thoughts on how this plays into the risk calculus?