So you think the number of jobs in NYC is a fixed constant? That every extra job created by amazon is one less job elsewhere? That’s the literal opposite of dynamism.
If we're not able to significantly increase infrastructure for getting to work, whether roads, subways, ferries, or whatever, yes, the number of jobs in NYC is going to hit a cap pretty soon.
The usual way of solving this problem and continuing to scale a city is that you use tax revenue from new jobs to build additional public infrastructure. But the HQ2 deal made a point of giving up that tax revenue....
If that's true, then yes, I agree that nothing was accomplished. Is it? I don't know the details of the deal and I'd be pretty unhappy if it's true....
(If you just mean "Amazon proved it's negotiable," I think Amazon pulling out equally proves that it's a political quagmire to try to negotiate it.)
That's basically what full employment means, and we pretty much there.
So a pile of 'something else' jobs would be replaced with shotty Amazon jobs - and the stories from their corporate offices and from their warehouses have been harrowing.
This is the opposite of what full employment means. Full employment means a fixed number of workers who mostly all have jobs already, not a fixed number of job opportunities. Adding more competition for labor during full employment means employers will be forced to make workers better offers, not worse offers. It does not mean every job can only be replaced by a worse job, it means the opposite of that.
I don't know man?
In most places I might agree with you, but in places like NYC and Silicon Valley?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it means more of something else. Sometimes it can be easy to underestimate the size and dynamism of those two economic engines.