So, there is a significant game theory component to Amazon's RTO position that can't be discussed publicly.
So, there is a significant game theory component to Amazon's RTO position that can't be discussed publicly.
This seems like mostly an attrition play.
The capital class also despises the labor class. I wouldn't down-play the pure spite motive, either.
Things like some executives wife gets pulled over drunk and the police give her a ride home and a warning. The son gets caught holding and the case disappears. Homeless people in their neighborhood get told to move along to your neighborhood. That sort of thing.
It isn't. Beat cops probably aren't going to take your bribe, you have to pre-bribe the community like Amazon has so you are "too big to fail" in a sense. It's like the company town of old but built with public dollars.
Another thing to understand in asking RTO Amazon gets implicit support of city/builders/ tons of other vendors. Further it should be no surprise (but it is!) that multiple hundreds of thousand dollar a year earning employees are going to get no sympathy on their plight from public at large. So why should CEO care at all on this issue.
I'm sorry I mean be wrong about the details.
Funny, I read your first paragraph and thought it doesn't make sense from game-theory point of view. If Amazon wants to lower city council's power over it, the easiest thing it can do is not be dependent on Seattle (ie - if your workforce is distributed, Seattle is irrelevant)
They are dependent on Seattle and Seattle has a reciprocal dependency on Amazon. "Just" adopting a distributed workforce position means putting a large investment in real estate at risk. Why would they do that?
https://www.seattle.gov/city-finance/business-taxes-and-lice...