moorlander wrote: ↑Nov 30, 2017The Tim Wentworth video of Tim Wentworth discussing Amazon can be seen here:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/30/express ... rance.html
“Norte Dame, Brown, and Case”gopherlou wrote:from the Citylab article:
"Find the universities that are gaining the most traction in engineering or STEM and you’re going to find an ecosystem that can produce a unicorn. My money would be on St. Louis, because of Washington University, which is starting to attract the finest human capital in the nation. Whoever gets the smartest 18-year-olds, 10 years later, they get a unicorn."
I just looked up the rankings (however meaningful they are) and was very surprised to see Wustl pretty far down the list - I expected them to fall within the top 10-15. They are tied at 40th with the likes of Iowa State and UC-Irvine, Notre Dame, Brown, and Case.
But that's just for engineering - WashU (like its more historically liberal arts-focused peers like UChicago/Harvard, except a little more so) is only now in the middle of seriously ramping up its engineering efforts. If you look at scientific research it's much higher and if you especially look at biomedical research it's a top 5 or top 10 place across the board depending on the specific subfield. Also for slightly more (though still basically useless) rankings, better to go with the National Research Council rankings, not US News.gopherlou wrote: ↑Nov 30, 2017^ No, certainly not bad company - more surprised that they were in the 40th spot and not higher up.
Rankings, for the curious - https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ra ... mode=table
gone corporate wrote: ↑Nov 02, 2017Gone corporate, has the something passed, still moving, dead, no update? Thanks!dredger wrote: ↑Nov 02, 2017Yeah, I know. But, the last time I tried to confirm a rumor, just to see if it was viable, my post was tweeted by someone who reads this site. Then, that tweet was published by the Biz Journal. I posted it on a Friday afternoon; by Monday, that deal was shuttered, and it cost me. I just can't talk too openly about certain things that I anticipate, because there's people out there who'll nail me if I do. That's why I'm largely off this site, too many people read it. I can say that I'm not operating off of insider information; that what I anticipate hasn't closed yet; and that you've talked about it before, Dredger.gone corporate wrote: ↑Nov 01, 2017Also: Something maybe, maybe happens before everything else, and maybe soon. Sorry for being so vague. Let’s just keep our eyes open.
That ranking was about the single worst ranking for Wash U. The undergrad, as a whole is #18. Research Med School is top 10. (Law is #18 and Business is #21)gopherlou wrote: ↑Nov 30, 2017^ No, certainly not bad company - more surprised that they were in the 40th spot and not higher up.
Rankings, for the curious - https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/ra ... mode=table
So how does this translate to STL’s chances on getting AMZN?
I think Amazon is building its business operations by expanding horizontally, picking up new businesses that fall outside of their original mission and strategy. They started first as a bookstore and grew to sell anything and compete straight-up with Walmart, but they’re also a TV network, movie production company, cargo airline, search engine, and offer about 50% of domestic web hosting services. When they acquired Whole Foods, they became a boutique retail grocer. Looking ahead, they’re considering healthcare. They are talking a lot about medical devices, including some chatter last week about dental. They could enter pharmaceuticals, and the best way to do that is with PBM. The data metric intake would be a gold mine of information. Rather than recreating the wheel that is PBM, I think we could see partnership or consolidation with Express Scripts. This comes as the healthcare industry is seeing consolidation between sectors, such as CVS and Aetna. Now, Express Scripts may partner with another healthcare company like Humana, but I think they’d rather partner with the giant sales company that is Amazon. This partnership can range from something that would operate as a joint venture all the way to an acquisition, with HQ staying in STL because moving it would be unwieldy.
Also, Proctor & Gamble...gone corporate wrote: ↑Dec 12, 2017[ Cincinnati’s my “sleeper” play for HQ2: in addition to their airport being the hub of Amazon Prime Air, they also are home to Federated Department Stores, which could be one hell of an acquisition candidate. Let’s see how Macy’s does this Christmas season.
From the Amazon hq2 RFP
8. Please include information on your community with respect to daily living, recreational
opportunities, diversity of housing options, availability of housing near potential sites for HQ2,
and pricing, among other information. Please also include relevant crime data and cost of living
data.
this is just blatantly false and it takes seconds to check. since 1840 there has been only ONE decadal census in which Greater St. Louis did not show growth, and that was 1980. if "in most years... more people moving out than moving in" you would not see consistent growth in the census, for f*ck's sake.Metro areas with better growth prospects next year are the ones, mostly in the South and West, that attract workers from other parts of the country. St. Louis, in most years, has more people moving out than moving in.
Agreed. His articles are really depreciating in intellectual value, and are more-so “St Louis is trash and there’s no hope everyone move now.”urban_dilettante wrote:^ does anybody fact check anything anymore?
this is just blatantly false and it takes seconds to check. since 1840 there has been only ONE decadal census in which Greater St. Louis did not show growth, and that was 1980. if "in most years... more people moving out than moving in" you would not see consistent growth in the census, for f*ck's sake.Metro areas with better growth prospects next year are the ones, mostly in the South and West, that attract workers from other parts of the country. St. Louis, in most years, has more people moving out than moving in.
Their is a difference in growth versus people moving in and moving out which he explicitly states. In other words, three kids are born, one adult dies, and one adults moves to Denver and no adult moves to St. Louis on a given day. Guess what you got? Growth with more people moving out then moving in.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Dec 18, 2017^ does anybody fact check anything anymore?
this is just blatantly false and it takes seconds to check. since 1840 there has been only ONE decadal census in which Greater St. Louis did not show growth, and that was 1980. if "in most years... more people moving out than moving in" you would not see consistent growth in the census, for f*ck's sake.Metro areas with better growth prospects next year are the ones, mostly in the South and West, that attract workers from other parts of the country. St. Louis, in most years, has more people moving out than moving in.
I agree, a lot of the way we think in St. Louis is self-fulfilling prophecy. We say the city will never change, so it doesn't. We say people will move, so they do. We say we are the most violent city in America, so it is.St.Louis1764 wrote: ↑Dec 19, 2017The article may state facts but realistically the article is very condescending and suggest St.Louis isn't even worth investing.. Most of his articles are usually very negative and nothing ever positive comes of it.
Good thing that our unemployment rate is at 3.3 just think if it were at 8.3 on how more negative his article would be no matter St.Louis is in a no win situation.
From my perspective I really don't read it that way. I take it as a pretty honest assessment of what employers face, those already present/expanding or looking to move into the area, when looking at the St. Louis job market right now and trying to figure talent pool & availability. 3.3% unemployment and job gains is great but it is also a sign that the labor pool is getting very limited with who is still or willing to participate. That means something has to change.St.Louis1764 wrote: ↑Dec 19, 2017The article may state facts but realistically the article is very condescending and suggest St.Louis isn't even worth investing.. Most of his articles are usually very negative and nothing ever positive comes of it.
Good thing that our unemployment rate is at 3.3 just think if it were at 8.3 on how more negative his article would be no matter St.Louis is in a no win situation.
But the scenario you described is still growth, and he doesn't make any such distinction nor does he offer any evidence to support such a distinction. I'm sick of this incessant defeatist bullsh*t from the local media.dredger wrote: ↑Dec 18, 2017Their is a difference in growth versus people moving in and moving out which he explicitly states. In other words, three kids are born, one adult dies, and one adults moves to Denver and no adult moves to St. Louis on a given day. Guess what you got? Growth with more people moving out then moving in.
