More like Fagin I think.

Dickens triangulates Fagin's identity through cultural fears about Jewish participation within secondary markets, increased distance between purchaser and seller in an expanding credit economy, and moral ambiguities in respect to fiction-making. Read against non-literary Victorian writing about counterfeiters and crime, Fagin can be understood as a forger of identities and narratives. His ability to exploit interpersonal belief and economic value is a central feature of his villainy and one with precedent in other aspects of Victorian financial life. Dickens critiques capitalist culture by associating it with the imitative, fictional, and Jewish culture. In contrast, he aligns sincerity and truth with the middle-class, normative characters. Throughout, he marks the distinction between these two groups with comic incidence. The marginalised figures are fodder for humour and irony, while the conventional heroes are earnest.

Understanding that the Socialist's again destroyed the future of workers. In this case possibly 107,000 new jobs, with 40,000 of them having a mean income of $150,000.

Critical thinking cuts both ways though. Never pick sides. Trump can be right about something and AOC can be right about something else.

And the more I read about Amazon the less I think that anybody should be defending the company.
If Jimmy Stewart was alive and in his prime, I bet it would be all too easy to make a movie with Jimmy as American hero and Amazon as villain.

Also (it's likely the world has always acted like this but anyway) as far as Amazon goes the Capitalists are acting like Socialists and the Socialists are defending Capitalism.
And both sides appear to be oblivious of that fact and the irony of it :)

Try not to nit-pick this example too much, I'm throwing it together on the fly:
If Putin told one of his buddies, "Here! Have amazon.ru and the 50% of all Russian online purchases that go with it. We pretend it's not exactly monopoly. You can treat your workers like George Orwell novel and company pays no taxes to motherland. That way you become richest man in Russia." What would you say to that?

IOW it's getting real easy to label Bezos as an actual... oligarch.

Yeah but the conspiracy-on-the-street is saying that Amazon never planned to actually build an HQ2.
Amazon is allegedly data-mining municipalities for corporations.
And apparently there's no Plan-B. No other State as back-up.

It's still too early for us bystanders to "know" what's really going on here. Time will tell.

But since you want me to respond to the quote, I will.

If everything in that quote is true, then we are (mostly) in agreement.
However, my gut is telling me all that spiel sounds way too good to be true :)

and tax revenues far exceeding subsides

Now I know you live in a fantasy world.
I refer you to my post 1980814

N.B. Notice I don't repeat, I cross reference. It's a much better idea.

As long as they pay cooperate tax like every other company has to do, not having all kind of tax evasion schemes, don't request any subsides and having fair agreements with their employees. No problems.

This happens if Amazon comes to Sweden.
https://www.metro.se/artikel/experten-det-h%C3%A4r-h%C3%A4nder-om-amazon-kommer-till-sverige

107,000 additional workers

I assume you know that is not the number of long term workers.
I have seen totals as high as 40,000 long term workers, but many say it will be 25,000 max. And that there is a every chance as more and more AI and robotics, Amazon is big on these, that that number will decrease significantly over the years. And if you are talking high tech jobs, then the majority will initially be filled with outsiders.

Plus, the land where it was going to be built had previously been allocated for 1200 low cost homes, something the area badly needs.

As long as they pay cooperate tax like every other company has to do, not having all kind of tax evasion schemes, don't request any subsides and having fair agreements with their employees. No problems.

This happens if Amazon comes to Sweden.
https://www.metro.se/artikel/experten-det-h%C3%A4r-h%C3%A4nder-om-amazon-kommer-till-sverige

In UK, for 2017 Amazon paid about half of what it did for 2016, and at the same time tripled its profits. source https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/02/amazon-halved-uk-corporation-tax-bill-to-45m-last-year

Who has a problem with Tax Revenue 9 times higher than Subsidies?

The actual quote - which I've eventually traced back to https://ny.curbed.com/2018/11/16/18098589/amazon-hq2-nyc-queens-long-island-city-explained after a long search, is:

What is New York getting?
According to the state, Amazon will generate $27.5 billion in state and city revenue over 25 years, a 9:1 ratio of revenue to subsidies

Not Tax Revenue - you've added the middle word.

I would assume that 'revenue' would include fees and charges for direct services provided.

Better. But if an ongoing service is provided for 25 years with a fee/charge (I'm assuming) bearing a reasonable relationship to the cost, is it right to compare that with a "subsidy"?

If Sweden had an agreement with Amazon resulting in increased high wage employment and Tax Revenue's far exceeding Subsidies . Would you be against Amazon in Sweden?

Of course not.
But it will never happen. It didn't happen with Facebook so why Amazon?
I think the local politicians in NYC and Luleå both falled for trick being promised lot of jobs, even high wage employments and big tax revenue's.
Maybe a couple of years but then most jobs are gone and tax revenues are lost in Irish Doubles, Dutch Sandwiches or some thing else.

I'm still pondering the next part of the quote, from the same source.

Amazon will create 25,000 jobs over the next decade (with up to 40,000 when all is said and done), with an average salary of $150,000.

What does £100 grand plus buy you in the states these days? Not a minder for a shelf-picking robot, I'll bet. This is HQ2, not a distribution warehouse. What is Amazon planning to do with a workforce like that? What will "Planet Amazon" look like in 25 years' time?

(How many employees does the Federal Government have on that sort of pay grade?)

Perhaps to you $150,000 is peanuts. Not to working people in the USA. It is a very decent salary.

No, quite the opposite. I don't have all the figures to hand, but median household income in the UK last year was below £30,000 - call that roughly equivalent to your 'head of household', subject to fluctuating exchange rates. Four times that is a good wage. Why does it need subsidising - what is the state getting for the up-front loan, apart from jam tomorrow?

Were you also against the agreement, as AOC and her 'Useful Fools' were. In Amazon bringing many direct and indirect jobs and having Government Revenue exceeding Subsides by 9 times?

I don't follow the modern fashion - first promulgated by the Chicago school of economics, if I remember rightly - of trusting everything to the market and evaluating every public or private decision in financial terms alone.

That's why I'm asking what these well-paid jobs are - given that they will ultimately be paid for by the customers, purchasers of Amazon products or services. If they were, for example, advertising contractors, buying advertising to tempt end users into spending money they can't afford on products they don't need (and which damage the environment), I don't think I'd find the overall transaction to be of great benefit to the human race.

The thing is that if you put a hi tech business with 40,000 employees on an average of $150,000 in any new area, then property prices are going to go through the roof and the cost of living is going to rise dramatically.

$150,000 will just be enough for a single person in such an area. If married you will need wife on similar salary, to be comfortable.

Amazon alway say they will create new jobs, even well high paid hi tech jobs. They don't. They want experienced and already employed pros willing to relocate.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-google-chase-software-developersbut-not-the-same-ones-1542133719

Amazon wants more software engineers who are well-versed in the coding languages Microsoft C# and Java. It also is seeking pros who have experience using a technical approach called object-oriented analysis and design and—not surprisingly—Amazon Web Services, the company’s unit that hosts other firms’ data in the cloud.
The companies may need to lure workers to New York City if they find their reputations and high salaries aren’t enough to attract those already living there. Convincing people to move for a job is challenging, and getting experienced workers, particularly midcareer professionals with families, to give New York City a try might be tough.
“People don’t like to relocate. They live in a place for a reason,” said Bhushan Sethi, workforce strategy leader at PricewaterhouseCoopers. “New York City is a wonderful place, but the infrastructure, housing, and cost isn’t for everyone.”

That still doesn't answer the question "why?"

Employees x salaries comes to 6 billion $ a year - for 25 years. $150 billion, plus inflation. What can be monetized out of that job description?

Is it too cynical to suggest that hosting other companies' data in AWS, and having control of the backbones and routers through which that data passes, gives you a head start in understanding what your competitors are doing?

Our experience here with U.S. corporations is that they give glowing proposals and statistics, but rarely do they come anywhere near close to them by the time it's all said and done.

Rarely do they generate half the jobs they quoted, or generate a third the returns they quoted and by the time you knock off the top 10-12 top paying positions your left with an average pay rate around a third of what they quoted, but they did everything in their power to move as much money as possible offshore without paying any taxes here.

It's called "American Corporate Greed".

Thankfully our current useless government was forced into getting onto them and has now recovered several billion $'s in avoided taxes from them over the last year with more to come.

In Amazon bringing many direct and indirect jobs and having Government Revenue exceeding Subsides by 9 times?

Clyde you are quite correct those would not have been new jobs but jobs Amazon transferred from elsewhere. the same thing for Govt. revenue, that would be taxes not being paid elsewhere. An interesting factoid is Amazon paid no federal taxes last year, zero revenue.

---

An interesting factoid is Amazon paid no federal taxes last year, zero revenue.

Indeed:)
Amazon’s $0 corporate income tax bill last year, explained
https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18231742/amazon-federal-taxes-zero-corporate-income

That still doesn't answer the question "why?"
Employees x salaries comes to 6 billion $ a year - for 25 years. $150 billion, plus inflation. What can be monetized out of that job description?
Is it too cynical to suggest that hosting other companies' data in AWS, and having control of the backbones and routers through which that data passes, gives you a head start in understanding what your competitors are doing?

I guess Amazon want to expand. A lot! And they need a lot of workers skilled in hi tech to do that and the center for it Jeff Bezos like to be in NYC and DC.
But there also other US states and countries they expand to.
Like my country:)
"Tens of thousands of Nordic customers have used AWS from other regions around the world, but many have told us that they want a Nordic region so that they can more easily handle the tasks that require the fastest data rate while having full control of their data", says Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon Web Services
Now, AWS's cloud services are available in Sweden and the rest of the Nordic region.
Amazon has so far built three data centers in Sweden: in Västerås, Eskilstuna and in Katrineholm.

Two Amazon stories in the Guardian.
Amazon made an $11.2bn profit in 2018 but paid no federal tax
Amazon paid no federal tax for 2018 – but how much profit did it earn?