> (With apologies to Canada, we’ve set aside Toronto and several other large cities because they’re not included in most of the data sets we’ve used to determine which places meet Amazon’s needs.)
Exactly! As I mentioned in my reply to this comment, if they actually used the platitudes of data available on the subject - instead of clearly cherry - Toronto would easily be in the top 3, at the very least. The fact that they admit that the data they chose didn't mention Toronto doesn't help their case any.
>we’ve set aside Toronto and several other large cities because they’re not included in most of the data sets we’ve used
Not because the data isn't available, which it is (in abundance), but because it's not available in the data sets the chose to use. Not to put on a tinfoil hat or anything, but I have a very strong suspicion that they chose the data they did, and specifically mention leaving Toronto out, because they know that if they did otherwise, the data would show that Toronto is probably, if not the best, one of the top 3 options, and that likely wouldn't go over well with their core readership...
I think the biggest issue with Toronto is the fact that every American tech worker (60% of the probable HQ2 labor pool, conservatively) would need to get a Canadian work visa before being onboarded. Sounds like a horrible, horrible headache for both Amazon and prospective employees.
> (With apologies to Canada, we’ve set aside Toronto and several other large cities because they’re not included in most of the data sets we’ve used to determine which places meet Amazon’s needs.)