Yes. The primary reason that Amazon is looking for HQ2, rather than expanding in Seattle, is they don't believe they would be able to find enough high-quality tech talent to live in Seattle to fuel their expected growth. So Newark vs Atlanta vs Boston makes a difference if their is a different forecast of number of high-quality employees available to work in each of those cities.
I think that is why it is so telling that 6 of the 20 finalist locations are DC-Metro, NY-Metro and Phila. A high-quality employee who lives in the DC area looking to work at Amazon would probably not rule out the job based on a location in Washington, Maryland, or Northern VA. Likewise, someone in the NY metro would consider the job in NYC or Newark, and depending of if they lived in central NJ, even a job in Philly. Relocating to Atlanta adds a whole level of complexity, that would eliminate a good portion of the potential talent pool. (Of course, Atlanta would have it's own talent pool, but if that pool is much smaller than the Washington or NY metro talent pools, that puts Atlanta at a disadvantage.)
Two complicating factors are (1) What other companies are competing for the same talent pool. That is why you don't see San Francisco on the list, as there is already too much competition for tech employees. And (2) for really top talent will employees be willing to relocate to the HQ2 location. I think cost of living is less of a factor here, as employees who relocate are more likely to be highly compensated. I think the more salient factor is the appeal of living in the area. This, of course, varies by individual, but some areas are more likely to appeal to a larger segment of Amazon employees who would be candidates for relocation.
