More Companies Are Joining 'Tech Exodus' From California (nbcnews.com) 258
This week Digital Reality data center services announced it was also relocating its headquarters from the San Francisco Bay Area to Texas, citing factors like a low cost of living and "supportive business climate". (Though it will still maintain a "significant" presence in the Bay Area.)
And Align Technology (makers of the Invisalign orthodontic dental aligners) also announced it had relocated its global corporate headquarters from San Jose, California to Tempe, Arizona, citing a "favorable corporate operating environment, low cost of living and overall quality of life."
NBC News writes that "while Silicon Valley is by no means ceasing to be the center of the technology industry," there's still an "undeniable migration" that's happening: Shervin Pishevar, a venture capitalist, bought a house in Miami Beach in 2018. In late 2020, Jonathan Oringer, who founded Shutterstock and became an investor, moved to Miami, as did other notable venture capitalists, including Keith Rabois and David Blumberg. It's not just Miami experiencing this migration. Last month, Oracle, the tech giant, announced it is moving its corporate headquarters from Redwood City, California, to Austin, Texas. Other such moves include Palantir, which decamped for Denver, while Elon Musk said last month he had moved himself to Austin. Hewlett Packard Enterprise also announced last month it was moving its headquarters from San Jose, California, in favor of a Houston suburb...
It's significant enough that while the San Francisco Bay Area continues to gain tech workers, the rate of increase is down by over 35 percent — the single largest drop of any tracked metropolitan area — according to self-reported data tracked by LinkedIn. Experts following this migration predict these numbers may grow. "There's a mini-exodus of tech companies leaving the Valley, and I think that's going to accelerate in 2021," said Dan Ives, a financial analyst with Wedbush Securities. But the reasons many businesses are moving are more complex than people may think. Tax experts say companies aren't moving their corporate headquarters necessarily for business tax incentives. Instead, it may be a long-term play to help them pay workers relatively less where the cost of living is lower... "You're going to always have the vast majority of tech companies coming out of the Valley, and you can't create that anywhere else," Ives said. "But when you look at an Austin: It's creating a mini Silicon Valley at half the cost for an average employee..."
Tax experts suspect Oracle and its peers may over time phase out higher-paid employees in California in favor of lower-paid employees in Texas. These companies can also ease off giving employees raises because they are living somewhere with a lower cost of living. "Even though a lot of companies are saying they can let people work from anywhere, most are saying we're not going to cut salary, but we're going to slow the rate of increase of salary," said Brian Kropp, an analyst with the IT service management company Gartner. Kropp said he spoke with high-level representatives from several "Fortune 200 type companies" who are exploring moving their corporate headquarters. In short, shifting employees from California to Texas could represent long-term corporate cost savings, which means larger payouts for these companies' top executives.
"The compounding effect translates to a 3 or 5 percent margin that moves straight to profit," Kropp said...
Kropp says some companies are also worried about the increase in state laws targeting businesses and executives. But there could be another culprit, argues Darien Shanske, a law professor at the University of California, Davis who NBC identiies as an expert on state and local taxation.
"California has blown it, but not because of tax policy — its decades-long problem of not producing enough housing," he said. "It's probably cheaper and easier to build that in Austin."
And Align Technology (makers of the Invisalign orthodontic dental aligners) also announced it had relocated its global corporate headquarters from San Jose, California to Tempe, Arizona, citing a "favorable corporate operating environment, low cost of living and overall quality of life."
NBC News writes that "while Silicon Valley is by no means ceasing to be the center of the technology industry," there's still an "undeniable migration" that's happening: Shervin Pishevar, a venture capitalist, bought a house in Miami Beach in 2018. In late 2020, Jonathan Oringer, who founded Shutterstock and became an investor, moved to Miami, as did other notable venture capitalists, including Keith Rabois and David Blumberg. It's not just Miami experiencing this migration. Last month, Oracle, the tech giant, announced it is moving its corporate headquarters from Redwood City, California, to Austin, Texas. Other such moves include Palantir, which decamped for Denver, while Elon Musk said last month he had moved himself to Austin. Hewlett Packard Enterprise also announced last month it was moving its headquarters from San Jose, California, in favor of a Houston suburb...
It's significant enough that while the San Francisco Bay Area continues to gain tech workers, the rate of increase is down by over 35 percent — the single largest drop of any tracked metropolitan area — according to self-reported data tracked by LinkedIn. Experts following this migration predict these numbers may grow. "There's a mini-exodus of tech companies leaving the Valley, and I think that's going to accelerate in 2021," said Dan Ives, a financial analyst with Wedbush Securities. But the reasons many businesses are moving are more complex than people may think. Tax experts say companies aren't moving their corporate headquarters necessarily for business tax incentives. Instead, it may be a long-term play to help them pay workers relatively less where the cost of living is lower... "You're going to always have the vast majority of tech companies coming out of the Valley, and you can't create that anywhere else," Ives said. "But when you look at an Austin: It's creating a mini Silicon Valley at half the cost for an average employee..."
Tax experts suspect Oracle and its peers may over time phase out higher-paid employees in California in favor of lower-paid employees in Texas. These companies can also ease off giving employees raises because they are living somewhere with a lower cost of living. "Even though a lot of companies are saying they can let people work from anywhere, most are saying we're not going to cut salary, but we're going to slow the rate of increase of salary," said Brian Kropp, an analyst with the IT service management company Gartner. Kropp said he spoke with high-level representatives from several "Fortune 200 type companies" who are exploring moving their corporate headquarters. In short, shifting employees from California to Texas could represent long-term corporate cost savings, which means larger payouts for these companies' top executives.
"The compounding effect translates to a 3 or 5 percent margin that moves straight to profit," Kropp said...
Kropp says some companies are also worried about the increase in state laws targeting businesses and executives. But there could be another culprit, argues Darien Shanske, a law professor at the University of California, Davis who NBC identiies as an expert on state and local taxation.
"California has blown it, but not because of tax policy — its decades-long problem of not producing enough housing," he said. "It's probably cheaper and easier to build that in Austin."
hence new cali tax law (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:hence new cali tax law (Score:4, Insightful)
Ami I missing something, or is this different to taxing US citizens who live and work In other countries? If one is Ok why not the other?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/california-wealth-and-exit-tax-would-be-an-unconstitutional-disaster
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2020/08/18/will-affluent-residents-leaving-california-still-h.html
Re:hence new cali tax law (Score:5, Insightful)
These aren't laws. These are proposed bills. No chance to pass, and it would violate the state and federal constitution if it did. It's a non-issue. I'm certain every other state out there has at least one moron also introducing stupid legislation that has no chance to pass.
FYI (Score:3, Interesting)
Those of us who have lived in California for many years have thought a lot of bad stuff would obviously not pass through the legislature and certainly not get signed into law by a governor and of course be stuck down by the courts if they got that far - only to be proven wrong. The Democrat party has such a strong grip on this fully gerrymandered state that the party has long held larger than super-majority status in both legislative bodies, has a lock on all state-wide offices (an oddball exception was qua
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you missed the memo, California got rid of partisan gerrymandering a decade ago. The Republican party just sucks in this state, they are on the same level as Florida Democrats in incompetence, which has also devolved pretty heavi
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe you missed the memo, California started the democrat partisan gerrymandering a decade ago.
FTFY
Re:FYI (Score:4, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:FYI (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're saying we should listen to you about this because you've been wrong a lot. This is why nobody listens to you.
I actually agree that Democrats need competition in the state. Unfortunately, talk radio and the online echo-chamber have Republican primary voters choosing rabid right-wing nutjobs who get hammered in the general election. California voters saw this was a problem and we now have a jungle primary and districts drawn by a bipartisan or non-partisan (not looking it up) commission. As a poster points out below, this pretty close to the opposite of gerrymandering.
If Republicans voted for the least-bad candidate who could win, they would have a shot at bringing the state a bit right. Anecdotally they vote their hearts in the primary and their spleen in the general. Blaming the "Democrat party" for the abject failure of Republicans is a good illustration of why they can't get much traction.
Re: FYI (Score:5, Insightful)
It really doesn't matter what Republicans nominate for primaries -- anybody who does anything less than promise handouts to minorities (wealthy or not) and the homeless, promote social justice, promote identity politics, and keep the housing status quo (under the guise of "preservation") -- isn't going to win in any general election in California. Period. End of story. Like it or not, that is at the soul of the culture of the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas, which collectively governs the rest of the state.
People like me who are realists and say things like "giving money to the homeless is basically just giving money to the drug cartels" have no voice in places like California, but we do elsewhere.
Re:hence new cali tax law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Supportive business climate" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: "Supportive business climate" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's forced to join a union in tech?
Re: "Supportive business climate" (Score:2)
Re: "Supportive business climate" (Score:5, Insightful)
And does this not apply to all states in the US? California really is pretty centrist if you actually look at it and compare to other places. Yes, taxes are higher than the average, but real estate taxes are very low (which is a problem) - move to Texas and income tax is low but real estate taxes will be have a sticker shock. We have outdoors areas, hunting, fishing, etc. I know someone who said "I'd hate to live in California because I like to hunt", and I'm surprised that people have been convinced that this is illegal.
So companies are outsource jobs and paying taxes, so what they want to do with this exodus is outsource jobs while not paying taxes. The gullible states think that they just give huge tax breaks and the jobs will suddenly appear. Just check with Wisconsin about how their Foxconn deal went. Trump had four years promising to bring back jobs and he did a terrible job at it and his tariffs helped lose jobs in some sectors. There's a bigger issue to be tackled by means other than quibbling over whether to vote red or blue.
Re: (Score:3)
I know someone who said "I'd hate to live in California because I like to hunt", and I'm surprised that people have been convinced that this is illegal.
Righties are not honest in their communication. In any of their communication. Everything they say, from breakfast to bedtime, is hyperbole. They don't save it for the big points.
What the person you know meant was, "I like to poach." Probably spotslight deer at night alongside the road, or some shit like that that isn't enforced in their area.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, taxes are higher than the average, but real estate taxes are very low (which is a problem) - move to Texas and income tax is low but real estate taxes will be have a sticker shock.
California's property tax rates may be low, but the actual property tax bills people pay are quite a bit higher than most every other state. That's what happens when your median home value is almost double the national average. [fool.com]
According to this source, [wallethub.com] the average property tax bill in California is $3,617 compared to the average property tax bill in Texas of $2,922.
According to this source, [bobvila.com] the size of the average home in California is around 1,625 square feet, while the size of the average home in Tex
Re: (Score:2)
California's property tax rates may be low, but the actual property tax bills people pay are quite a bit higher than most every other state. That's what happens when your median home value is almost double the national average.
I'm a bit confused - you seem to present this as a problem. However, the median home value is established via the free market, in California and everywhere else. People are obviously willing to pay double the cost to live in California, so they must consider it a fair deal. What your argument suggests instead is is that California is a much more desirable place to love than most other places - worth twice the cost, for houses.
Re: "Supportive business climate" (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a bit confused - you seem to present this as a problem.
I presented information that refuted Darinbob's contention that people moving from CA to TX were going to be shocked by the high property taxes in Texas. What they're really going to be shocked by is how much more home you get and how much less you have to pay for it. Not just Texas, but other US states as well.
However, the median home value is established via the free market, in California and everywhere else. People are obviously willing to pay double the cost to live in California, so they must consider it a fair deal. What your argument suggests instead is is that California is a much more desirable place to love than most other places - worth twice the cost, for houses.
My argument is that the housing market in California is one of the least "free" markets in the US. The supply of housing in CA is severely limited by government policies in the urban areas. For instance, places like San Francisco, where the only option is to build up, limits the height of a residential building to 40 feet in the majority of the city.
And it's not just San Francisco proper. From 2012 to 2017, [wikipedia.org] San Francisco Bay area cities added 400,000 new jobs, but only issued 60,000 permits for new housing units.
You just don't see that sort of thing in the majority of housing markets in the US.
Re: "Supportive business climate" (Score:3)
It's not that simple. California's housing market is highly distorted by Proposition 13.
If you own a house, the rate at which your property tax increases is capped. Itâ(TM)s not uncommon for people living in practically identical houses on the same street to pay wildly different tax rates.
If you move, the tax rate resets to market rates. This disincentivizes people from moving as much as they tend to do in other states. And this, in turn means that there just aren't as many properties available on the
Re: (Score:3)
So in Texas, you've got a ~20% lower tax bill for a ~25% bigger house than in California.
Yeah, but you're still stuck in Texas. I'm quite willing to pay considerably more in order to live somewhere with decent climate, decent food, decent people, decent educational system, and decent opportunities for outdoor recreation (Seattle). I've been to Texas a couple of times, and if I never have to step out of the airport the next time I'm there I'll be quite content.
Re: (Score:2)
And does this not apply to all states in the US?
No. In 28 states, no one can be compelled to join a union or pay dues as a condition of employment.
real estate taxes are very low (which is a problem)
Real estate taxes are only low as a percentage of the property value. But California property values are very expensive.
On a comparable house, the property taxes will be lower in Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying the sales tax on a dog house is cheap but the same sales tax rate on a home is outrageous. Next up it'll be "omg, I had to turn down a raise at work because my taxes were going to go up!"
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying the sales tax on a dog house is cheap but the same sales tax rate on a home is outrageous.
No, it is like saying that if you pay $500 for a doghouse from Nordstrom instead of paying $100 for the same doghouse at Walmart, you will pay more sales tax.
Glad you like it (Score:3)
I'm really glad you like where you live. If you like the results of the policies there, great.
It's possible that at some point in the future you'll find that the "fuck the corporations" attitude has led to your employer getting fucked one too many times. They might decide they are tired of getting fucked and leave.
If, at some point in the future, you realize you need to move because fucking all of the employers means you know longer have an employer, just kindly keep that in mind when you move here. Just
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have that attitude in California. Corporations have been having a sweet deal for some time now. Real estate taxes for business are very low. Most lease, because leasing is cheap and the actual property owner is not selling thus taxes do not go up due to Prop 13.
First, regulations are necessary. Reining in the free market is not anti corporations, it's just keeping things in control so we don't go back to the dark days of the 70s and rivers catching fire. Second, taxes are necessary, someone ha
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Again, I'm glad you like it. I hope you love it for your entire life.
If at some point you are forced to flee from the results of those policies, just be aware of what you're doing. If and when you decide you can no longer tolerate the results, please don't bring those same policies with you to another place; don't bring the problems with you if you flee from the results.
People fleeing from Communist and Socialist countries don't do that - they are grateful to be in America, to leave the brokenness behind.
Re:Glad you like it (Score:4, Interesting)
I imagine you'd find it annoying if I came there and six times a day I told you that California is doing it all wrong and you should do everything the Texas way.
I don't need to imagine it. This is what people are doing, or perhaps more accurately, people in media. This article is a good example. It cherrypicks a few examples of businesses moving, mentions a few possible causes and decides that "California has blown it". Yeah, that's a good narrative, but I've read better ones in novels.
There are almost a million businesses in California [census.gov]. A thousand businesses can move and it would still be a drop in the bucket. Tesla isn't even moving, yet they brought up Elon Musk as if his personal residence is relevant. Also not mentioned is how many are moving to California or expanding operations there.
Where are the statistics? Exactly how many businesses moved over what period, and how many jobs are moving with them? And if Texas is attracting so many businesses, why is the unemployment rate [bls.gov] there just as bad as California? Something doesn't add up.
Re: "Supportive business climate" (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump had four years promising to bring back jobs and he did a terrible job at it
By terrible do you mean the lowest unemployment in at least 50 years?
Re: (Score:3)
You really believe that? First, this last year is low because of pandemic, so I assume you mean prior to that. Next, government stats lie. They lie under both Democrat and Republican administrations. In order to make numbers look good, they only count those who are actively looking for a job. They don't count underemployment, and a brain surgeon forced to take a job as a cashier at the grocery store counts as a job. But looking at the trends, assuming that it's worse than presented, you can see that unem
Re: "Supportive business climate" (Score:5, Interesting)
Not forced to, but did join a Union (Unison).
I spend half my time telling them off for silly political wrangling, and the other half being very impressed at the level of support they they directly give to people and groups (there are some very hard arsed individuals, who aren't 'screw the managers', but exceptionally good at negotiating and understanding all the ramifications of a situation).
I tend to use them as they're best used; advice from a management perspective on situations, and as a safety net in the case I ever have someone above me in the management chain who is bad enough to try illegal activity to pressure me or my team. I advise all my team to join a union, just so they get real, professional advice.
Re: "Supportive business climate" (Score:5, Interesting)
My second job was a union job. The wages I received compared to the general public more than made up for the monthly dues, not to mention the great negotiated healthcare and other the protections afforded by the union for wrongful termination, etc. Since that time, the industry negotiated changes that effectively broke the union for new employees. The changes came into play slightly under 30 years ago and the wages the people in this industry receive has barely moved since this time. Now whole swathes of people who work in this industry are worse off, but yeah, they don't have to pay union dues. Whoopie.
Re: (Score:3)
If your non-union self is so awesome, why do you need a law that keeps two entities from making a decision about a union-only shop that doesn't pertain to you at all?
Besides, the problem is that people right-to-work keeps there from being a "union" employment package (for those who join the union) and a "non-union" employment package (for those who do not.) Like, yeah, if I can get the benefits without paying the costs of course I'm going to want to do that. Hell, in some states you can even take advantag
Re: (Score:2)
What you said does not make sense. Right to work is about unions. Barring a few small exceptions, no tech company is unionized.
There are many other reasons for companies to leave California. Being a right to work state is not among them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unions voted for Trump. He promised to stop immigration which created competition for their jobs. Maybe rethink this outdated support for unions?
False.
cops, truckers and oil workers did. That's all
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Unions voted for Trump.
False.
cops, truckers and oil workers did. That's all
Absolutely fucking false. UA, IBEW, ILWU, USW, SIEU, IW and other strong unions endorsed Biden for president.
Re: (Score:2)
You think other states are different? Everyone sends jobs to where it's cheapest. It's the free market system at work. If you think it's just California or liberal states doing this, then it's because you are being misdirected. Saving these jobs is not done with free market values that favor employers.
It's not 1 + 1, it's 2. Fuck them, they get fucked (Score:2)
> Everyone sends jobs to where it's cheapest. It's the free market system at work. If you think it's just California or liberal states doing this, then it's because you are being misdirected
Has it occurred to you that it's high taxes and a million pages of regulations that MAKE it expensive to do business in particular states?
Perhaps when 60% of the voters stroll around saying "fuck the corporations", the politicians end up doing exactly that - fucking the employers. When the employers get tired of gett
Re: (Score:2)
-1, He used the T-word.
Because of everything (Score:5, Informative)
California has blown it, but not because of tax policy
If you don't think tax policy is a part, you are delusional - as everyone I know of moving out of California mentions that.
You also don't have to have any magic powers to predict that California will be greatly increasing taxes in the near term to make up massive losses of tax revenue...
Beyond that though, it's a lot of other factors. Housing is part, but also quality of life - California is apparently not only not helping the homeless, but I would swear has somehow made the homeless problem 10x worse for everyone - worse for the homeless, worse for the people that live around them.
The only thing California has going for them is climate. But if you can't go anywhere because the whole state is a trash pit, or you simply can't get parking (ask someone who lives in LA how often they goto the beach if they don't live right by it) - then what does it matter if the climate is nice?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, those leaving California DO talk about the taxes.
Then, like this guy who moved to Austin, they find there are other costs associated:
https://www.sfgate.com/lifesty... [sfgate.com]
I found the same thing and more when I moved to north east Ohio years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Homelessness is everywhere. It's just amplified in California because of a housing crisis, and amplified by those who shout that only liberals ever let this stuff happens. And yes, homelessness is up, and the mismanaged pandemic has indeed made this worse over the last ten months.
California is not a trash pit. It's very clean except in urban cores, and you'll see the same trash pits in downtown Dallas. You seem to be listening to propaganda.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it has gone up in the last 5 years. Due to housing prices. I don't think it's liberal policies, which is what the conservatives would have people believe, and have them believe that red states have no homelessness. The last year has been very bad with the pandemic. These are the old style bums trying to get coins to buy Thunderbird, these are people living in cars and RVs, so they're a bit more invisible in rural areas if you don't know what you're looking for.
Also add in high cost of medical care,
Re:It's not blue/red, it's CA vs everyone else. (Score:4, Insightful)
This....I have also seen a lot of homeless who manage to make it to Hawaii as they can survive there with minimal shelter and blend into the crowd (shorts, t-shirts, "camping" on a beach, etc.
I have seen homeless in many countries around the world. The US does poorly with addressing the issue despite being a 1st world nation. In fact, we have created a society where being homeless is a potential for most people in this country....one bad illness or a bad natural disaster (or man-made one) can put most people in a situation where their home and financial security fails. And that leads to homelessness.
While in the military, I remember a few conversations on what we would do if we found ourselves homeless or the potential to be homeless. Think about this...a bunch of people with guaranteed paychecks, housing allowances or barracks rooms, healthcare, etc making plans "just in case." All because we had seen and understood, even with a paycheck, training, etc, it could all go away with one bad situation that doesn't even have to be your fault or a result of you making a bad decision.
Even today...with a passive income that isn't bad (over $50k pa) plus my 6 figure salary, my spouse and I have discussed what we would do if I lost my job and couldn't find work. Where would we move to, etc. We would have to move from our current higher cost of living location (which drives my pay check), and thanks to being a military retiree, we have healthcare covered without one of us working...and we could be comfortable. But the location may not be one we would want be, but one we could afford. I know I am lucky, and this is often just a philosophical "what if?" exercise, but for many people, this is their reality and they would love to have just my passive income level for working 40+ hours a week. (even at $15 an hour, they only get to a little over $30k a year).
Re: (Score:3)
California has blown it, but not because of tax policy
If you don't think tax policy is a part, you are delusional - as everyone I know of moving out of California mentions that.
I believe it would be more accurate to say that taxes are not the sole cause of departure. Housing is definitely a problem in some areas and if you are going to move to a new area then you might as well go somewhere more "business friendly" which really means hostile toward workers' rights.
There is no loss of revenue (Score:3)
The pro-worker laws are *tremendously* valuable. It means workers are by and large
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason why NY & CA pay *way* more in federal taxes than they get back and it's not just climate.
States don't pay federal taxes; people do.
People pay FICA tax in CA and NY, and receive federal benefits after leaving the states for cheaper locales. Their earning years are "credited" to CA and NY. FL and AZ get "credit" for Social Security and Medicare benefits paid once they retire.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, duh (Score:4, Funny)
"California has blown it, but not because of tax policy — its decades-long problem of not producing enough housing," he said. "It's probably cheaper and easier to build that in Austin."
Given that Austin is not tightly wedged into an almost fully developed and inconveniently fractal-shaped valley, that statement is almost certainly true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anybody who's not a childless single hipster is eventually going to want a detached house. That's probably why houses that would sell for $200K almost anywhere else go for over $1M there. Redeveloping the existing houses with a bunch of Soviet-style apartment towers isn't going to help keep tech workers there in the long run.
Maybe if Elon Musk were to bore a bunch of hyperloops through the mountains to adjacent valleys where people could sprawl out, then Silicon Valley could be more price competitive with A
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even small condos can cost over $1M in SV.
So your assertion that there is no demand for high-density housing is clearly nonsense.
Silicon Valley is mile after mile of low-rise sprawl because of deliberate government policy to inflate housing prices.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many ways to increase housing in the Bay Area .. vertically AND horizontally. However, no existing homeowner would approve of an increase housing because of the fear of their own home price reducing .. when in fact the opposite is true. As population density increases, more people want to move there because of all the opportunities (work, culture, learning, etc.) provided (example, Hong Kong and other places).
This is why we can't have nice things (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of what right-wingers may think, California is trying to do the right thing: Tax corporations appropriately for what they cost to the state and the natural resources they use; have them treat their workers decently; pay upfront for the cleanup of the mess they'll invariably cause; etc.
But seeing an opportunity, less ethical states offer corporations a more "business friendly" environement, without all those pesky "librul" annoyances, you know: environemental regulations, worker benefits, safety regulations, unions, etc. And so the sociopathic corporations move to those states in droves.
But make no mistake: If other countries offer an even more "business friendly" environement, those corporations will move there instead, in a heartbeat. Why do you think almost all manufacturing has moved overseas ?
Corporations are whores. They are soulless, heartless machines, programmed for one thing, and one thing only: Maximize return on investement for the shareholders. And as long as we, as a society, keep considering this as acceptable, they will not only stay that way, but get even worse.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is why we can't have nice things (Score:5, Informative)
What Rightwingers? Theres maybe enough to fill a Denny's in California. This is what you get with unchallenged one party rule. Poop filled streets and all.
That would be a pretty big Denny's to hold the 6 million people in California who voted for Trump in 2020.
Re: This is why we can't have nice things (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
California is trying to do the right thing
The parent post represents a kind of thinking that dooms political decision-making. Basically, as long as a policy's supporters are Trying To Do The Right Thing, then the policy is good. Second-order effects of the policy needn't be considered, since those are just some kind of weird rounding errors. When Bad People refuse to go along with the policy's good intentions (shockingly), and everything blows up, we shouldn't blame the policy since its supporter's hearts were in the right place.
Re: (Score:3)
The proper solution is to have a side of carrot with your main course of stick. You want businesses to stay but to follow the rules? Offer incentives for doing so. Maybe offer some kind of tax leniency for consistently good behavior. If we take it for granted that corporations are by nature self
It takes a little bit of semantic yoga (Score:5, Funny)
to turn the "rate of increase is down" to an "exodus". Some people are moving out, but some people have *always* been moving out. The question is whether the tech industry in California is somehow dependent on a growth in the number of engineers, in which case it has always been doomed *eventually*.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't new (Score:3)
I worked in a tech company in the last 90's that had relocated to Utah because it was difficult to find new hires in SF: they'd be attracted by the job, but couldn't find housing at a decent price, so they declined. At some point, it was just easier to set up shop somewhere less pricy.
Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
Wake me up when housing prices start falling in California. Until then, this California exodus myth is just that.
Re:Yawn (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Yawn (Score:2)
This is how I see it too. People forget just how far Cali is in the Econ arena. There is usually more gap between them and #2 than between #2 and #3. Check stats like number of billionaires, number small businesses, gdp, etc etc.
It's not unusual for first place to be generally losing the edge. Cali can lose some pounds for a good decade and still be in first place.
Texas: The land of noncompetes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Company moved from California to Texas, and some employees move with the company. When the employee shows up for the first day of work in Texas they get non-compete agreement shoved in front of him on his first day of employment. He is told: "Sign it or be fired".
The employee probably can't undo the agreement at this point. They are likely committed. Even if a savvy employee asked beforehand about the requirement for a non-compete, they probably can't get that in writing. The company can say: no we don't require a non-compete to be signed while they are still in California, but after they move to Texas, the company could: "change it's mind".
Unless the employee has F.U. money, to quit and move back to CA, they'll have little choice but to accept the non-compete.
I like the CA prohibition on non-competes (CA Business and Professions Code Section 16600), and I dislike Texas for a number of other reasons as well, like: No Initiative and Referendum.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah CA's prohibition on non-competes is probably one of the major reasons for Silicon Valley's success. There won't be many startups spinning off of businesses in Texas doing this.
Re:Texas: The land of noncompetes. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is actually a main reason why Silicon Valley emerged in California rather than Texas in the first place. In the early 1960s Texas Instruments was the leading semiconductor company in the US (and world). But they remained stuck in place, while California's ban on noncompetes allowed generation after generation of spinoff companies to emerge, taking the California tech industry to new places while Texas Instruments remained stuck in place.
They'll be back (Score:5, Interesting)
Everywhere else sucks. The weather isn't terrible like Boston. You won't get mugged like in Chicago. Or ripped off like in NYC. It doesn't rain every day like in Seattle. You don't have to be fluent in Spanish like in Miami. You don't have to deal with Klan members like in Atlanta. We have better universities (Stanford, Berkeley, UCSF) than Austin.
We have the jobs too, thousands of biotechs .. including headquarters of Genentech, Gilead (which are in the top 20 biggest in the world) .. thousands of software companies ..facebook, google, Netflix, Lyft, Uber .. just about any cool start-up .. thousands of computer hardware design companies .. Cisco, nVidia, Intel, AMD.
Sorry, but what other metro area beats the Bay Area in technology -- software, biotech, or computer hardware ?
Re: (Score:2)
And yet California manages to make Texas look appealing; not easy to achieve.
Congrats, California??
Re: (Score:3)
To whom? Elon? Yes some government officials pissed him off, but he'll be back -- if not already. In his latest tweet he was talking about how he was able to drive to unknown parts of LA using the latest version of his Tesla's Full Self Driving software. Speaking of which, do you think his top AI people are going to up and move to Texas?
SpaceX has to launch from southern Texas for fuel efficiency reasons .. but where do you think their rocket engines were designed? Heck where were all of Tesla's cars design
Re: (Score:3)
To whom?
To lots and lots of people. [thecentersquare.com]
And it's not just CA companies moving to TX, they're also moving to Arizona, Tennessee, Colorado, Nevada and elsewhere.
Many people and businesses are perfectly happy with California, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. But when you've got polls showing half of California voters are considering leaving the state, [reuters.com] California leadership may want to take notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They'll be back (Score:2)
"You don't have to deal with Klan members like in Atlanta."
You've been watching too much CNN? African Americans in Atlanta are not a minority but a majority!
"The 5 largest ethnic groups in Atlanta, GA are Black or African American (Non-Hispanic) (50.7%), White (Non-Hispanic) (38%), Asian (Non-Hispanic) (3.99%), White (Hispanic) (2.87%)"
Insane, I know.
By the way, don't have to deal with homeless people and illegal immigrants either if you leave Cali and go to Texas.
Rent control (Score:2, Insightful)
Existing tenants got to keep their apartments and at a r
Re: (Score:3)
Rent control always causes housing shortages. That's like economics 101.
Re: (Score:2)
So does a moratorium on building. Official or otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
So does a moratorium on building.
That's just the first step on the road to either outright public housing [blackthen.com] or private development guided by some centrally planned vision of urban utopia [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, only a very small number of the metro properties are affected by rent control. Hmm, seems almost like 101-level.
Eastward, ho. (Score:5, Funny)
I've lived in both places, and the only problem with moving from California to Texas is that then you're in Texas instead of California.
Return California to Mexico (Score:2, Funny)
California was siezed by President Polk* as war spoils after the Mexican-American war. As an act of reparations, California should be given back to Mexico.
(*Polk was the 19th century version of President Trump)
Re: (Score:2)
California was siezed by President Polk* as war spoils after the Mexican-American war. As an act of reparations, California should be given back to Mexico.
(*Polk was the 19th century version of President Trump)
Is that supposed to be in contrast to how the US annexed Texas?
Re:Return California to Mexico (Score:5, Interesting)
Mexico never controlled California. It is a myth.
There was single footpath "highway" used by the local indigenous people. Mexico sent a few people north, built a church, and said they owned the land.
There were already more US citizens settled in California than there ever were Mexican citizens in that pre-claim period.
Same with Texas; the disputed land was Native American land that both the US and Mexico wanted to claim. Mexico, in both cases, tried to make a claim without actually having secured physical control of the land. In both cases, this lead to war; both with the indigenous peoples, and the US.
The US won, and established physical control of these areas. Mexico never controlled them. And why would former Spanish colonists have a better claim than former British and French colonists, anyway?
Re: (Score:3)
The US won, and established physical control of these areas. Mexico never controlled them. And why would former Spanish colonists have a better claim than former British and French colonists, anyway?
Shhh.. you're ruining the narrative.
Don't let the door hit cha (Score:3)
These are larger, better established companies. Startups still need California for 2 reasons:
1. Young, talented people want to live there because of the beaches & weather.
2. Many of the nastier non compete contracts contracts aren't legal in California, making it easier for Start ups to find and attract talent.
While California can't export the beaches they'll gradually export the pro-worker laws as people move, change the political climate and get those laws passed in Texas. The same thing happened in Arizona, the state turned blue as companies moved their more liberal employees to a red state to evade labor laws.
You can't stop progress on a long enough timescale. Not without destroying civilization anyway.
Will it help the USA be less split, politically? (Score:2)
Is the political attitude also migrating and so will help moderate political positions? ... or are the (presumably liberal) employees not moving too?
Texas going blue. (Score:5, Insightful)
With companies moving from California to Texas, you are inevitably going to bring in a higher ratio of voters that vote for Democrats. Texas was already on the verge of switching from "red" to "blue" so bring in thousands of more workers from out-of-state is a good way to cement it.
Re: (Score:2)
With companies moving from California to Texas, you are inevitably going to bring in a higher ratio of voters that vote for Democrats.
Texas Democrats are nothing like California Democrats. They will actually allow some things to be built, public and private.
Re: (Score:2)
They moved to Miami? (Score:2)
Don't alienate the rich (Score:2)
Really, tax policy is a balance between milking and alienating the rich.
The rich (anyone making over 100k) pay the vast majority of taxes. However, you have to make sure you don't alienate them from the government or they'll leave. You need to make sure they feel that the government is mostly fair. These people don't get a lot of direct benefits of government, and they don't expect much from the government either.
What's happening in CA is that these people are leaving because they're essentially being fucke
Re: (Score:3)
The rich (anyone making over 100k)
I don't know if I'd call anyone earning 100k in CA rich. Upper middle class maybe.
or they'll leave.
100k per year isn't going to give you the financial flexibility to just pull up stakes and leave.
The reason people making 100k pay most of the taxes is because that's right near the peak of the income distribution bell curve. That's just where most of the money is. Truly rich people (the top few percent of earners) just don't represent that much income. Tax the hell out of them and you won't bring in much more money. And tha
Lower paid employees (Score:2)
The state that is #30 in College Graduation rate cannot compete with the home of 52% of the Nobel winners of the world
I can see one potentially HUGE win (Score:5, Interesting)
If enough tech companies move to Texas, they might finally be able to exert enough political pressure to nuke the state's former high-tech industry, patent trolling.
Because of the magic qualities of the air? (Score:4, Insightful)
"You're going to always have the vast majority of tech companies coming out of the Valley, and you can't create that anywhere else," Ives said.
Uh-huh.
The advantage the Valley has in incubating tech firms is that it's where the angels, the VCs, and the acquiring companies all are. But that's not an inherent, permanent advantage; it's historically contingent. There's inertia against them moving, but if conditions cause them to move, then the center of creation of new firms will move, too.
Every single acquiring company that moves to Texas is a pebble in that direction, reducing the inertia on the side of Valley as the center of start-ups and increasing the attractiveness of starting up in Texas.
the last straw (Score:2)
https://www.morganlewis.com/pu... [morganlewis.com]
Maybe there are plenty of reasons to leave California but companies surely do not want the government telling them who they must employ.