McUrsine;842310442 said:
I've lived in Texas (Dallas), and the cost of living may be less, but you get what you pay for...!
510Bear;842310467 said:
The argument I always hear people give in response to that is: "I can have a bigger house for cheaper". For a lot of people, private space is all that matters, regardless of whether it's in the middle of a mind-numbing expanse of bland sprawl, strip malls, and freeways, with no mountains or beautiful coastline nearby.
And that's why Plano is as big and popular as it is.
Golden One;842310396 said:
Unfortunately, the article is light on facts. Talk to the people who have lost high paying manufacturing jobs because the jobs have moved out of state and see what they think. I don't believe they'll say it's a myth. High tech jobs are great, but a lot of middle class people are not qualified to fill them.
KevBear;842310487 said:
That article at least offered something to substantiate its opinion: a report by the Sacramento Business Journal. What I think is ironic is your having criticized them for being "light on facts" with absolutely zero substantiation of your own.
Golden One;842310491 said:
I lived in Houston, Texas for 17 years. I'd be surprised if the author of the Sacramento Business Journal article ever spent any significant time in Texas.
socaliganbear;842310416 said:
Meanwhile, entire office towers are being leased out by companies before construction even begins in SF. Places like the Bay Area aren't getting more expensive because jobs are leaving. Just different types of jobs...
Golden One;842310491 said:
I lived in Houston, Texas for 17 years. I'd be surprised if the author of the Sacramento Business Journal article ever spent any significant time in Texas.
Unit2Sucks;842310497 said:
So what's your solution Golden One? Even if California were to (in your eyes) wake up one day and become business friendly, how do you solve for high cost of living?
sycasey;842310446 said:
Sounds like basic free-market capitalism going on here:
1. California has a booming economy in one type of industry (high tech).
2. This industry booms so much that it starts making land prohibitively expensive around the state.
3. Companies in other industries (like manufacturing) decide to move out because of the rising cost.
4. Lather, rinse, repeat.
It's not so much that "business" is leaving California; it's that one kind of business is very successful and is starting to crowd the other ones out. the other businesses have other places to go (like Texas) where they can better operate, so they do. I do feel for the people who worked in manufacturing and lose their jobs as a result (though perhaps those people might think about moving elsewhere too), but I'm not sure what can be done except for handing a kind of "corporate welfare" to the manufacturing companies (cut taxes for them, strip away regulations, etc.), and what motivation does the state government have to do that?
StillNoStanfurdium;842310376 said:
I think Tesla's angling to setup a factory in Texas and build up a presence there as well actually.
hanky1;842310524 said:
Tesla is looking to build an additional plant in Arizona or Nevada...no plans for Texas as far as I know. The new plant wouldn't replace their current plant in Fremont, but would be manufacturing a component in-house that Tesla currently buys from Panasonic.
hanky1;842310524 said:
Tesla is looking to build an additional plant in Arizona or Nevada...no plans for Texas as far as I know. The new plant wouldn't replace their current plant in Fremont, but would be manufacturing a component in-house that Tesla currently buys from Panasonic.
KevBear;842310500 said:
Good for you. But "because my experiences tell me so" is not substantiation.
If you want to: (1) Express an opinion, (2) Criticize someone else's opinion for being light on facts, and (3) Not be a hypocrite all at the same time, then you had better bring plenty of facts to back up your opinion. In case you're wondering, "I lived in Texas for 17 years" is not the kind of fact we're looking for.
Quote:
Texas offered Toyota $40 million to move, part of a Texas Enterprise Fund incentive program run out of the governor's office. At $10,000 a job, it was one of the largest incentives handed out in the decade-old program and cost more per job created than any other large award. Last year, Texas spent about $6,800 to lure each of 1,700 Chevron Corp. CVX +1.40% positions to Houston and $5,800 for each of 3,600 Apple Inc. AAPL +3.87% jobs shifted to Austin.
Golden One;842310498 said:
Latest figures from the BLS: Unemployment rate in California is 8.1%, the 4th highest in the nation. Unemployment rate in Texas is 5.5%. If you don't qualify for "high tech" jobs, that difference is very significant.
beelzebear;842310586 said:
Welp, it turns out good old Texass got the payola machine cranked to 11. Yay for Texass Libertarian Can Do Spirit and Amazing economic machine!
Texas to Pay $10,000 for Each Toyota Job: State Incentive Helps Land Car Maker's North American Headquarters
Golden One;842310396 said:
Unfortunately, the article is light on facts. Talk to the people who have lost high paying manufacturing jobs because the jobs have moved out of state and see what they think. I don't believe they'll say it's a myth. High tech jobs are great, but a lot of middle class people are not qualified to fill them.
Golden One;842310391 said:
Just the latest step in a continuing wave of businesses moving from California to Texas. Wonder how long it will take for California to wake up? In many ways Texas sucks (climate and topography being two that come to mind), but it's a fact that the state is much more business friendly than California and the cost of living for residents is significantly lower than CA.
OskiMD;842310639 said:
Seriously, Texas is not a great place to live (I lived there briefly and found it to be fun but only since I knew it would be only there briefly) but it is really dirt cheap. For the price of his home in the Bay Area, Tedford could have bought half a dozen McMansions in TX.
Most Californians don't seem to understand that overtaxing businesses and successful and well off residents isn't a long-term solution. It may rain a lot in Seattle but I don't pay a dime to WA or Seattle aside from property and sales tax, which is comparable to CA anyway. California is still a great place but not like it used to be.
Golden One;842310569 said:
Not sure you would recognize or acknowledge facts if they hit you in the face. Especially if they disagreed with your preconceived notions.
OskiMD;842310639 said:
Seriously, Texas is not a great place to live (I lived there briefly and found it to be fun but only since I knew it would be only there briefly) but it is really dirt cheap. For the price of his home in the Bay Area, Tedford could have bought half a dozen McMansions in TX.
Most Californians don't seem to understand that overtaxing businesses and successful and well off residents isn't a long-term solution. It may rain a lot in Seattle but I don't pay a dime to WA or Seattle aside from property and sales tax, which is comparable to CA anyway. California is still a great place but not like it used to be.
Quote:
The trouble is that taxes, regulations and business climate appear to have had nothing to do with Toyota's move. It came down to a simple matter of geography and a plan for corporate consolidation, Toyota's North American chief told The Times. And in the big picture, California's and Texas' economies are growing at a similar pace, with corporate relocations in either direction representing only a tiny slice of job growth in both states.
"It may seem like a juicy story to have this confrontation between California and Texas, but that was not the case," said Jim Lentz, Toyota's North American chief executive.
Quote:
The Public Policy Institute of California studied this phenomenon over a 15-year period, from 1992 to 2006. It found that less than 2% of jobs lost in California were due to companies leaving, and only 1% of jobs created were due to companies moving in.
burritos;842311856 said:
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-toyota-economy-20140502,0,1647755.story#axzz30ZscqkLs
Don't worry be happy.
calumnus;842310748 said:
From the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy: In 2013 California Passed up Russia and Italy to become World's Eighth Largest Economy
California's and New York's taxes have ALWAYS been higher than Texas's (or Alabama's, North Dakota's or Mississippi's). California and New York have always had bigger economies and more millionaires. And yes, higher housing prices. Why is California more expensive? Why is land here more valuable? Because more people want to live here.
TKDBear;842310521 said:
I'd clarify that it's Northern California that has a booming economy based on high-tech. Toyota is moving out of SoCal, and they do not have the entrepreneurial, VC-fueled creation of new industry/jobs that Northern Cal has.
The reason this article is in the LA Time is b/c outside of entertainment, the SoCal area is quickly losing it's "signature" industries of aerospace & auto: Northrop, Nissan, Toyota, etc.
I don't think this is a bad thing, but it does highlight the need for LA in particular to come up with another industry/catalyst for job growth. Whether that's high-tech, healthcare, etc. doesn't really matter but the LA-area in particular seems to be ripe for some type of job growth transition in that regard b/c it's not like Disney is going to add 3K+ jobs anytime soon.
Unit2Sucks;842310497 said:
So what's your solution Golden One? Even if California were to (in your eyes) wake up one day and become business friendly, how do you solve for high cost of living?
calumnus;842310748 said:
Moreover, some not only gladly pay taxes to the state that helped create their wealth, they gladly DONATE millions to the tax-payer supported university that helped them create their wealth. Many of the same Cal fans that complain about alumni not giving back to Cal are the same that complain about paying taxes in the state that gave them a fantastic education and gave them their start.
OskiMD;842311953 said:
I have only one question for you. Are you subject to Prop 30? If you have at least $250k tax burden, you will be paying an additional 1% (on top of an already eye popping 8.3% previously) for more State taxes. For a $250,000 income, that means an additional $25,000 of your hard earned income going to pay CALPERS pension funds.
OskiMD;842311953 said:
I have only one question for you. Are you subject to Prop 30? If you have at least $250k tax burden, you will be paying an additional 1% (on top of an already eye popping 8.3% previously) for more State taxes. For a $250,000 income, that means an additional $25,000 of your hard earned income going to pay CALPERS pension funds. If not, your opinion is pretty worthless since you're advocating taxing other people, which is always so easy to do.
For physicians, dentists, pharmacists, and other professionals who accumulate huge amounts of debt that they actually have to pay back (20 years of making 10% of income payments and discharge the rest doesn't apply here), that makes living in CA really financially unattractive. Obviously, you don't care (apparently they should feel obliged to pay more taxes), but many people affected by Prop 30 are not 1%ers like Donald Sterling.
estrickland;842311968 said:
I'm subject to and voted for Prop 30.
The extra 1% only applies to your income above 250k. You don't lose $24k by upping your income from $249k to $250k.
If you're making $250k, Prop 30 costs you nothing. At $300k it's $500.
If you're making a cool half mil (in 100% taxable income), if goes to $4500.
To pay that $25k you alluded to, you'd have to make $1.15 million.
The huge hit from Prop. 30 is not normal income. It's the fact that California doesn't distinguish between ordinary income and capital gains.
edit: There was also a .25% sales tax increase, whose burden is hardest on low-income people.
GB54;842312004 said:
Toyota would have done a lot more for Califirnia if it hadn't ceased manufacturing here when it shut down the Fremont plant. Tesla is the now the only manufacturing facility in a state that has some 30 million cars. The reasons for this are obvious: it's too expensive to produce here.
