Toyota moving to Texas

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
My friend works in Hollywood with mostly set designs.  He has worked on a lot of cool shows, and is currently employeed on a very popular sci fi show.

Anyhow...  His last job was working on Supergirl.  They filmed it out here.  The show is very liberal preachy.  Ironically, they moved from LA to Vancouver to save on costs.  They didn't just leave the state, but they left the country.  The jobs down here were lost and everyone had to go find new employment. 

Do as we say, not as we do. 

 
spootieho said:
My friend works in Hollywood with mostly set designs.  He has worked on a lot of cool shows, and is currently employeed on a very popular sci fi show.

Anyhow...  His last job was working on Supergirl.  They filmed it out here.  The show is very liberal preachy.  Ironically, they moved from LA to Vancouver to save on costs.  They didn't just leave the state, but they left the country.  The jobs down here were lost and everyone had to go find new employment. 

Do as we say, not as we do.

Entertainment industry goes where they get the tax breaks. This I know from my hubby who worked at Warner Brothers for over 10 years and before that Sony as a contractor. His group tracked movie and tv data per show/movie world wide.
 
morekaos said:
irvinehomeowner said:
morekaos said:
But the guy flipping your cheeseburger does not pay any taxes.  If the High tech guy leaves town who will cover the bill?

The sky is falling!

So do you really think every high tech job is going to leave? Or most? Or half?

This is not Georgia... Cali's economics are strong and will remain so... location, location, location.

Not at all...Why is everything taken to a hyperbolic extreme when making an argument?  The sky is falling, but it is happening over time.  The trend is slow and arduous but it is unmistakable. It can be arrested if we just recognize that the pot we are in is starting to get warmer and may eventually boil.

The point is if it's slow and arduous then it can be addressed and reversed... there is no point of no return.

This is just companies making business decisions and for every one that feels they need to cut costs, there are others willing to make it work in California.

#BoyWhoCriedCaliforniaIsInRuins
 
spootieho said:
irvinehomeowner said:
The sky is falling!

So do you really think every high tech job is going to leave? Or most? Or half?

This is not Georgia... Cali's economics are strong and will remain so... location, location, location.
Sorry, but this reeks of bury your head in the sand ignorance. 

Many of these "high tech" jobs are already being outsourced.  They don't have to happen here.  Other cities in other states are also becoming tech hubs.

And no, every tech job isn't going to leave.  Comments like that are simple minded logical fallacies.  You should stop doing that as it reflects poorly on your responses.

It probably wont affect bigger companies much as it will replace their healthcare costs.  It will probably be a bit higher, however, manageable for many.  It does make California less appealing.  If enough things pile on, you will see more of an exodus. 

Call it ignorance, call it simple minded, call it reflecting poorly... I call it realistic and optimistic.

Just like Irvine housing, California economy is too important to fail.

:)
 
I do love hearing how we don't like businesses to pay for SPHC. Businesses don't pay taxes - the consumer of their product does. If Apple (an Irish company btw) is hit with a 15% tax increase, my guess is that the iJebus 9 will probably cost $1,150 when it rolls out. If people won't buy a $1,150 phone, then 2-300 Engineers will pay with their jobs - not AAPL

Single Payer is another name for Wealth Redistribution. Those who refuse to pay "their fair share"... will be watching from their front porch in Austin as the SS Titanic Sacramento founders on the shoals of Single Payer.
 
morekaos said:
Cause the jobs we are creating suck....

Only four of California?s eleven major industry sectors added jobs last month. Leisure and hospitality added 7,400 jobs; followed by construction, expanding by 7,200 jobs; education gained 6,800 jobs; and logging and mining picked up 200 jobs. The biggest job losses were in professional and business services, which were down by 17,500 jobs; followed by trade, transportation and utilities, which fell by 5,900 jobs.

All but three of California?s major industry sectors saw job gains in the last year, led by educational and health services, up 69,700 jobs; followed by leisure and hospitality, up 51,000 jobs; and government, up by 44,400 jobs.

April?s biggest job loser was the high-paying information sector, heavily domiciled in Silicon Valley. Information lost 4,200 jobs in the last month, and suffered 9,800 job losses in the last year.

The CompTIA information trade association reports that earnings in the sector average $105,400, almost twice the state?s $53,400 average. That appears to indicate that California is gaining low-paid service sector jobs and losing high-paid tech sector jobs.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/05/22/california-unemployment-falls-to-lowest-rate-in-16-years/

How about Orange County?  From what I've heard, Orange County bucks this trend. 
 
Soylent Green Is People said:
I do love hearing how we don't like businesses to pay for SPHC. Businesses don't pay taxes - the consumer of their product does. If Apple (an Irish company btw) is hit with a 15% tax increase, my guess is that the iJebus 9 will probably cost $1,150 when it rolls out. If people won't buy a $1,150 phone, then 2-300 Engineers will pay with their jobs - not AAPL
It sometimes works that way, but not always.  At the lower level, such as fast food, all prices will go up so yes it goes directly to the consumer.  At the higher levels, though, it's harder.  If I raise my rates 15%, it becomes even more difficult to compete against lower prices in other states or countries.  This would hit me pretty hard to the point where it would no longer be feasible to keep my business open in California.

Soylent Green Is People said:
Single Payer is another name for Wealth Redistribution.
I don't think of it as that.  I am rather fond of the idea of single payer.
 
paydawg said:
morekaos said:
Cause the jobs we are creating suck....

Only four of California?s eleven major industry sectors added jobs last month. Leisure and hospitality added 7,400 jobs; followed by construction, expanding by 7,200 jobs; education gained 6,800 jobs; and logging and mining picked up 200 jobs. The biggest job losses were in professional and business services, which were down by 17,500 jobs; followed by trade, transportation and utilities, which fell by 5,900 jobs.

All but three of California?s major industry sectors saw job gains in the last year, led by educational and health services, up 69,700 jobs; followed by leisure and hospitality, up 51,000 jobs; and government, up by 44,400 jobs.

April?s biggest job loser was the high-paying information sector, heavily domiciled in Silicon Valley. Information lost 4,200 jobs in the last month, and suffered 9,800 job losses in the last year.

The CompTIA information trade association reports that earnings in the sector average $105,400, almost twice the state?s $53,400 average. That appears to indicate that California is gaining low-paid service sector jobs and losing high-paid tech sector jobs.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/05/22/california-unemployment-falls-to-lowest-rate-in-16-years/

How about Orange County?  From what I've heard, Orange County bucks this trend. 

Even if that is true (and I kindda doubt it) this is a statewide problem that would eventually drag the pockets of hope into the black hole anyway as they would be the last outposts of tax revenue left to pillage.  Even Elisium would be consumed by the fire.
 
Spotiehoo, I'm not trying to troll here, but there's strong cognitive dissonance going on here.

On the one hand -

"I don't think of it as that.  I am rather fond of the idea of single payer."

On the other hand:

"This would hit me pretty hard to the point where it would no longer be feasible to keep my business open in California"


Someone has to pay for SP.

It's not "Corporations", otherwise your 401k values will plummet as stock prices tank.
It's not buyers or sellers of Real Estate, otherwise prices will go down.
It's not "The Rich", because they will flee the State - and if you have more than $100 in your account, you are "The Rich".
It's not "Big Pharma" as they pass through taxes and fees, or they too flee the State.
It's not a sales tax hike because as noted, your company would find it no longer feasible to survive.
It's not a payroll tax, because hiring would stop.
It's not energy companies, as the gasoline tax is already going up.
It's not dividends paid by California companies - as they will re-locate to Texas. Just look at Connecticut as an example
It's not insurance companies, as they will be out of the picture in CA
It's not Hospitals or Doctors because if you reduce their income, your quality of care will also be reduced.

Who then will pay for someone else's healthcare here in California if you won't/can't?

That said, when I become Emperor of Limitless Power and Unquestioned Authority over the United States (ELPUAUSA) if there was a national SP enacted, I'd likely finance it with a .05 cent per share trading transaction fee (buy or sell 100 shares of Alphabet, I get $5.00) which boils the frog at a much lower temperature than what California is considering. It can't be done in California since we do not have a stock exchange but could be done nationally.  That's roughly about $100b per year of potential funding. Also, I'd exclude healthcare for issues that are derived from sky diving, professional sports, etc, like that doofus who was jumping off of Laguna Beach landmarks into the ocean. He missed judged a distance in 2016 and broke both of his feet with a bad landing. SP should cover all but one specific pre-existing condition: putting oneself intentionally in harms way.

My .02c

 
This has profound implications to this topic....

Best-Run States Are Low-Tax Republican, Worst-Run Are High-Tax Democratic, Study Finds

Best-Run States Are Low-Tax Republican, Worst-Run Are High-Tax Democratic, Study Finds

Several states, including Republican states, have decided to raise taxes this year to cover budget shortfalls. But a new study suggests that the states might find themselves in worse financial shape after the money starts rolling in.

According to the latest ranking of states by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the most fiscally sound states in the nation are all low-tax, GOP strongholds, while the 10 least-solvent states are almost all high-tax and heavily Democratic.

Of the 25 most-solvent states, all but four are solidly Republican. Of the bottom 25 states, all but five are solidly Democratic.

The most fiscally sound states also tend to have the lowest tax burdens, according to a separate analysis by the Tax Foundation, which measures state and local tax burdens as a percentage of state income.

The average tax burden among the 10 most fiscally sound states is 8.5%, according to the Tax Foundation's 2017 report. The average tax burden among the 10 least fiscally sound states: 10.2%.

Here's another way to look at it: Of the 15 least-solvent states, 10 are among the 15 states with the highest tax burdens

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/best-run-states-are-all-solidly-republican-worst-run-mostly-democratic-study-finds/
 

Attachments

  • Screen-Shot-2017-07-10-at-1.12.15-PM-e1499706845846-768x712.png
    Screen-Shot-2017-07-10-at-1.12.15-PM-e1499706845846-768x712.png
    218.2 KB · Views: 146
eyephone said:
"Toyota opened its new North American headquarters in Texas today, three years after announcing the move.

The headquarters was built on 100 acres across Plano in the northern part of Texas. Since announcing the headquarters, Toyota has spent approximately $1 billion on the new facility and moving thousands of employees. "
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/toyota-opens-dollar1-billion-headquarters-in-texas/ar-BBDTPeC

That facility would have cost $5 Billion, still be in the EIS stage and be 3 times over budget already if they had tried to build it here.  What a shame
 
zubs said:
Is that what happened with the Apple space ship?

Pretty much...

New Apple campus $2 billion over budget, report says

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/04/business/la-fi-tn-new-apple-campus-2-billion-over-budget-report-says-20130404

But when you don't care, you don't care...

Price is no object at Apple?s new Spaceship campus

Apple's new headquarters building in Cupertino, California--its official name is Apple Park; unofficially it's "the spaceship"--costs an astonishing $5 billion. That makes it the third most expensive modern building at the time of completion, not just in the US but in the world.

http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/price-is-no-object-at-apples-new-spaceship-campus-4745128/
 
morekaos said:
zubs said:
Is that what happened with the Apple space ship?

Pretty much...

New Apple campus $2 billion over budget, report says

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/04/business/la-fi-tn-new-apple-campus-2-billion-over-budget-report-says-20130404

But when you don't care, you don't care...

Price is no object at Apple?s new Spaceship campus

Apple's new headquarters building in Cupertino, California--its official name is Apple Park; unofficially it's "the spaceship"--costs an astonishing $5 billion. That makes it the third most expensive modern building at the time of completion, not just in the US but in the world.

http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/price-is-no-object-at-apples-new-spaceship-campus-4745128/

Numbers don't matter in Elysium, a few billion is just a rounding error over there.
 
A 12 cent tax and now a carbon tax hike of around 60 cents more a gallon to achieve....nothing (.008 degreee drop in temp over 80 years).  That is why "carbon leak" will drive more away...foolish, pointless policy and taxation to no end...marvelous.

California is handling climate change all wrong

But, while Brown should be commended for showing leadership where Trump has not, the truth is that California?s plans for fulfilling the Paris accord and its carbon-cutting commitments will be expensive for the state while achieving slightly more than nothing for the planet.

At the moment, California?s greenhouse gas emissions account for less than 1% of global emissions, and a little less than 7% of U.S. emissions. The state now plans to cut its emissions by the equivalent of 181.5 million tons of carbon dioxide by 2030 ? to 40% below its 1990 levels.

Although this is a much bigger cut than California achieved with its 2006 climate change legislation, it?s still nowhere near enough to have a meaningful effect on global warming overall. Even if California succeeds in making the new cuts and sticks to them for the rest of the century, according to calculations using a standard model of the U.N. Climate Panel, they will amount to a difference of .008 degrees Fahrenheit (.0044 degrees Celsius) ? a minuscule drop in the bucket of the cuts needed in order to limit total global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, the number climate activists have identified as a dangerous tipping point.

And there?s a big caveat to this small achievement. When limitations are placed on major emitters in one geographical location, the emitters often move to locations with lighter regulatory regimes, bringing their emissions along with them, in a process known as ?carbon leakage.? One study published in the Review of Economics and Statistics found that around 40% of the carbon savings that resulted from the Kyoto Protocol was lost to leakage. Much of the emissions that are cut in California could turn up elsewhere. Indeed, one simulation suggests that practically all of California?s cuts would be lost to carbon leakage.

What?s more, California?s official estimates put the cost of its climate change policy at $13 billion to $22.5 billion a year ? and such estimates often prove to be optimistic. The European Union, one of few entities that has attempted cuts of this magnitude, underestimated the cost of its emissions reduction policy by as much as 100%. (Mexico is likely to have underestimated its climate policy costs by even more.) If California can expect to lose a similar percentage of its GDP, the annual cost would come to about $50 billion. With the state?s promises to reduce emissions by 80% before 2050, these costs would go up even more ? and have little to no effect on the environment.

Most Californians will feel these costs in the form of higher gasoline and electricity prices. But the real reason carbon cuts are so expensive is they require the economy to shift from low-cost fossil fuels to more pricey, often less efficient green energy. People like to claim that green energy is already competitive. This is far from true. For instance, when solar energy is produced, it is all produced at the same time ? when the sun shines. The energy thus floods the market and becomes less valuable. Models show that when solar makes up 15% of the market, the value of its electricity is halved. In California, when solar reaches 30% of the market, its value drops by more than two-thirds.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lomborg-california-climate-change-paris-accord-cap-and-trade-20170720-story.html
 
Shall we take bets on where this $1.6 billion dollar investment that will yield 4000 jobs is going to land?  I will go all in on "not Cali"!

Toyota and Mazda plan to build $1.6 billion US plant in joint venture

Toyota and Mazda announced plans on Friday to build a $1.6 billion U.S assembly plant in a new joint venture.
A location for the $1.6 billion facility has not yet been picked, but it will have the capacity to build 300,000 vehicles annually while employing 4,000 workers.
The companies hope to open the plant in 2021.


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/03/toyota-and-mazda-plan-to-build-1-point-6-billion-us-plant-in-joint-venture-sources.html
 
morekaos said:
Shall we take bets on where this $1.6 billion dollar investment that will yield 4000 jobs is going to land?  I will go all in on "not Cali"!

Toyota and Mazda plan to build $1.6 billion US plant in joint venture

Toyota and Mazda announced plans on Friday to build a $1.6 billion U.S assembly plant in a new joint venture.
A location for the $1.6 billion facility has not yet been picked, but it will have the capacity to build 300,000 vehicles annually while employing 4,000 workers.
The companies hope to open the plant in 2021.


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/03/toyota-and-mazda-plan-to-build-1-point-6-billion-us-plant-in-joint-venture-sources.html

East of the rockies in a Red state is my bet...
 
Back
Top