Toyota moving to Texas

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Metro Boston is by far the best tech job market after SV and you still have ocean and mountains (hills). I do not see UT Austin / Rice / TAM as sufficiently elite to draw the critical mass away from SV, but it will continue to grow. Weather will drive most back - I can much more easily handle Boston winter than Texas summer if I had to make a choice.

What saddens me is the inability of SoCal to create a viable alternative to SV with Caltech /USC/UCLA/Harvey Mudd all big time engineering schools. SV grew out of SRI (read Jon Markoff's What the Doormouse Said for the real story - will literally blow your mind) and Stanford's policy of encouraging professors to take sabbaticals to start companies. MIT didn't encourage that and come the PC era the computer industry literally died in Boston overnight and was reborn in SV and Redmond. Hopefully SoCal will continue to develop the local tech economy but without a driver like Stanford it will continue to be the minor leagues.
 
I believe there are a couple of members from TI that left California to another state. The rest apparently hates living here and complains. But they still live here.

;)
 
boston winter is relatively warm b/c of the coastal location.  but that just makes it worse imo.  it lasts 6 months and the streets are covered in half-melted slush most of the time, not pretty snow.  i could never go back.
 
OCtoSV said:
Metro Boston is by far the best tech job market after SV and you still have ocean and mountains (hills). I do not see UT Austin / Rice / TAM as sufficiently elite to draw the critical mass away from SV, but it will continue to grow. Weather will drive most back - I can much more easily handle Boston winter than Texas summer if I had to make a choice.

What saddens me is the inability of SoCal to create a viable alternative to SV with Caltech /USC/UCLA/Harvey Mudd all big time engineering schools. SV grew out of SRI (read Jon Markoff's What the Doormouse Said for the real story - will literally blow your mind) and Stanford's policy of encouraging professors to take sabbaticals to start companies. MIT didn't encourage that and come the PC era the computer industry literally died in Boston overnight and was reborn in SV and Redmond. Hopefully SoCal will continue to develop the local tech economy but without a driver like Stanford it will continue to be the minor leagues.
Click to expand...

Companies do go to those universities to recruit for business and other fields.
 
fatduck said:
they are like the 5th biggest company in the world.  of course they are expanding outside of their home base.

the austin development and the in house chip fab move is really interesting.  actually lots of stuff about apple's business plans especially post-covid are fascinating.  i can't imagine how limiting it must be to have to twist every piece of news to confirm your priors.  (or just outsource that to dailymail i guess...)

will be interesting to see how austin does long term though.  i know a lot of tech ppl who relocated there, jury is still out on whether it was worth it.  like i said in my industry firms have to offer huge signing bonuses to pull people to texas.  but that may change as it develops more of a critical mass.

another data point (although many years ago now). in my field starting salary in texas is the same as other major cities (NYC, LA, SF, DC).  so effectively you make 10-20% more in texas considering the tax difference.  yet a very small portion of my class went to texas.  almost all of them returning home there.  i can't think of anyone actually that wasn't from texas and went to a texas firm, despite the objectively better take home pay.
Click to expand...
is your field tech? I would be shocked if companies are paying NYC/LA/SF salary for Texans. Also, take home pay may be higher but you do have higher property taxes. Granted Texans homes hasn't risen to SoCal pricing yet, but once it does, property taxes will eat up that take home pay anyways. Texas doesn't have a law that prevents property taxes from going higher than 2% like Cali.
 
CalBears96 said:
akula1488 said:
Startup is all about funding and connections, not so much about bottom line so California will always have that going for her. But when they make it, bottom line matters so some will move to more business friendly states.

On the other hand, California has a very large wealth gap. People in this forum are well off middle to middle upper class but look at the homeless people in LA and SF...
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that there's a large wealth gap in California. However, a major reason for so many homeless people in LA and SF is because too many people moving to California. And why are these people moving to most expensive cities? Why do these people insist on staying in SF when it's not affordable? Are they unemployed or do they have low wage jobs? If the latter, why can't they commute from other cities, like Oakland?
Click to expand...
Because the government in these cities are more supportive of homelessness than other states. In general, Americans are more receptive to homelessness than other countries. Try go to Asia and be homeless....It's miserable.
 
sleepy5136 said:
fatduck said:
they are like the 5th biggest company in the world.  of course they are expanding outside of their home base.

the austin development and the in house chip fab move is really interesting.  actually lots of stuff about apple's business plans especially post-covid are fascinating.  i can't imagine how limiting it must be to have to twist every piece of news to confirm your priors.  (or just outsource that to dailymail i guess...)

will be interesting to see how austin does long term though.  i know a lot of tech ppl who relocated there, jury is still out on whether it was worth it.  like i said in my industry firms have to offer huge signing bonuses to pull people to texas.  but that may change as it develops more of a critical mass.

another data point (although many years ago now). in my field starting salary in texas is the same as other major cities (NYC, LA, SF, DC).  so effectively you make 10-20% more in texas considering the tax difference.  yet a very small portion of my class went to texas.  almost all of them returning home there.  i can't think of anyone actually that wasn't from texas and went to a texas firm, despite the objectively better take home pay.
Click to expand...
is your field tech? I would be shocked if companies are paying NYC/LA/SF salary for Texans. Also, take home pay may be higher but you do have higher property taxes. Granted Texans homes hasn't risen to SoCal pricing yet, but once it does, property taxes will eat up that take home pay anyways. Texas doesn't have a law that prevents property taxes from going higher than 2% like Cali.
Click to expand...
No, biglaw. Salaries are largely standardized across industry. Some satellite markets like Atlanta pay less but not Texas (for most firms).
 
sleepy5136 said:
Because the government in these cities are more supportive of homelessness than other states. In general, Americans are more receptive to homelessness than other countries. Try go to Asia and be homeless....It's miserable.
Click to expand...
I mean, weren't people moving to Cali for the nice weather and stuff? Or are you talking about previously homeless people flocking to SF and LA? Otherwise, I don't see why people who work in SF/LA can't commute from further away, like East Bay to SF, or Inland Empire to LA/OC. I mean, I'm an engineer and I commute from Eastvale (Riverside) to Irvine.
 
CalBears96 said:
sleepy5136 said:
Because the government in these cities are more supportive of homelessness than other states. In general, Americans are more receptive to homelessness than other countries. Try go to Asia and be homeless....It's miserable.
Click to expand...
I mean, weren't people moving to Cali for the nice weather and stuff? Or are you talking about previously homeless people flocking to SF and LA? Otherwise, I don't see why people who work in SF/LA can't commute from further away, like East Bay to SF, or Inland Empire to LA/OC. I mean, I'm an engineer and I commute from Eastvale (Riverside) to Irvine.
Click to expand...
Sorry I misinterpreted your question. So ignore my response on that. As for why people don't want to commute far away like yourself is because traffic is miserable in LA. I'm only speaking for LA. Some people would rather pay a premium to live closer to work than have to spend hours in traffic. It's honestly not worth it. People that do it probably have reasons to do so. For example, kid needs to be in a certain school district.
 
i am in LA and paid a premium to live close to work (4 miles via google maps).  still takes me 20-30 minutes in traffic (pre-covid).  can't imagine living even further.
 
sleepy5136 said:
Sorry I misinterpreted your question. So ignore my response on that. As for why people don't want to commute far away like yourself is because traffic is miserable in LA. I'm only speaking for LA. Some people would rather pay a premium to live closer to work than have to spend hours in traffic. It's honestly not worth it. People that do it probably have reasons to do so. For example, kid needs to be in a certain school district.
Click to expand...

I understand that they may have those reasons. But if you can't afford to live in SF/LA/OC, then you will need to commute, right? If the commute is too miserable, then it just means that you shouldn't be staying here.

But the main point is homelessness. You're saying that some people would rather pay premium to live close, and that's fine. That just means they can afford it.  If they're homeless, then they aren't paying anything, right? I'm just curious about who these homeless people are and why they rather be homeless in SF/LA. Were they always homeless and just suddenly decided to flock to California? Or did they become homeless because rent is too high and they can't afford it anymore? If so, why are they staying here? I'm not disparaging them for being homeless. I'm just curious about why they rather stay homeless here than go to somewhere they could afford.
 
fatduck said:
i am in LA and paid a premium to live close to work (4 miles via google maps).  still takes me 20-30 minutes in traffic (pre-covid).  can't imagine living even further.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you're an attorney so you can afford it, which is fine.
 
i mean there are lots of reasons people become homeless but at some point it's not a question of affordability.  you're living off of social services and charity (and maybe to some degree crime), all of which are more available in the big cities.  also strength in numbers.  it's easier to be homeless in a community in venice than homeless alone in arcadia or whatever.
 
There are lots of reasons as to why people become homeless. It could be the surrounding environment, bad influential peers, lack of parental figure in their life, mental illness, depression, etc. It's difficult to get data points. A good amount of them are veterans as well who suffer from severe PTSD. I would say it's not common that people "enjoy" or "want" to be homeless. It's generally some life event that got them to that point. And from there, it's very difficult to pick yourself back up. They feel as if the world is against them and the system is against them.

It then begs the question, what can make homeless become not homeless? Sure, we can use tax dollars to provide them a place for them to stay. But does giving shelter solve the root cause of homelessness? I honestly don't think it does. If anything, it sends the wrong message. I feel we should instead look into the root causes of homelessness and find ways to push them to get back to the work force and have them contribute to the society. It would be difficult but I think that would be money worth spending.
 
The veterans, I understand, and I feel for them too. They give their lives for the country, but get treated like crap in return. VA is supposed to help them, but they don't reach out of them.

As for the others, you're probably right that there are many different causes.
 
another thing that I feel is important is maybe the lack of access to "affordable" education. this is not "free" education. Professors are so underpaid and for some reason it's their pay that gets cut and not useless buildings that get funded. Maybe even a reform of schooling is needed. We honestly don't put enough effort in trying to market trade schools. Right now we are running into labor shortages on home builders, plumbers, carpenters, etc. A lot of the people that do not enjoy school should be offered to look into these types of jobs as an alternative. Not everyone is book smart and it honestly isn't required to make good $$ in life. I suspect these types of jobs will be the next in demand jobs that will get a huge pay increase in the next 10-20 years or so as we do not have enough of them around in the current generation.
 
I agree about the US needing trade schools. Other developed countries have them.

I'm from Sweden and that's what we have for those who want learn a craft rather than going to University. Basically, we go to grade school until 16. Then we go to gymnasium, which is similar to high school, but you can choose between learning a trade or preparing for University. I left in 8th grade to come to California for high school, but a lot of my friends chose trade school rather than academics. But we also started learning handicraft or woodwork starting from 3rd grade. Boys and girls learn both sewing, knitting, building things with wood. I actually made a pillow, sewed a pair of pants, built a bird house, made a rocking horse for my toddler brother, crafted a wooden horse (Dalah?st). And in 7th grade, there's a cooking class as well. I made my first pizza.  :) Basically, we learned early on.
 
sleepy5136 said:
Professors are so underpaid and for some reason it's their pay that gets cut and not useless buildings that get funded.
Click to expand...
Though I agree with some of your other points, I do not think professors are underpaid. In California, you can look up pay for public school teachers and college professors (and any state employee):https://transparentcalifornia.com/

The private college professors make even more money, at least at top schools.

I do think our teachers should be paid well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top