Apple to Add $1 Billion Campus in Austin, Tex., in Broad U.S. Hiring Push

[ocman]

The bay area will continue its monopoly on tech. In fact i see it growing so fast that the bay area cant contain it. Most of the great start ups are still coming out of there. Also, you can have 5 start ups doing the same thing, but even the copycat in The bay area will almost always be the unicorn to break out because of the money and legacy support system. Its an absolute advantage.

The expansion of google amazon and apple say less about sf and more about tech reaching stratospheric levels of power. Theyve supplanted wall street as the most powerful industry with the lobbying influence to match the profits.

[N90]

Exactly what dimondpark said, SF and SJ are the only metros in CA that don't have to fret over people and cos moving elsewhere because they have substitutes/replacements waiting in the wing.

But LA isn't that lucky. It's not creative enough to make up for the loss of Northrop Grumann, Hilton, Marriott, Jacobs Engineering, Occidental Petro, etc.

SF Bays F500 count has been steady at 35 for years because even if it loses one or two, there are replacements popping out of SV to take their place. LA doesn't have an incubator like SV and doesn't have anywhere near the dynamic economy of SF Bay which is why LA's # of F500/F1000s is lower today than any point in the last 40 years. LA is a really blue collar Metro, it isn't the HQ and corporate power that SF and many other US cities are.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by N90

What's ironic is that of all the ones you named it still didn't include the most important one. DFW also snagged McKesson, Fortune 6 cos.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/...uarters-irving

Austin didn't give Apple any incentives but the state of TX did with $25 million for a campus with 15k jobs.... its pennies compared to the $8 billion WA gave Boeing and $3 billion WI gave to Foxconn to build factories near Milwaukee....

Our media here are reporting that it is Williamson County that is providing the incentives.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Liberals inject politics into everything. Its yalls religion.

Glad to oblige.

[pdxstreetcar]

Nice job choosing a remote greenfield location away from transit for your neo-1950s corporate campus.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The Bay Area doesnt need help in retention-on the contrary.



https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-a...ic-phenomenon/

What we need is about 500,000 new housing units.

It’s not all about housing. It’s cost of living and regulations. Otherwise they’d move to Sacramento or Bakersfield.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by N90

SF Bays F500 count has been steady at 35 for years because even if it loses one or two, there are replacements popping out of SV to take their place.

F500 counts have little to do with relative economic power, though. Corporate home addresses don't really represent where corps base talent anymore.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by SLO

It’s not all about housing. It’s cost of living and regulations. Otherwise they’d move to Sacramento or Bakersfield.

Nope. Housing is at crisis level now.

And workers are moving to Sacramento and Bakersfield, absolutely-the 'Bay Area' now borders Fresno county(!?!?) and just might absorb Fresno and Sacramento in the not-to-distant future precisely because of the Bay's insatiable need for housing. In the time the Bay Area created 700,000 jobs, we onlu added 100,000 housing units

And many locals particularly in The City and on the Peninsula now look at upcoming IPOs as a consideration to when they should buy a house-usually rushing to buy before the newly minted millionaires flood the market driving up prices.

Apparently that's what going to happen next year:

Tech IPOs threaten to add fuel to America's hottest housing market
Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and Slack are reportedly making plans to go public, meaning their employees will be in line for a major windfall of cash.

Dec. 20, 2018 / 9:06 AM ET
By David Ingram
SAN FRANCISCO — Several years ago, Annie Tsai and her husband looked at two things — a calendar and a map — and decided to speed up their plans to buy a house.

They had to hurry, because they were afraid Facebook employees would beat them to a good house.

The calendar in early 2012 showed that Facebook would be making an initial public offering of stock in mere months, and the map showed Facebook’s headquarters in the heart of Silicon Valley, the same area they wanted to buy in. With dread, they imagined Facebook employees showing up at open houses with windfalls of cash from their newly public stock.

“If you just drew a 45-minute commuting radius around that, it was likely it would impact the property-buying market,” Tsai, who has worked at a several tech companies but not Facebook, said recently.

Acting quickly, the couple lowered their sights a little and made an offer on a house that needed remodeling. They closed weeks ahead of Facebook’s May 2010 IPO. It was just in time; home prices in the Bay Area began soaring around the same time, and some properties began getting dozens of offers.

Big tech companies including Facebook have contributed mightily to San Francisco’s housing crunch, and their ranks look poised to grow. The Bay Area is staring at a possible flood of stock listings in 2019 from tech startup “unicorns” including Uber, Lyft and Slack...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna950136

I suppose other parts of the country would be glad to see thousands of their neighbors newly flush with cash to spend, but we actually need a break from it.

[SLO]

^^^I was referring more to why companies leave they Bay Area and the state.
People do leave for housing as well and there is a ton of instability in the Bay Area because of that. Some of the surveys you see about the percentage of people considering a move or wanting to move is an indicator.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by SLO

^^^I was referring more to why companies leave they Bay Area and the state.

The other poster and I were talking about retaining workers.

People do leave for housing as well and there is a ton of instability in the Bay Area because of that. Some of the surveys you see about the percentage of people considering a move or wanting to move is an indicator.

Yes and the inability to afford decent housing is by far the number 1 reason people move or consider moving.

I dont blame them. What's the point in earning $100,000 a year if your still living at home?

[SLO]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The other poster and I were talking about retaining workers.



Yes and the inability to afford decent housing is by far the number 1 reason people move or consider moving.

I dont blame them. What's the point in earning $100,000 a year if your still living at home?

Agree. Lots of family have done it, can't blame them.
When I think of the Bay area in general I see it in very high highs and very low lows, where a place like Dallas I see as a steady medium. That may make zero sense to you, that's how it plays in my mind though...

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The other poster and I were talking about retaining workers.



Yes and the inability to afford decent housing is by far the number 1 reason people move or consider moving.

I dont blame them. What's the point in earning $100,000 a year if your still living at home?

you mean someone living with their parents in the bay area? a.) because, well, you still get to live in the bay area. b.) you gain the important work experience to allow you move to seattle or denver or austin or wherever c.) you are saving money. anyone who gets to start their career by living with their parents in the bay area has struck gold by winning the birthplace lottery.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by N90

Exactly what dimondpark said, SF and SJ are the only metros in CA that don't have to fret over people and cos moving elsewhere because they have substitutes/replacements waiting in the wing.

But LA isn't that lucky. It's not creative enough to make up for the loss of Northrop Grumann, Hilton, Marriott, Jacobs Engineering, Occidental Petro, etc.

SF Bays F500 count has been steady at 35 for years because even if it loses one or two, there are replacements popping out of SV to take their place. LA doesn't have an incubator like SV and doesn't have anywhere near the dynamic economy of SF Bay which is why LA's # of F500/F1000s is lower today than any point in the last 40 years. LA is a really blue collar Metro, it isn't the HQ and corporate power that SF and many other US cities are.

Los Angeles County alone has the 2nd highest GDP of any county in the US, so I would hardly say that it doesn't have the dynamic economy of the SF Bay. Just ask dimondpark for the sources. He is the GDP maven.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by N90

Exactly what dimondpark said, SF and SJ are the only metros in CA that don't have to fret over people and cos moving elsewhere because they have substitutes/replacements waiting in the wing.

But LA isn't that lucky. It's not creative enough to make up for the loss of Northrop Grumann, Hilton, Marriott, Jacobs Engineering, Occidental Petro, etc.

SF Bays F500 count has been steady at 35 for years because even if it loses one or two, there are replacements popping out of SV to take their place. LA doesn't have an incubator like SV and doesn't have anywhere near the dynamic economy of SF Bay which is why LA's # of F500/F1000s is lower today than any point in the last 40 years. LA is a really blue collar Metro, it isn't the HQ and corporate power that SF and many other US cities are.

I dont think "creative" is the right word here. LA"s has the most creative population by A LONG SHOT. It's not the most corporate city. I don't think that's a great thing anyway, like most do on these forums.

[N90]

Originally Posted by Crawford

F500 counts have little to do with relative economic power, though. Corporate home addresses don't really represent where corps base talent anymore.

None of this has any thing to do with what I said.

Do you quote people for the hell of it or to hear yourself talk....

[N90]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Los Angeles County alone has the 2nd highest GDP of any county in the US, so I would hardly say that it doesn't have the dynamic economy of the SF Bay. Just ask dimondpark for the sources. He is the GDP maven.

If LA county is second then who's first?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by N90

None of this has any thing to do with what I said.

Do you quote people for the hell of it or to hear yourself talk....

Um, what? Is this some kind of projecting performance art?

You were going on about F500 counts and corporate might and I responded that F500 counts have little to do with corporate might nowadays. What exactly do you find confusing?

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by N90

If LA county is second then who's first?

New York County (Manhattan), a Fortune 500 company worshiper's wet dream!

LA County is obviously still an economic powerhouse, despite your barometer of what makes an economic powerhouse an economic powerhouse.

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by N90

None of this has any thing to do with what I said.

Do you quote people for the hell of it or to hear yourself talk....

His point is that a region's trophy case of corporate headquarters =/= a region's economic vitality.

Since you mentioned it, consider Occidental Petroleum. It was headquartered in LA up until 2014, but only employed a few hundred people in Southern California (out of a global workforce that was greater than 12,000 at the time). It's Houston office was already larger than its nominal headquarters, even before the move.

Likewise, Netflix is headquartered in the Bay Area, but has since chosen to expand in other regions. It bought an independent studio in New Mexico, and has leased 1 million+ square feet of office space in Hollywood.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by Crawford

F500 counts have little to do with relative economic power, though. Corporate home addresses don't really represent where corps base talent anymore.

Headquarter counts are relatively meaningless. The new model is that you headquarter your company wherever the CEO lives or the state that offers you tax incentives, in that case it’s an empty status symbol to prop up local reputation (Apple in Ireland). But the bulk of the business is more difficult to move. That stays put a lot of the times. Tech is different in that the headquarters often remains with the talent. It’s counter to other big companies. For other industries, a headquarters might as well be an administrative office.