HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2017, 6:49 PM
coyotetrickster's Avatar
coyotetrickster coyotetrickster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 505
Wow, some folks are being rather obstinate and inflammatory about CKE Corporation. If you review the news reports from the actual move announcement. 150 jobs were relocated to Nashville from two HQs (St. Louis for the Hardee's chain and Carpinteria for Carl's Jr.). That is a drop in the bucket in terms of jobs in SoCal, so again, no big loss. We still have In'N'Out. The majority of jobs for this company are created by franchisees, as several posters noted. According to CKE, 90% of its restaurants are franchised own. The corporation's primary job is to drive traffic to its franchiser-owned restaurants. That means, ultimately, the franchisees will make the determination of how much to automate their restaurants, and will respond to cost pressures at the state/local level.
Puzder might not have liked California's regulatory environment because it slowed his expansion, didn't fit his style of management, a whole host of issues that might or might not have anything to do with the above.

What is common to all of the high-profile relocations is the corporate HQs were for subsidiary operations(Toyota, Nestle), or for an HQ with a franchise footprint larger than the parent corporation's original operations (CKE). Calfornia is a hard state in which to operate. The state's environmental regs are the most stringent in the country, and the discretionary review afforded to neighborhoods in CEQA, can frustrate the best-laid plans of fast food robber barons (or job creators, depending on your politics).
All you need to do is drive through LA to visibly witness the entry-level robustness of neighborhoods, and the explosion of development in Downtown LA, is a strong counter to those folks wringing their collective hands at the loss of stray corporate HQs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2017, 7:21 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,804
"Discretionary review afforded to neighborhoods" sounds like a big problem. Employers -- of any size -- need to understand the playing field to operate. A big company might decide it's worth the cost/effort/time to throw 50 locations at a wall and hope 40 stick. A small company might be viewed better by the neighbors but have no ability to handle that uncertainty.

As for the "job creation" point, that's not political. It's only a PR point for the gullible. The exception might be when it's the only workplace in a dead zone, and filling the dead zone is a community goal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2017, 7:31 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
That letter from Governor Brown to Gov Scott was a great read. Not sure if it was necessary (a little bit mean-spirited), but kind of fun nonetheless.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2017, 1:42 AM
HowardL's Avatar
HowardL HowardL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: East Lakeview, Chicago
Posts: 1,180
I've been reading the replies for the last week or so and one thing keeps coming back to me. Unlike many cities, LA has no "real" center. There is DTLA and then there are a handful of sub-centers that all compete with LA and each other.

There is no Loop. There is no Manhattan. It's each fragment against another.

If you open an office in El Segundo, you can attract talent from a small area out that way. Or maybe you do Pasadena and then you compete for talent out that way.

As a decentralized metro, LA will benefit from industries that are ambivalent to centralized talent pools. Corporations, corporate HQ and corporate America in general need centralized talent.

LA just can't offer that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2017, 3:28 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
That letter from Governor Brown to Gov Scott was a great read. Not sure if it was necessary (a little bit mean-spirited), but kind of fun nonetheless.
Should it not be mean-spirited?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2017, 4:05 AM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
That letter is great!

Who cares if we lose a couple HQ! For every one we lose, we probably gain 10 in start ups. Our economy is so big we're too big to ignore.
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2017, 12:02 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotetrickster View Post
... That is a drop in the bucket in terms of jobs in SoCal, so again, no big loss. We still have In'N'Out. The majority of jobs for this company are created by franchisees, as several posters noted. According to CKE, 90% of its restaurants are franchised own. The corporation's primary job is to drive traffic to its franchiser-owned restaurants. That means, ultimately, the franchisees will make the determination of how much to automate their restaurants, and will respond to cost pressures at the state/local level.

Puzder might not have liked California's regulatory environment because it slowed his expansion, didn't fit his style of management, a whole host of issues that might or might not have anything to do with the above...
And this might be straying off topic, but when you compare the two restaurants, In-N-Out is far better in terms of staffing, which translates to better service, cleanliness of the restaurants, etc. Whenever I go into a Carl's Jr. versus an In-N-Out, the Carl's Jr. always seems understaffed, like 2 people at the counter with one of them doing drive-thru (or one person doing both counter and drive-thru) and maybe one or two people in the kitchen. In the meantime, the dining room is dirty, with unclean/un-wiped tables and nearly full trash cans, dirty bathrooms... Contrast that with In-N-Out, which always seems like they have many employees behind the counter, in the kitchen, and cleaning up on the inside as well as the outside, and it's not a franchise, and it's a local California company.

As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't mind if Carl's Jr. went out of business (even though I do like their Famous Star burger), or Nestle for that matter, what with their water scandal here in California.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2017, 12:26 AM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardL View Post
I've been reading the replies for the last week or so and one thing keeps coming back to me. Unlike many cities, LA has no "real" center. There is DTLA and then there are a handful of sub-centers that all compete with LA and each other.

There is no Loop. There is no Manhattan. It's each fragment against another.

If you open an office in El Segundo, you can attract talent from a small area out that way. Or maybe you do Pasadena and then you compete for talent out that way.

As a decentralized metro, LA will benefit from industries that are ambivalent to centralized talent pools. Corporations, corporate HQ and corporate America in general need centralized talent.

LA just can't offer that.
I have never thought of it that way, but that's an interesting perspective.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2017, 1:05 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,207
Is In-N-Out still as cheap / as competitive in terms of pricing than they were back when I lived in California (2004-2005) ?

Back then, they really stood out in terms of value.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2017, 7:49 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Is In-N-Out still as cheap / as competitive in terms of pricing than they were back when I lived in California (2004-2005) ?

Back then, they really stood out in terms of value.
I feel like they've cut a few corners since then. The meat patties are thinner and for some reason are less flavorful.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2017, 4:32 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH View Post
I feel like they've cut a few corners since then. The meat patties are thinner and for some reason are less flavorful.
Their milkshakes have definitely gotten smaller. I haven't noticed the meat patties getting thinner, maybe because I usually get a Double Double.

I'm wondering if the cutting corners thing is from their expansion into other states, or just the cost of overhead in general... or both.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 10:42 PM
Ragnar Ragnar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 188
For every Nestle that moves away or Directv that is purchased, there is a Snapchat or SpaceX created and grown. I think it's easy to focus on the negatives, but there are still a lot of positives about entrepreneurship and business creation in LA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 8:17 PM
PhillyRising's Avatar
PhillyRising PhillyRising is offline
America's Hometown
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lionville, PA
Posts: 11,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
That letter from Governor Brown to Gov Scott was a great read. Not sure if it was necessary (a little bit mean-spirited), but kind of fun nonetheless.
I liked it. Florida and Texas need to stop stealing jobs from other states. Grow your own economy organically but helping locals start businesses instead of stealing jobs from other states and undermining their economy.

It's not that it really that much cheaper to uproot your whole company and move it to another state. Texas and Florida pay these companies to move. I doubt many CEO's just wake up one morning and say...I'm moving the company to Florida. Taxpayers are footing the relocation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2017, 5:30 PM
a very long weekend's Avatar
a very long weekend a very long weekend is offline
dazzle me
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: 94109
Posts: 824
click on the article to see a couple graphs. our population loss is almost entirely accounted for by low income people leaving and old people cashing out. it's a terrible shame that our cities have distorted the housing market so much that people are forced to leave the state in order just to get by. terrible.

Quote:

California exports its poor to Texas, other states, while wealthier people move in

California exports more than commodities such as movies, new technologies and produce. It also exports truck drivers, cooks and cashiers.

Every year from 2000 through 2015, more people left California than moved in from other states. This migration was not spread evenly across all income groups, a Sacramento Bee review of U.S. Census Bureau data found. The people leaving tend to be relatively poor, and many lack college degrees. Move higher up the income spectrum, and slightly more people are coming than going.

About 2.5 million people living close to the official poverty line left California for other states from 2005 through 2015, while 1.7 million people at that income level moved in from other states – for a net loss of 800,000. During the same period, the state experienced a net gain of about 20,000 residents earning at least five times the poverty rate – or $100,000 for a family of three.

Kiril Kundurazieff, 56, is among the low-income residents who left California. He spent more than a decade working in a small bookstore, then at Target, then at a Verizon call center, in Southern California. After some medical issues that hampered his eyesight, he found himself unemployed in Santa Ana, with monthly rent of about $1,000 in 2012.

“There was really nothing left for me in California,” said Kundurazieff, who also writes a blog about his cats. “The cost of living was high. The rent was high. The job market was debatable.”


Friends in Texas suggested he relocate. He now works at a Walmart in Houston, making a little north of $10 an hour. He works 40 hours a week, riding his bike about 7 miles to work many days. He does not pay state income tax. His rent is just over $500, with utilities.

About the same time that Kundurazieff was leaving, Tamara and Kit Keane were arriving from Oklahoma. Both had been working on their doctorate degrees at Oklahoma universities, Kit in biology and Tamara in education.

The Keanes already knew California. Kit, 34, was born and raised in Sacramento. Tamara, 31, spent most of her life in Southern California. They met at UC Davis about a decade ago.

With graduate degrees, they had options. They liked the cost of living in Oklahoma and bought a two-bedroom house with a backyard for the bargain basement cost of $121,000.

But they wanted to come back to California, for its beauty and to be near family. “We knew coming here, we would have to make a lot more money to live a similar lifestyle,” Tamara Keane said.

After moving back last year, both now work for the Twin Rivers Unified School District as teachers on special assignment. They are expecting a child and recently purchased a three-bedroom house in Hollywood Park for $360,000. Tamara is still working on her Ph.D.; Kit is looking into eventually teaching at the university level. “Teacher salaries are not great,” Tamara Keane said. “But they are enough for us to want to come here.”

Well-paid new arrivals in California enjoy a life that is far out of reach of much of the state’s population. Besides Hawaii and New York, California has the highest cost of living in America.

During the past three years in Sacramento, median rent for a one-bedroom apartment has risen from about $935 a month to $1,230 a month, according to real estate tracking firm Zillow.com. A single mother working 40 hours a week at $15 an hour would spend nearly half of her gross income to afford an apartment at that price. She would pay about 10 percent less for a one-bedroom rental in Houston or Dallas.

Sacramento remains relatively affordable compared to other California markets. Median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles is about $2,270 a month. In San Francisco, $3,700. Without subsidies, those prices are unreachable for a single parent making $15 an hour.

Not surprisingly, the state’s exodus of poor people is notable in Los Angeles and San Francisco counties, which combined experienced a net loss of 250,000 such residents from 2005 through 2015.

The leading destination for those leaving California is Texas, with about 293,000 economically disadvantaged residents leaving and about 137,000 coming for a net loss of 156,000 from 2005 through 2015. Next up are states surrounding California; in order, Arizona, Nevada and Oregon.

All told, California lost about 260,000 economically disadvantaged residents to the 10 states with the lowest cost of living during that time period, compared to a net gain of about 40,000 from the 10 states (other than California) with the highest cost of living.

Losing impoverished residents to other states is better for the state’s economy than losing wealthy residents, some experts said. But they said the migration itself is a symptom of deeper social problems largely related to how expensive California has become.

“Why are people leaving? Economic reasons, the high cost of living, are certainly a part of it,” said Hans Johnson, senior fellow at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. “For those people (near the poverty line), California is not viable.”

By some measures, California has the highest poverty rate in the nation.

Poverty is associated with issues ranging from high crime rates to an increased likelihood of health problems. If someone puts most of their money toward rent, it leaves them with less money for hospital bills or essentials – so society steps in and picks up the slack, at a cost.

“We are impacting all other systems,” said Lisa Hershey, executive director of Housing California, a nonprofit that advocates for more affordable housing. Impoverished residents who can’t afford to live in their neighborhood often “end up hospitalized, they end up in prison.”

The choices facing millions of low-income workers trying to rent in California’s urban centers are stark, Hershey and others said. They can commute from far-away locales.

“People are having to move so far away from their jobs – driving two or three hours,” Hershey said.

They can spend a huge portion of their income on rent. Many experts recommend not spending more than a third of gross income on housing. But in California, “We are actually excited to see if people are spending less than 50 percent on housing,” Hershey said.

They can live in a cramped house with others sharing the bills. More than 750,000 California households live in a rental containing more people than rooms, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Finally, they can move to a more affordable area. “This is like the ultimate displacement,” Hershey said. “People are being displaced so quickly not only in our communities but from the whole state.”
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/cal...136478098.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2017, 6:26 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyRising View Post
I liked it. Florida and Texas need to stop stealing jobs from other states. Grow your own economy organically but helping locals start businesses instead of stealing jobs from other states and undermining their economy.

It's not that it really that much cheaper to uproot your whole company and move it to another state. Texas and Florida pay these companies to move. I doubt many CEO's just wake up one morning and say...I'm moving the company to Florida. Taxpayers are footing the relocation.
Pretty much. It's sad those states are so desperate they have to resort to those measures.

But it is what it is.

I'm pretty sure few California companies WANT to move to Texas or Florida except for those financial reasons. That's likely the case for most residents too.
When Californians leave for those states, it's almost always due to cheaper cost of living or no state tax.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2017, 12:03 AM
bnk bnk is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 12,741
Florida is not a major poacher.

This is a measureable thing.

Atlanta based SiteSelection magazine publishes corporate expansions and relocations every year in march.

Here are the numbers.


http://siteselection.com/issues/2017...ns-of-2016.cfm

TOP METROPOLITANS OF 2016

From Site Selection magazine, March 2017

The Top Metros of 2016 Come In All Sizes

These high-performing regions — big, medium and small — were just right for attracting corporate growth in 2016.

March 2017

The US metropolitan areas tallying the most corporate facility investment projects in 2016 aren’t just competitive nationally — they’re succeeding on a global scale.
Among the Tier-1 metros representing populations of 1 million or more, six of this year’s Top 10 also rank among the most valued locations across multiple sectors in the forthcoming World’s Most Competitive Cities report, to be released later this spring by Site Selection publisher Conway Inc., EY and Oxford Economics. Evaluated for their attractiveness across 12 different industry sectors, Dallas-Fort Worth appeared in the top five nine times; Chicago, Cincinnati and Houston showed up seven times apiece; Atlanta made the cut in four sectors; and Detroit tallied three citations. All six were among the top 50 globally in terms of top-five appearances.
That’s just one way to slice business intelligence from the location data resident in Site Selection’s Conway Projects Database. There are other perspectives too.
Over 2,100 corporate facility project investments landed in this year’s total of 30 Top 10 metro areas across three population tiers. So we wondered: How many companies have developed a habit of investing in top-ranked cities?






Last edited by bnk; Mar 8, 2017 at 12:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2017, 12:15 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,804
Oh god, that again. Not since GAWC has something been so ripe for misinterpretation.

Last time I looked, it was really unclear what a "project" was. But generally it doesn't seem to relate at all to the level of development or business investment.

Want to see where there's "business investment"? Look at where office buildings, production plants, warehouses, etc. are going up. The list will look nothing like this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 5:33 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
Since it was brought up earlier in the thread, Los Angeles city voters decisively shot down Measure S yesterday to the tune of 68.85% (it only required a simple majority). The city of Santa Monica had a similar anti-development measure (LV) on the ballot in last year's election, which also failed.

Along with Measure S, Los Angeles County voted yes on Measure H (needed 66.67%, passed with 67.44%) to increase its sales tax by an additional quarter-cent in order to fight the homelessness epidemic. This is in addition to HHH, another homelessness-related measure that LA city residents resoundingly (77.14%) said yes to last year.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 6:12 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,804
That's an impressive smackdown. Sometimes city voters really do the right thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2017, 3:15 PM
bnk bnk is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 12,741
To which states Californians are immigrating
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:38 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.