US Trade Stats

[chuck22b]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

Huh? The business environment in inland California is little different than other areas, its the state that is the problem. Its corporate taxes (and personal for that matter) are very high. The only thing that is cheaper in inland California is property, but at least at the moment it isn't that cheap given what you are getting.

The problem is also that the inland empire isn't that desirable. Sure there are nicer areas, but in general its not all that nice. Even in 2000 the median in Riverside was about the same as the median in Austin (actually Austin is less, but the property taxes are more so its about even). But which city would your average educated worker rather live in? I would suggest Austin by far... Regardless all of this speaks of massive corrections in California's future. Property is going to have to drop dramatically and the state is going to have to reduce spending dramatically.

I think a lot of those Statements about the Inland Empire are based on Opinion and not entirely on fact. Cities have a huge influence on being business "friendly". Some cities in Southern California practically caters to businesses (such as Santa Ana, Anaheim, City of Industry, Ontario, etc) through zoning, subsidies, tax breaks, developer fees, etc. and that is why they are considered/built-up into "job" centers.

I'm not too familiar with Austin, but I've been to DFW, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso... and I don't think they were "dramatically" different from some of the cities in the IE. They all have cultural distinctions, universities, job centers, and communities. I think LA/Southland in general though, has more diversity. You make Austin sound like some dream land. I'm sure it's nice, but there are nice places in the IE too with similar environments and prices.

-chuck22b

[Humanoid]

Some cities in Southern California practically caters to businesses (such as Santa Ana, Anaheim, City of Industry, Ontario, etc) through zoning, subsidies, tax breaks, developer fees, etc.

Again the problem is at the state level not the city level. The cities can't reduce the state corporate tax and the taxes they can reduce are relatively minor.

You make Austin sound like some dream land. I'm sure it's nice, but there are nice places in the IE too with similar environments and prices.

Huh? All I've stated about Austin is that properties are cheaper for what you get even if you look back to 2000 and the business environment in Texas is better than California. If that makes Austin/Texas a "dream land"...then okay?

Furthermore are you joking? Where in the inland empire do you have similar prices and a similar environment? Tell me. The biggest city is Riverside and its pretty crappy in comparison to Austin (Its also less than half the size). Does the inland empire also have areas like Settle, Chicago, Portland, etc etc? C'mon...now.