Toyota North America HQ Leaving CA (finance, investment, workers, 100,000)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

What? No way, I'd love to see someone try. All they would need is about... $120,000,000 by my estimate, and of course they would need to get their high density living project approved by the California Coastal Commission, one of the most liberal NIMBY organizations on the planet. I'd say if they have the money, and start now, it should be ready to break ground in 35 years once the permitting is approved.

You're just making my point here, Exey. NI YOUR BY, eh?

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

As I have acknowledged before, you are one scary individual!

Or, then again, maybe it's because I'm really scared to engage in a mature debate with you because I try to use failed humor to hide my utter lack of knowledge on subjects I chime in on, and well, I don't like how you make me look very uneducated sometimes.

FTFY

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You're just making my point here, Exey. NI YOUR BY, eh?

Hey, don't get mad at me. There's a website to take your complaints.
California Coastal Commission Home Page

Let me know how far you get.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

Hey, don't get mad at me. There's a website to take your complaints.
California Coastal Commission Home Page

Let me know how far you get.

Except Exey, I have no complaint with the Coastal Commission. I am not the one advocating for growth or expansion anywhere. I am not the one who made the comments about NIMBYism restricting growth. You did that. Remember? Here:

NIMBYs don't want any high density housing to block their view of the duck pond across the street, to ruin the "character" of their neighborhood, or well... just because they don't want to live next to poor people.

So, as I said, if you are so concerned with development and keeping jobs affordable for industry to pay (which requires lower cost real estate), then you should be willing to give up some of your snotty real estate, no?

I've made my position patently clear: California doesn't need to keep these Toyota jobs. California growth is a cancer as it is. Stage 4.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Except Exey, I have no complaint with the Coastal Commission. I am not the one advocating for growth or expansion anywhere. I am not the one who made the comments about NIMBYism restricting growth. You did that. Remember? Here:
So, as I said, if you are so concerned with development and keeping jobs affordable for industry to pay (which requires lower cost real estate), then you should be willing to give up some of your snotty real estate, no?

I've made my position patently clear: California doesn't need to keep these Toyota jobs. California growth is a cancer as it is. Stage 4.

Like I said, they can have it if they can pay for it. Let me know when a developer is willing to drop $120,000,000 big to develop a few acres of high density low income housing and fight the CCC for decades and spend tens of millions of dollars in lawyers fees to get it done!

See you are fraudulently framing the issue as just growth, anywhere, even if it doesn't make sense (like building a huge high density low income housing development on some of the priciest land in California), but that's because you are intellectually corrupt, and it shows in your responses. Either you're scared to address the actual issue (my guess), or you don't actually understand the issue at hand (quite possible, not many do).

No one is talking about "growth for growth's sake", it's about sustainable growth because whether you like it or not, you won't be able to stop it. You can call it a cancer, you can put up a huge wall on the border, you can stand at the border with a pitch fork, the growth is going to come, and your opinion of California not needing those jobs is not only short sighted and as NIMBY as it gets, it's also ignorant of where California's future is actually going.

If you don't like it, you can pack up, and move to fly over territory. They don't have the "cancer" you're so deathly afraid of.

[Tulemutt]

I am particularly enjoying the taunts of "fear" coming from a housewife ensconced in NIMBY Dana Point.

[Forest_Hills_Daddy]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

So why did Intel relocate $8 billion dollars worth of infrastructure projects to Oregon and Arizona? In fact, Intel said they would NEVER build another plant in California.

The simple facts are California is not a business friendly state. Companies pay more to do business here because of taxes, the overall regulatory burden, and the overall high cost of doing business; attracting talent, energy cost, etc.

If I can relocate my business to another state, and instantly increase my margins by 20-30%, it becomes a no-brainer whether "incentives" are in place or not.

Companies can also relocate away from states that are business friendly. They have done this in the past.

Now obviously CA is really not a business friendly state but I don't think that's what drove Toyota's decision to leave. Just saying that if the tax incentives were the real reason why Toyota left, then it would not have mattered whether or not CA was "business friendly". They would have left regardless. In a few years, they will be pressing TX to give them more incentives.

Even "cost of doing business" is not an obstacle as long as these costs can be passed on to customers.

We all know what's happening to the auto industry. Their margins are under pressure. Toyota's operating margin has been stuck below 10% for at least half a decade. That's not the kind of company you would like to be keeping in your back yard.

The better question to ask is what businesses can materialize and replace the jobs that were lost from Toyota. That's where the whole business friendliness argument should come in. If the answer is "none" then you have a problem.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I am particularly enjoying the taunts of "fear" coming from a housewife ensconced in NIMBY Dana Point.

aka "I don't really have a valid or mature argument to what you have posted. So I'll attack your gender to belittle you, and make you seem less important by calling you a housewife since I think they are useless and not very important to society."

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by Forest_Hills_Daddy

Companies can also relocate away from states that are business friendly. They have done this in the past.

Now obviously CA is really not a business friendly state but I don't think that's what drove Toyota's decision to leave.

Then what did?

Even "cost of doing business" is not an obstacle as long as these costs can be passed on to customers.

I love how this statement is framed in such a simplistic nonchalant way. "As long as these costs can be passed on to customers" as if it's such an easy, and trivial thing to do.

We all know what's happening to the auto industry. Their margins are under pressure. Toyota's operating margin has been stuck below 10% for at least half a decade. That's not the kind of company you would like to be keeping in your back yard.

The better question to ask is what businesses can come in and replace the jobs that were lost from Toyota. That's where the whole business friendliness argument should come in.

Why not have both existing and new companies stay in California so the job base grows? I know you haven't been in California for over a decade, but the state has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, slowly dropping (as it is in other states), but still very high. You may have missed that in the 10 years since you left.

Honestly, are you really advocating shooing Toyota away because their margins are lower than you're comfortable with, so that we can "maybe" "possibly" attract some imaginary company that may be out there with much higher margins and in your perception a more "sure bet"? You really think the ticket is to treat things like a zero-sum game?

I suggest you attempt that strategy in your own state first. If it works, then we Californians are sure to follow.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by jm1982

It sounds like a nice place to live
Plano, Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like they won those " best places to live" designations for many years .
Texas does seem like the New California

People used to move to CA because of the opportunity
Jobs were here and there were growing communities where housing was affordable

This sounds like what is happening in Texas , you look at the growth population wise and economy wise .

Meanwhile people that want to move here mostly seem to be young people from out of state with a few bucks in their pocket , few if any skills , wanting to live some mythical california dream .

We don't need more people living in their cars and on welfare

It is a nice place. In fact Ive always said its like Dallas' Torrance. Both cities are very similar.