Why losing AT&T isn't a big deal... (Houston: HOA, how much)

[loves2read]

everyone knows how important formal gala events are in the success of a city

[tekka-maki]

Monday morning quarterbacking I see. If you took Dell out of Austin NOW, you would still have considerable more tech jobs than there are in San Antonio. Facts are a stubborn thing, despite any clever generalizations you concoct. But it's o.k. really. Tomorrow you may wake up and realize that S.A. doesn't have a Disneyworld either and you may be able to rationalize why FL does, but just remember, it's OK.

[smuboy86]

Hmm funny that I did the same that you did, but I'm the one that doesn't have the firm grip on reality and facts. Then you use mild derogatory statements as a clever comeback. If it's this level of cynicism that my generation inherits from yours pollution won't be the only toxic thing that we have to fix.

[tekka-maki]

Originally Posted by smuboy86

Hmm funny that I did the same that you did

How so?

Originally Posted by smuboy86

I'm the one that doesn't have the firm grip on reality and facts.

I agree.

The fundamental questions are why do you hide behind the fact that S.A. has fewer tech jobs than Austin & more so, why does this seemingly upset you so? Silicone Valley has more tech jobs than Austin... but I'm not upset. What gives?

Originally Posted by smuboy86

The fact of the matter is, you said take rackspace out of SA and it would have fewer tech jobs. I said take Dell out of Austin and you would have the same result fewer tech jobs. At no time did I say that San Antonio would have more tech jobs at that point. The reason I used the Dell-Austin analogy was to show how false it is to say such a thing

Wrong! I said SA = not a lot of tech jobs particularly w/o Rackspace (i.e. the latter is incidental). If you take Dell out of Austin, they still have dozens more tech companies.

Quid Pro Quo: Shall I enumerate them to you; in turn you do the same for S.A. Warning: This will be over very quickly.

So I guess your 'analogy' is based on a false pretense. Might want to take that back to the drawing table.

[ddrewa]

i'm curious, tekka-maki. how would you define a "tech job"?

[banker]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

Its highly unlikely that all 700 of those jobs were high-level executives pulling 7-figure incomes. Besides, even CEOs dont make tens of millions of dollars in salary, as a lot of thier "income" is tied up in the company, with stocks and such, as well as perks like houses and cars.

700 positions earning an average of $100,000/year = $70,000,000/year in salaries lost (that is 70 million...). In reality the average salary of those executives was much higher. No where did I indicate that there were very many 7-figure incomes in my numbers. In fact - my estimation was quite conservative. The average is most likely much higher than the $100,000/year average.

[banker]

Originally Posted by traficdogn

No. Cheap land, energy, labor, railroads, and Mexico attracted Toyota. When was the last time Toyota opened car factories near other Telecom Headquarters?


Are you planning on moving away someone time soon?

For those of us that plan to stay here and retire that is a good thing. Lower property taxes.

The more attractive SA is for retirees the better. All that pension, military benefits, and social security money being pumped into SA is golden. Much much, bigger pool of money than the people moving to dallas.

#1) Spouses of executives do not earn that much money. A majority of the ATT executives have had to re-locate, and do so quite frequently.
#2) If the spouse does earn a lot, do you think they will be re-locating to Dallas?
#3)Totally unrealistic figures. Federal income tax, and deferred compensation would eat 30-50% of the money you talk of. Money that SA will never see.

I am not planning on moving any time soon - but it is NEVER good for a city to have a huge sector of the real estate market be fire saled as these executives houses will be. Any time you have hundreds of homes hit the market in the same price range at the same time you have significant downward pressure on prices. It is simply the laws of supply and demand. And the lack of a boom of executive jobs will make these houses difficult to sell due to a lack of qualified buyers.

And of course the income levels are gross (pre tax). That goes without saying. But still the impact is significant. Losing that many executive level positions equates to losing 3-4 times as many average working class jobs. If we had a company laying off 2,000-3,000 people it would hurt.

[tekka-maki]

Originally Posted by banker

700 positions earning an average of $100,000/year = $70,000,000/year in salaries lost (that is 70 million...). In reality the average salary of those executives was much higher.

I would hope so, as much as everyone has been saying these are the top paying positions being moved to Dallas (is there any report on this?). 100k a year certainly doesn't scream top paid exec at ATT, unless we're talking hefty bonuses. I know regular joes making this at Rackspace.

[banker]

Originally Posted by tekka-maki

I would hope so, as much as everyone has been saying these are the top paying positions being moved to Dallas (is there any report on this?). 100k a year certainly doesn't scream top paid exec at ATT, unless we're talking hefty bonuses. I know regular joes making this at Rackspace.

My point exactly. I used the $100K/year just as a conservative example. Many people don't think that the dollars could be anywhere near the $250,000,000 I quoted earlier - but in reality the 700 executives and their families probably earn closer to the 250 million mark than the 70 million mark (pre tax). And those families spent a lot of their after tax income right here in San Antonio. It will be hard to replace those dollars with regular joe job growth.

[tekka-maki]

Good point. But the punch bowl is not dry yet, so don't expect everyone to understand what is apparent.