Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who you know has nothing to do with anything. Big Pharma does not have a significant presence in the Boston area because of the FDA, buy outs, or whatever else you are asserting. Boston metro is a big research area, to state the obvious, which has everything to do with the universities. And that's why industry is here. Why exactly do you think these companies, who are in Cambridge paying on exorbitant leases and building in the area, choose this location over podunk, USA? Use your noodle.
Huh? I didn't say it was due to who I know.sheesh..
It can be a big research area but that also depends as to what is research. Certainly hard sciences have r&d in schools and universities...but that also brings up if that specifically becomes a private good or shared. Mozaic was the first web browser ever made and it was made at a university in the midwest. The university wanted to claim ownership and then they had to back track on it.
Property rights are why development occurs here because no one wants to develop something only to have some sort of open patent and have the rug pulled from under them a year later. Just look at how apple failed in the name "ipad" in China due to a stupid typo.
Bristol Myers is located in a number areas..there's only one facility in Mass Bristol-Myers Squibb:*Major R&D Facilities More importantly they only operate that one because they bought out Adnexus back in '97 (like I said about mergers and buyouts)
Here's Pfizer R&D Locations | Pfizer: the world's largest research-based pharmaceutical company
Again two places in mass and yet they have one in Missouri ? That state doesn't exactly come to mind when I think of academia (which kinda goes against the concept of podunk..and Andover is right next to Lawrence which has the highest rate of those without a high school diploma)
Here's GSK Experienced hires - Your GSK career - GlaxoSmithKline
Three jobs in mass and the one in Boston is actually working at a CVS as part of selling the drugs in question. Most of their domestic offices are in Philly and NC
Here's Mylan https://www.mylancareers.com/join/in...erica/usa.aspx
No facilities in Ma. There's one in VT though and they have a fair amount of openings there. They are the largest maker of generic drugs. Have you been to VT? It isn't exactly the most urban area in the world. St Albans VT where it has production has a population of 6,300
Forest Labs Careers at Forest Laboratories
No operations in Mass but they have some in Cincinnati which I don't exactly associate with higher ed (and I've been there several times)
Charles River Charles River Locations Worldwide
With that name I'd assume they'd be based in Mass..boy they operate all over the planet but only one spot in Mass in Wilmington granted they have a ample amount of job openings.
It might be simple to locate a r&d facility by a school but when the costs of operating are so much higher they are going to be more apt to move it somewhere else. Those with a higher education are much more likely to be able to leave or travel as part of employment. When any form of production moves to where it is cheaper that is understandable.If production can be cheaper somewhere else and the demographics of your employees have the ability to move then why not? Many people that attend higher ed in Mass come from other parts of the country if not outside of it so asking people to move isn't that much of a request. A plane ride can take you anywhere on the planet is practically less than a day so there's no technological reason why work itself would have a hard trouble moving.
------------------------------------------------
In responding to NAR they did lie. They overhyped the market and now cannot hide numbers. The other organization looked up actual court records from court houses. Statistically a range of 3% can be understood but not 15-20%. If NAR conducted any form of research with a range that off they would be disregarded as a legitimate association.
"Lereah's book The Rules for Growing Rich: Making Money in the New Information Economy touting investment in technology company equities was published in June 2000 at the onset of the collapse of the dot-com bubble.
Lereah has also written about real estate investing. His most recent book, All Real Estate is Local, was published by Doubleday in 2007. His 2005 book Are You Missing the Real Estate Boom?: Why Home Values and Other Real Estate Investments Will Climb Through The End of The Decade—And How to Profit From Them was rereleased in February 2006 as Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust—And How You Can Profit from It"
"The steady improvement in [home] sales will support price appreciation...[despite] all the wild projections by academics, Wall Street analysts, and others in the media." David was Chief Economist at the National Association of Realtors when he said this. The day was Jan 10, 2007, just as housing prices steadily worsened falling even farther than many skeptics had predicted."
Of course there is always a bias from someone selling you a given product/service.
Back in '98 a friend of mine told me he "earned" a real estate license by taking a three hour course. Given the seriousness of buying real estate that bothered me. A creative writing class at a jr college requires more time than that.
Not that I have any great love for NAR as an organization, but to say that they "fudged" their numbers is really not fair. I know from personal experience that real estate statistics are really exceedingly difficult to track and mistakes are bound to happen.
We're not talking 5% here. It's closer to a 25% error. At that point you might as well draw a straight line and call that data. Worse is that it took them 5 years to admit that there was a discrepancy, all throughout that time they had press release after press release of "housing market is turning the corner."
And really why should housing sales be difficult to track? It shouldn't be any more difficult to track than the number of registered cars. It's not like there's no record of sale or registration.
Huh? I didn't say it was due to who I know.sheesh..
You're basing your opinions on who you know, are you not? I'm saying it makes no difference. Why even mention it? What difference does it make?
Quote:
It might be simple to locate a r&d facility by a school but when the costs of operating are so much higher they are going to be more apt to move it somewhere else. Those with a higher education are much more likely to be able to leave or travel as part of employment. When any form of production moves to where it is cheaper that is understandable.If production can be cheaper somewhere else and the demographics of your employees have the ability to move then why not? Many people that attend higher ed in Mass come from other parts of the country if not outside of it so asking people to move isn't that much of a request. A plane ride can take you anywhere on the planet is practically less than a day so there's no technological reason why work itself would have a hard trouble moving.
You have lots of words in your post, but you're not addressing the issue here. You want to go off on some ADD off topic conversation and I won't follow along. Again, Boston metro has a biotech hub due to the research. That research is largely due to the universities. We have oodles of research universities in a host of sciences. We have teaching hospitals. We have an educated populace. We have a well established sampling source in our population for studies.
Certainly there are significant numbers of universities but to argue that universities attract biotech does not fit the bill as I outlined various organizations that are NOT located in the boston metro area. If it really automatically attracted biotech then why is there so much research being performed outside of the state? Why is there any bio tech in Ohio and Vermont?
Certainly there are significant numbers of universities but to argue that universities attract biotech does not fit the bill as I outlined various organizations that are NOT located in the boston metro area. If it really automatically attracted biotech then why is there so much research being performed outside of the state? Why is there any bio tech in Ohio and Vermont?
The point is about hubs. A hub is a cluster. Companies cluster for a reason. It's not random. Further, it makes no difference what's going on in other locales. The topic is about Boston and why there is a hub here.
Any how, here is the definition of a biotech hub.
"Biotechnology Hubs are any area that encompasses universities with ongoing research and medical departments, pharmaceutical companies, drug discovery companies, biological/chemical products and services companies, clinical labs and services, government research facilities, as well as agricultural research facilities or companies. A flourishing biotechnology hub would have a good number of each of these sectors and attract many top scientists/researchers/students from all over the world to work and learn in an established scientifically rich environment. It also attracts emerging start-up companies wanting to make a place for its own among the already existing companies in these clusters. These areas harbor great economic growth potential in innovative research and technologies." Source.
And really why should housing sales be difficult to track? It shouldn't be any more difficult to track than the number of registered cars. It's not like there's no record of sale or registration.
Well there is always a record of the sale, however getting that data can be challenging. Not all cities/towns/states have easily accessible databases with the data. Some localities are high tech, while others don't have the data available online at all.
The point is about hubs. A hub is a cluster. Companies cluster for a reason. It's not random. Further, it makes no difference what's going on in other locales. The topic is about Boston and why there is a hub here.
Any how, here is the definition of a biotech hub.
"Biotechnology Hubs are any area that encompasses universities with ongoing research and medical departments, pharmaceutical companies, drug discovery companies, biological/chemical products and services companies, clinical labs and services, government research facilities, as well as agricultural research facilities or companies. A flourishing biotechnology hub would have a good number of each of these sectors and attract many top scientists/researchers/students from all over the world to work and learn in an established scientifically rich environment. It also attracts emerging start-up companies wanting to make a place for its own among the already existing companies in these clusters. These areas harbor great economic growth potential in innovative research and technologies." Source.
Does this make any more sense to you?
I understand what you are saying. All I'm getting at is if it was really an attractant that we'd see more in the area.
Ok. All I am getting at is if the hub was more of an attractant that the Boston metro area would have more biotech in it. Just the fact that there is significant research in much more rural areas of the country leads me to believe that there must be other factors involved in the decision making process for locating r&d.
In some cases bio labs do take awhile to open..just look at the one at BU which has had significant controversy
Green Light for Boston Biolab? | The Scientist (http://the-scientist.com/2011/12/07/green-light-for-boston-biolab/ - broken link)
BU biolab gains preliminary OK to open - Boston Medical News - White Coat Notes - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/Boston/whitecoatnotes/2011/12/biolab-gains-preliminary-open/2iBdw6lxIuVwGy1vEUbUjM/index.html - broken link)
Our local MLS services have strict rules on double-dipping in multiple categories and other MLS's. While I can legally maximize the exposure of a property listing by placing it in both the NH and the MA MLS systems (unrelated) AND by listing a condo (or mobile home) as a RESIDENTIAL property as well, when I sell the property, I can ONLY put the SOLD data in ONE MLS, and in ONE category. All the other listings need to be deleted by the MLS system, so that they are not used as future comps. (comparable sales) by other agents, appraisers, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guineas
We're not talking 5% here. It's closer to a 25% error. At that point you might as well draw a straight line and call that data. Worse is that it took them 5 years to admit that there was a discrepancy, all throughout that time they had press release after press release of "housing market is turning the corner."
And really why should housing sales be difficult to track? It shouldn't be any more difficult to track than the number of registered cars. It's not like there's no record of sale or registration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
