Amazon New HQ (50k jobs), MA? (Boston: job market, taxes, zoning)

[wolfgang239]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Oh, well, NYC is also on the Atlantic, so lets combine that with Boston. Great system.

No, let's not. Boston and NYC aren't connected as part of either a CSA or MSA in this region. The federal government assigns these designations for a reason. I'm not sure why you of all people are so vehemently disagreeing with the government in this instance.

They are also very distinct areas in a colloquial manner as well as geographically when compared to SF and San Jose.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Oh, well, NYC is also on the Atlantic, so lets combine that with Boston. Great system.

Never heard Stanford associated with SF, or with San Jose. It's associated with the Rose Bowl sure, and Silicon Valley more so than San Francisco. But people say Stanford is in Palo Alto, not San Francisco. When people fly to the Rose Bowl they never say hey, I'm visiting San Francisco, they say I'm going to Palo Alto. People in SF don't associate it with SF, people going to Stanford don't say they're in SF, people visiting it doing say that either... even if that's the airport they end up flying into.

The better comparison is Boston to Providence. And both are in the same CSA. The link between San zjose and San Francisco is a lot closer, though. For one, you don't have a centuries old state line between the two regions. Just a county line. Also, there's the nine county Bay Area which most people seem to take as the overall region. From my time living there in the late 80s through the late 90s, that was a region people generally recognized. There's no equivalent in this area, so our CSA feels a lot less cohesive.

Within that Bay Area there's the East Bay, South Bay, North Bay, Peninsula, and the City. Again, something locals are aware of but maybe not other people. The census-assigned MSAs don't really align with local divisions, as they basically lump the central parts, give the South Bay it's own MSA, and split the North Bay into 4 different MSAs. I'm sure the census has its reasons, but it seems somewhat arbitrary.

For what it's worth, the San Francisco 49ers now play in the San Jose MSA. And the Rose Bowl is in Pasadena, which isn't anywhere near San Francisco or Palo Alto. It's not even LA, even though it's the home stadium for UCLA.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by wolfgang239

No, let's not. Boston and NYC aren't connected as part of either a CSA or MSA in this region. The federal government assigns these designations for a reason. I'm not sure why you of all people are so vehemently disagreeing with the government in this instance.
.

And San Jose and San Francisco aren't connected as a MSA either. I am agreeing with the government on that respect, it is you that are creating designations. So, stop making things up to suit your agenda, please.

[wolfgang239]

Originally Posted by timberline742

And San Jose and San Francisco aren't connected as a MSA either. I am agreeing with the government on that respect, it is you that are creating designations. So, stop making things up to suit your agenda, please.

I wasn't making things up, but I accidentally mixed up CSA and MSA. I was referring specifically to the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA. Very easy to see how they are so far ahead of NYC and Boston.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by wolfgang239

I wasn't making things up, but I accidentally mixed up CSA and MSA. I was referring specifically to the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA. Very easy to see how they are so far ahead of NYC and Boston.

Sure it is, their CSA is all within the state and therefore state policies can impact it, while Boston's is saddled with freaking NH and RI, with their dysfunctional governments, as part of theirs. Still, if you're a biotech start up, or a clean tech start up, you're probably better off in Boston. It's amazing how much above it's weight Boston hits in this arena.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by timberline742

And San Jose and San Francisco aren't connected as a MSA either. I am agreeing with the government on that respect, it is you that are creating designations. So, stop making things up to suit your agenda, please.

I'm not "making things up". The Bay Area is a well-recognized area. It has a Wikipedia Entry, a Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and a Regional Planning Agency. The Bay Area is a real thing, and the nine-county definition is well known if not universal.

Plus, you know, I lived there for nearly ten years. I went to high school there. I was in the North Bay and did a lot of stuff with schools from the South Bay. There were the regional differences I noted (North, East, South, etc.), but there was definitely a cohesive Bay Area in that, and many other, organizations.

Plus, I don't need to "make this up" to push my agenda. My point is still valid even if you totally reject the concept of a larger Bay Area as a reasonable unit. San Francisco as an MSA had $21b investment in 2015, Boston had $5.6b. San Jose, on its own, had $6.2b. You might make the case that Boston and just San Jose are comparable, but San Francisco is nearly a factor of 4 bigger, even if you don't include San Jose.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I'm not "making things up". The Bay Area is a well-recognized area. It has a Wikipedia Entry, a Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and a Regional Planning Agency. The Bay Area is a real thing, and the nine-county definition is well known if not universal.

Plus, you know, I lived there for nearly ten years. I went to high school there. I was in the North Bay and did a lot of stuff with schools from the South Bay. There were the regional differences I noted (North, East, South, etc.), but there was definitely a cohesive Bay Area in that, and many other, organizations.

Plus, I don't need to "make this up" to push my agenda. My point is still valid even if you totally reject the concept of a larger Bay Area as a reasonable unit. San Francisco as an MSA had $21b investment in 2015, Boston had $5.6b. San Jose, on its own, had $6.2b. You might make the case that Boston and just San Jose are comparable, but San Francisco is nearly a factor of 4 bigger, even if you don't include San Jose.

Did anyone say that SF doesn't have more investment from VC? No. And New England is a "real thing", so what?


And the numbers really don't matter, you have some, someone else has something else. For VC I see San Jose listed at 4.8 b, Boston listed at 3.2 b, and since lots of Boston is biotech which is probably funded through NIH, the difference probably isn't that huge. Definitely comparable.


No one is saying that SF or San Jose doesn't get more, all I freaking said is that they definitely are comparable. It's kind of dumb to suggest they aren't.

[sawyer2]

For what it's worth, because of the magnitude of the investment, California is often segregated by up to 5 regions in VC world when comparing and ranking money allocation,# of deals etc.

1. Sacramento/N Cal
2. SF/N Bay
3. Silicon Valley/S Bay
4. LA/OC
5. San Diego

....with of course SF and Silicon Valley taking the lion's share of California VC money

Boston area is included in 'New England' ...typically not parsed out.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Did anyone say that SF doesn't have more investment from VC? No. And New England is a "real thing", so what?


And the numbers really don't matter, you have some, someone else has something else. For VC I see San Jose listed at 4.8 b, Boston listed at 3.2 b, and since lots of Boston is biotech which is probably funded through NIH, the difference probably isn't that huge. Definitely comparable.


No one is saying that SF or San Jose doesn't get more, all I freaking said is that they definitely are comparable. It's kind of dumb to suggest they aren't.

I guess you have a different notion of when something is comparable. I would say comparable requires at most a factor of 2. I would also say that Boston isn't a comparably sized metro to NYC (20m to vs. 4.6m) just like Boston isn't really comparable to SF ($21b vs. $5.6). That's all. I would say the SF metro is comparable to the Boston metro in terms of population (4.6m vs. 4.6m).

I don't mean to imply anything negative about Boston. I like that it isn't as red hot SF or as big as NYC (just like that I appreciate that it's doing really well compared to places like Scranton, PA). My original point was that Boston is a step down from SF in a good way, but definitely a step down.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I guess you have a different notion of when something is comparable. I would say comparable requires at most a factor of 2. I would also say that Boston isn't a comparably sized metro to NYC (20m to vs. 4.6m) just like Boston isn't really comparable to SF ($21b vs. $5.6). That's all. I would say the SF metro is comparable to the Boston metro in terms of population (4.6m vs. 4.6m).

I don't mean to imply anything negative about Boston. I like that it isn't as red hot SF or as big as NYC (just like that I appreciate that it's doing really well compared to places like Scranton, PA). My original point was that Boston is a step down from SF in a good way, but definitely a step down.

Well, Boston and SF fit then too pretty much under that definition. San Fran, 6.47 billion of VC investment, Boston, 3.14 billion. Pretty much a factor of two.


https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...apital/429255/