Toyota moves from Ca to Tx: When are bluestates going to actively fight job poachers?

[betterdemsonly]

This is basically outsourcing from one state to another and it is a race to bottom all the same.

Toyota Motor Corporation announced this week that it will be moving over 5000 jobs in sales, management, and marketing from Torrance, CA in Los Angeles County to Plano Texas, a suburb of Dallas. Toyota established a its first US relationship with Southern California in 1957 and opened its national sales and marketing headquarters in Torrance in 1982. This move to Texas follows a recent junket to California by reactionary Texas governor Rick Perry seeking to poach California industries by offering "a better business climate" in his proto-feudal plutocratic state, i.e. a climate in which social services, affordable health care, environmental protections, and women's rights have been sacrificed at the altar of lower taxes for the rich and bowing to the desires of the corporations, big oil, and the 1%.

Toyota is seeing record profits this year of around $17 billion. (Sarcasm ahead.) Of course, Toyota cannot afford the expensive environment of Los Angeles. Why in 2012, Californians actually agreed to slightly increase taxes on the top 0.1% to collect money for schools, healthcare, environmental protections, and infrastructure--the nerve. Californians actually believed in a slight move towards a balance between corporate and personal profits and the welfare of the middle class, working class, and poor. Bad for business indeed.

The United States saw its most prosperous and productive years when corporations such as IBM and GM had a covenant with their employees in the mid-20th century. CEOs and senior leaders still made reasonable bonuses and companies made reasonable profits, but workers were also provided the means for a middle class existence via solid salaries, stable pensions, and subsidized healthcare. Everyone understood the value of providing for the next generation of Americans via taxes to improve education and infrastructure. As so many have identified, the obsessive quest for unlimited wealth by corporations and the uber-rich, and the gross inequalities that have been built upon the backs of the labor and financial contributions of the middle and working classes since the 1980s, have devastated and destroyed this partnership and..........

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Won-t-Get-Fooled-Again-by-Jill-Jackson-Class_Class_Corporate_Corporations-140428-12.html?show=votes

We can't really put tariffs on them because they are technically part of the USA, but we probably can do other things to make the race to the bottoms unprofitable. Any ideas? We really need to fight. I think we will see more of this because they are in a panic over raising minimum wage. We need to be ready for it and come up with ways to counter it. Tax breaks and union busting are surrendering to economic terror. These guys aren't moving because they are unprofitable to so I don't feel bad for them at all.

[Travis_0004]

1. They are also leaving KY, which I would not consider a blue state.

[betterdemsonly]

2. If they are leaving because of regs and taxes they

committing the same sort of terror. This is bad because reduces the standards everywhere.

[pstokely]

42. no direct flights to Japan from KY

tx

[oldhippie]

3. I have been very surprised ...

... how little discussion this is getting on DU.

[betterdemsonly]

5. This is far worse than what Sterling did.

This harms far more people, and the workers that are harmed are so much more desperate. The state of California will become the New Michigan. All workers will have the standard of living reduced and women will be forced to live in states dominated by dominionists in order to get jobs. Their moving to these places, won't increase blue political power either because the districts they live in will be gerrymandered, and voting will be made difficult. My own family is suffering this fate. I have sisters that have been forced by economic circumstance to move to Charlotte Nc. They didn't want to. They had no choice.

[flying rabbit]

12. Me too.

[GeorgeGist]

4. I'm sure it will do wonders for employee morale.

[sammytko]

6. I know! I live in Texas and would love to move to California

This state is so blah - Plano - yuck.

[GOPee]

8. Same boat in Texas.

But having a job that isn't laying off every week has it's advantages, but not enough IHO.. Still we have to find a happy medium with peoples livelihoods in mind. I want to live in a well balanced community, with the welfare of needy, and the healthy economy that encourages well paying wages.

[malokvale77]

13. That will not be found in present day Texas

The people making the decisions at Toyota are not concerned with the workers welfare. Well paying wages here are practically nonexistent.

I wonder if they even considered the potential exploding chemical plants they will be surrounded by? The air quality and heat have become unbearable, not to mention the dwindling water supply for those lush lawns they insist upon in Plano.

Bad decision on Toyota's part.

[msongs]

7. toyota wants all the welfare benefits with none of the responsibility to give back nt

[Johonny]

9. Given the housing situation in the southbay

you wonder how many of these people are underwater in their house value. What an absolute nightmare for the area.

It is hard to imagine given prop 13 that their property taxes were all that much relative to what they'd pay for a new property in Texas. California generally grades out as a tax friendly place to be rich hence why the southbay around Toyota is filled with rich people. Unless Dallas gave them a sweetheart property tax deal then I bet they could end up paying MORE in property taxes than in Torrance. Usually when companies move like this all the "brain" trust that can afford to retire or find work elsewhere leaves. Now would be a good time not to invest in Toyota which is likely going to suffer a severe brain drain from gutting operations in three different states to chase the fantasy that is Texas gold.

[tammywammy]

10. Higher property taxes in Texas because there's no state income tax.

From what I've heard from others registering a vehicle in CA is much more expensive. Overall the price of housing is cheaper than CA too. Where I work we have people transferring from CA because overall it's cheaper to live here.

[betterdemsonly]

22. The price of car insurance is much higher in Tx

as are sales taxes so it won't be good for lower wage workers at all. The uninsured rate is high. There is no place to get birth control unless you are insured. There is no zoning so another explosion such as the sort that happened in West can happen again. The schools in Texas are bad unless you can afford private schools. Even in localities where they are good, science classes will likely teach creationism, and history classes will likely teach Dan Barton's revisionism.

[tammywammy]

33. Ugh

Last edited Wed Apr 30, 2014, 09:37 AM - Edit history (1)

You know there are places that still give out birth control, like the Planned Parenthood in the city I live in - in Texas. There is also zoning, except famously Houston. Plano (where Toyota is moving) isn't some sort of backwoods rural area. Looking at the list here: http://www.boe.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rates.cgi?LETTER=A&LIST=CITY sales tax is not higher in Texas. State tax rate is 6.0% and with the added on for cities the top amount is 8.25% (my city is at 8%). Torrance is 9%.

It's not all peaches and cream in Texas, but there's no need to exaggerate. I didn't care to look up the car insurance and uninsured motorist rates.

[kentauros]

40. If you want to bash Texas, any chance to exaggerate is "legitimate."

And they say we tell tall tales

[Demo_Chris]

107. Good grief what a silly post...

Plano is a city. A modern and very nice city. The schools there are undoubtedly fine, and no they do not teach creationism. Texas has basically the same zoning everywhere else has -- which is to say that areas zoned for heavy industry (which would be anywhere in America alongside a rail line and many industrial parks) have the potential for horrific accidents. Or did you perhaps think that these don't happen in California? If so, here's a tip: Texas arguably has fewer of them than California. Having lived just down the road from both Torrance and Plano I can tell you the actual difference. Plano is nicer. But no beach.

[betterdemsonly]

111. It is still in a republican state

and republican ideas are rewarded by the move. So everyone will have to imitate republicans and get rid of unions, minimum wage, zoning laws, and women's rights. Everything business finds inconvenient must go. Child labor laws, sexual harassment laws. All taxes, you name it. We all must elect Rick Friggen Perry, or somebody like him! Race to the bottom! Run faster!

[sendero]

161. It's surreal..

... when has to defend Plano. But you are correct, I have no idea where the gentleman got his information.

Houston is the city with virtually no property zoning. As far as I know, no other major or even middling Tx city has that oddball situation.

Yes, sales taxes in most cities hover around 8.25%. Property taxes are high, but property prices are low compared to any other major city in the country. You can buy a nice 3 bedroom 1800 sqFt house for $110K in a smaller town, $160K in a more metro area. That is true in very few places in America.

There is a lot about Tx I do not like. But I get tired of the continual bashing and especially the incorrect assertions. I actually prefer higher property taxes over an income tax as it hits rich people who live off their wealth instead of their income the most. And who needs another tax return to file.

Over the years, I have found the property taxing authorities to be generally competent and fair.

As for Toyota, I'm wondering when the head-in-clouds folks around here will get it. Corporations are like sharks. They feed continually because they have to. Toyota could care less about its workers when the rubber meets the road. They will find plenty of good cheap laborers here in Tx.

It is pointless to hate the player, hate the game. Get the game changed.

[betterdemsonly]

177. So has Plano found a way to opt-out of the officially sanctioned curriculum

in history. This is as defined by the State Board of Education.

Thomas Who?
Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father considered by many to be the author of the Declaration of Independence, is also credited with coining the phrase “separation of church and state.” According to The New York Times, that coinage didn’t make him very popular with the conservative members of the board. They removed Jefferson from a list of great Enlightenment philosophers — including John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu and Jean Jacques Rousseau — who inspired political revolutions from the 1700s to today. They also removed the word “Enlightenment” and added Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. After much criticism, they added Jefferson back, but left out “Enlightenment” resulting in a standard very different from the original.

Downplaying Religious Freedom
A proposed amendment from one of the Democratic board members would have required students to “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.” One Republican member argued that the “founders didn’t intend for separation of church and state in America” and called the statement “not historically accurate” and the conservative members voted down the standard. The board then added a new one that suggests the “separation of church and state” is not a key principle of the First Amendment.

Censoring Capitalism
Citing negative connotations, conservative board members decreed that all instances of the word “capitalism” should be replaced with “free-enterprise system.” They also objected to “democratic,” so “democratic societies” and “representative democracy” were replaced by “republic.” Any reference to American “imperialism” was also stricken and replaced with “expansionism.” In the textbooks, imperialism could only be associated with European and Russian colonialism.


The Great Society (Maybe Not So Great?)
The board approved a standard requiring students to learn about “any unintended consequences” of the Great Society, affirmative action and Title IX. Other attempts to change the way the civil rights movement was taught, including a provision that would require students learn that it created “unreasonable expectations for equal outcomes,” failed to pass.........

http://billmoyers.com/content/messing-with-texas-textbooks/

[AnalystInParadise]

179. Yes because the internet is always right

My youngest had to write a paper last year about the Enlightenment. I do enjoy watching people who don't live here tell those of us who do live here, how terrible it is here, when half the time they are talking about shit that is not true or outright lies.

FYI, my youngest graduated from a public Texas school and has an SAT score and an acceptance letter to a Rice University. I think the kids in "Tejas" are going to be all right. But please keep selling your crap, your axe needs sharpening.

[betterdemsonly]

182. So native Texan Bill Moyers is lying about the curriculum the School Board is mandating.

all public schools in Texas teach, and the fact that one child of an admittedly well off guy is doing alright means we should never worry. Your son wrote a paper on it and that means everything is ok. The fact that he may have repeated the mistakes of the curriculum and may have been graded on those mistakes is just fine so long as it passes muster with Rice U.

[AnalystInParadise]

183. It was my daughter

nice job with the confirmation bias that it was a boy. You really have some hatred issues for Texas and I am not well off, I am very middle class. I just refuse to buy the bullshit that if I DON'T support Unions I am a bad person. What a load of freaking horseshit. That attitude you guys have that if we DON'T support you by default we are terrible people is why a lot of people don't give a flying crap what you think. Being arrogant, rude and judgemental towards those who merely disagree is not a charming trait, bucko.

[betterdemsonly]

185. You are the one that made a personal thing

because you can't refute any facts.

You think your unverifiable, anonymous, anecdotes, are completely authoritative and should end all discussion.

Downthread you admitted you were a 1%er who is so comfy, you could retire at anytime, so you don't have to care about the economy, and you said those of us who do made bad choices, which is pretty darn right wing if you ask me. It also means you were dishonest when you called yourself middle class. What in the heck are you doing here?

[Romulox]

191. The guy is obviously not sincere. He'll get bored and go back to that other site, most likely. nt

[betterdemsonly]

194. He admitted he had a security clearance

so I am guessing he's getting a salary to be here. He will probably be here a good long time. Read his bio. His pet cause is demonizing Manning and Snowden.

[AnalystInParadise]

132. Bullshit flag number one thrown

California is SIXTH most expensive in the country. Texas is 25th. http://money.msn.com/auto-insurance/highest-car-insurance-rates-by-state

[AnalystInParadise]

133. Bullshit flag number two thrown

Apparently more kids graduate from the horrible Texas schools than the "enlightened" California schools.

http://dashboard.ed.gov/statecomparison.aspx?i=e&id=5&wt=0

Want to keep playing this game and keep getting crushed, I'll be more than happy to oblige you.

[alp227]

147. But what do those TX HS grads know, compared to a CA HS grad?

Given the recent political meddling by the Texas State Board of Ed, whether scratching Algebra II from the grad requirements, spinning history until it lionizes Christianity and patriarchy, etc., don't you think TX HS diplomas are sorta...tarnished? With that kind of "education system" in the Lone Star State, the numbers mean jack.

[AnalystInParadise]

156. LOL

I am not the one losing businesses left and right to a bunch of in your opinion uneducated morons. My governor might be a fucktard and a half, but seems like the moron yokels in this state (as you like to imagine us) seem to be doing just fine.

Thank you for your input but the statistics say otherwise. Cheers.

Also this will help you. Have fun with this. I rest my case and expect you to twist this multiple ways to try and overcome the data. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own data.

Education

http://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/torrance_ca/plano_tx/education

Cost of Living

http://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/torrance_ca/plano_tx/costofliving

Economy

http://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/torrance_ca/plano_tx/economy

Health

http://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/torrance_ca/plano_tx/health


Two areas where Torrance outperforms Plano??

Crime, though they are nearly identical

http://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/torrance_ca/plano_tx/crime

And the weather

http://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/torrance_ca/plano_tx/climate

[betterdemsonly]

164. Apparently Texas falsifies its dropout rate by counting dropouts as homeschooled

His charges spurred a state audit of 16 Houston high schools that found more than 3,000 dropouts hiding in the data. “The pressure on school principals is intense,” Kimball told FRONTLINE. “If they don’t get that dropout rate down, and they don’t get their students performing well, then they get fired.”

Since then, Kimball said, the culture among top officials in the district has changed — administrators have shown much lower tolerance for false data. Schools also must provide documentation for where students go, making it tougher to fudge the numbers.

But the problem hasn’t gone away. Earlier this year, two Houston principals made headlines when they were indicted for falsifying dropout data at a middle and high school. Investigators alleged they were forging documents to show that students had transferred out of state.

“Every time we crack down on some of these practices of skirting around the true dropout rates, people come up with a new out,” said Robert Sanborn, the president of Children at Risk, a nonprofit education-policy group based in Texas.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/education/dropout-nation/how-private-schools-help-lower-texas-dropout-numbers/

It obviously some people are on this board as community boosters for certain states and don't even care about issues most of us are here for.

This thread also has a guy with a union tag that believe unions should be sacrificed if it makes things difficult for business. Astroturfing and pr has ruined the internet.

[Dreamer Tatum]

81. Prop 13? Probably irrelevant.

The people moving out have almost certainly purchased their homes within the last 10 years or so, at high enough prices
to reset the tax base.

It's a shame more people don't understand Prop 13.

[Johonny]

116. talking about company that probably bought the land in 1982

compared to buying land new in Texas in 2014. It's hard to start a new business and compete against an old one paying property taxes at vastly lower rates. Real estate advantages of long term established companies compared to start ups is a REAL Prop 13 problem. At least it has been since I've been in California. That's why people have been working so hard on the business property versus commercial property.

My argument on residential was that anyone that bought or took equity out (which is a huge amount of people) is probably selling at a huge lose. Which wasn't part of the prop 13 argument. But whatever believe what you want.

It's a shame more people don't understand Prop 13.

[Demo_Chris]

11. Good deal for Texas and Plano, bummer for California...

Plano is a nice city, and any workers who decide to relocate will likely enjoy lower housing prices and no state income tax. In any case, this is fantastic news for Texas.

[X_Digger]

15. And on the other hand..

We get more people from California yukking it up about 'cowboys' in Fort Worth, complaining about the smell of that horse pasture down the street, or the just *dreadful* lack of {insert-whatever-the-hell-it-is-that-they-just-cant-live-without} in their new neighborhood.

I've got a relatively new neighbor down the street who retired here from California, and the list of things that either a) piss him off or b) tickle his funny bone are apparently never ending. Mostly a) piss him off, though.

[betterdemsonly]

18. I don't care about Texas or California

I care about states not getting rewarded for degraded environmental, labor standards, women's rights. Those conditions are all horrible in Texas and there is no hope they will ever improve, because of gerrymandering. All states will will eliminate, labor and environmental standards, and will gut women's rights to compete with Texas. That is awful for all non elites.

[Demo_Chris]

21. I travel a lot, every week I am in a new small town...

And even in the most rural Bible belt hick towns things are getting better. In some ways shockingly fast. You wont see it in the polls and elected officials for a while yet, but that's because the old folks still have their bony fists clutching all the power, but when they are gone things are going to shift.

[betterdemsonly]

26. Pretty skeptical of that

If there is any social progress some state will undercut Texas in medievalism. They'd move to Mississippi or something.

[AnalystInParadise]

134. Arrogant nonsense

you are proving my point exactly that I made the other day. Say anything negative about California and you get carpet bombed, say anything nice about Texas and people act like you are Rush Limbaugh's love child. Texas is doing something right, whether you like it or dislike it, people in Texas that did not have jobs will now have jobs. People in California should have no difficulty finding new work since that state is as close to perfect as possible, according to some of you.

[badtoworse]

135. I think it's called sour grapes

[joeglow3]

14. California sucks when it comes to taxes

For years, California would not refund tax overpayments. And, they paid interest of 0% on the money they refused to refund.

For years, California had a clearly unfair and illegal LLC fee and refused to change it.

While I agree with your sentiment, California has been down right corrupt in their dealings and I can understand why companies are bailing.

[betterdemsonly]

27. I don't think that is nearly as awful as getting blown up

or not being able to use birth control.

[joeglow3]

28. And everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I don't think Toyota is worried about getting blown up or using birth control.

[betterdemsonly]

32. I think corporations should honor their

charters and serve the needs of the public who gave it to them.

[joeglow3]

37. Please elaborate on that

This is a multinational corporation. Who do they owe this obligation to? Which country? How do you determine which state? At what point can a company say they are being abused by a state or government and move elsewhere?

Now, I agree states need to quit offering so many incentives, as it only creates a race to the bottom. That said, I have worked in multi state taxation for a number of years and no state fucks you as hard as New York and California. New York is notorious for sending tax assessments to people/entities they know for a fact owe nothing in an attempt to find someone willing to just pay or settle. Any person did this and they would be charged with fraud. As stated above, what California has done with their LLC fees and keeping overpayments interest is not much better.

[oldhippie]

62. Could you please cite a couple of passages ....

.... from their corporate charter about their obligations to serve the needs of the public?

You do have a copy of their charter, don't you?

[pstokely]

74. they also don't appear to be worried about their employees kids being taught creationism

and they probably also cover birth control unlike Hobby Lobby

[joeglow3]

75. How come we only care about employees with kids?

What is so special about kids that people with them get to go to the front of the line?

[former9thward]

126. My god, birth control is available in Texas.

What world are you living in?

[npk]

143. Thank You!

It's all I can do to bite my tongue on DU these days.

[betterdemsonly]

163. It is not available in most areas if you are uninsured

and need planned parenthood.

You have to be living under a rock not to know that.

A State Abandons Poor & Uninsured Women
Apr 29, 2014 12:56 pm
Texas women are being denied access to abortion care, birth control and family planning.
Share

You could forgive the women of Texas’ Rio Grande Valley for being confused. The same state policies that have removed their access to safe, legal abortion have also contrived to eliminate their access to birth control and health care. Last month, the Rio Grande Valley’s two local abortion clinics were closed under a new state omnibus law. The state legislature also slashed family-planning funds and closed family-planning providers. Many women had already been frequenting flea markets to buy pills to end their pregnancies (a questionably safe practice to begin with); there, they also sought out contraception, like birth control pills or injectable Depo-Provera. In response, the local sheriff raided the flea markets. Now that option, too, is gone. Despite significant funding cuts, Planned Parenthood has been able to maintain a weekly clinic; women wait months for an appointment and hours in the waiting room to see a single nurse practitioner. “Sixty-six percent of the funds were slashed completely and given to other programs that don’t do family planning,” said Patricio Gonzalez, the CEO of Planned Parenthood of Hidalgo County. While the remaining programs may be worthwhile, Gonzalez said, “they’re not for women, especially not poor and uninsured women.”
.............

http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/cheats/2014/04/29/a-state-abandons-poor-and-uninsured-women.html

[former9thward]

188. I and most people have never used insurance to buy birth control in my life.

So if anyone is living under a rock, as you so politely put it, its you. Birth control is relatively inexpensive. The links you posted are about abortion which is a different topic.

[betterdemsonly]

193. You didn't even bother reading it.

Quote
"The state legislature also slashed family-planning funds and closed family-planning providers. Many women had already been frequenting flea markets to buy pills to end their pregnancies (a questionably safe practice to begin with); there, they also sought out contraception, like birth control pills or injectable Depo-Provera"


Those forms of birth control aren't cheap at all. The uninsured did need Planned Parenthood. The idea that they are cheap is a view you share in common with Rick Perry, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.


Quote
"At the Conservative Political Action Conference last week, Ann Coulter mocked the Obama administration for requiring health insurance to cover birth control by saying “birth control costs $20 a month; an abortion is $400 or $500 at the most, you don’t get insurance for that.” First of all, Coulter is wrong, or lying. Perhaps she’s never been without insurance herself and she doesn’t understand the difference between a co-payment and what something costs without insurance. Twenty dollars per month might be what one pays for the pill with insurance. Without it, you can pay over $100. This is, in other words, precisely what you have insurance for.

But just as disturbing is how economically out of touch such a leading conservative is. Coulter doesn’t think $240 per year for contraception or $500 for an abortion is unaffordable to anyone. Clearly, she’s never met many normal Americans. There are, in fact, milions of people—especially teenagers—who don’t have that money at their disposal." http://www.thenation.com/blog/166318/rich-republicans-say-birth-control-cheap



At least half the Texas apologists in this thread either share Rick Perry's antiunion views or Rick Perry's views on birth control. There is a slight possibility they real dems, but not much of one. Too bad republican talking points are no longer alertable on this forum. I don't want to share a tent with people who have the views expressed.

[former9thward]

195. And I don't want to share a tent with someone who puts out 'facts' that are not true.

So we have something in common. You can get a 28 day supply of birth control pills at Target or Walmart for about $9. You may not think that is cheap but it is.

[betterdemsonly]

196. Only on certain varieties of the pill

Many women can't use those varieties owing to side effects. In addition women in very rural areas don't have any Walmarts and Targets around, and may not have good transportation. Also state antitrust laws have prohibited many Walmarts and Targets from offering these prices. You still have to a get a prescription for those drugs, and that is very expensive if you are uninsured. You are still using Rick Perry's talking points.

55% of young women have struggled to afford birthcontrol, stats gathered before Texas denied family planning services to 77% of all prospective users in the state.

Washington, DC— Nearly three-fourths of American voters (71 percent) believe insurers should be required to fully cover the birth control pill and other forms of prescription contraception as they will be required to do for other preventive health care services under the new health care reform law, according to new data released today.

In addition, the survey found that access to affordable birth control is a serious issue. The survey reports that one in three women voters (34 percent) have struggled with the cost of prescription birth control at some point in their lives. For young adult women, who are most likely to experience an unintended pregnancy, more than half (55 percent) experienced a time when they could not afford to use birth control consistently.

The survey, conducted by Hart Research Associates and commissioned by Planned Parenthood Action Fund, found overwhelming and widespread public support for national policies that would provide prescription birth control approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at no cost to all women with health insurance.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/survey-nearly-three-four-voters-america-support-fully-covering-prescription-birth-control-33863.htm

[IronGate]

146. Why wouldn't one be able to use birth control in Texas?

Are you saying that birth control is illegal in Texas?
Care to provide a link to the specific law outlawing birth control?

[moondust]

16. Jennifer Granholm has.

She was on the Daily Show in 2011 discussing "the problem of inter-state job competition in America." Haven't heard much about it since...until asshole Rick Perry went a-poaching in California recently.

[pnwmom]

17. But how? The state of WA just gave Boeing billions in perks and Boeing said thanks

and then sent half their high level researchers to non-union states (union and non-union people).

[betterdemsonly]

19. Perks do nothing but increase

inequality, and you end up adopting the same low standards as the state your competing with. I don't care about any of the states. I care about workers. Something like a tax penalty would by more like it. Make it cost too much to engage in labor arbitrage. Between States and between counties.

[pnwmom]

20. A tax penalty would drive Boeing completely out of here. I don't understand how you think

that would help.

By the way, WA didn't adopt "low standards." We gave them tax breaks.

[betterdemsonly]

24. We need a national tax penalty for this sort of behavior

and if they leave the country. Outright tarriffs.

[pnwmom]

25. Only a national solution would help. But that's awfully hard to imagine happening.n/t

[Romulox]

31. It's like a game of "musical chairs" that's been going on some 50 years now.

It wouldn't be fair to all the children who've already lost their chair (i.e. the industrial midwest, which has already been savaged by this self-same inter-state competition) to declare the game "unfair" now.

[betterdemsonly]

38. Yes and the question was how to stop it

without racing the bottom in states that still have something left.

[Romulox]

39. I don't think you can stop it. Once you buy into the logic of cheap labor, a race-to-the-bottom

is inevitable. What happens is this--all your out of work neighbors simply don't have any money to pay you.

Californians are just experiencing a phenomenon that they themselves hastened. Irony isn't the word.

[betterdemsonly]

46. I don't buy into the logic of cheap labor

n/t

[Romulox]

192. Americans do though. Toyota is #1 in the US, remember. It's been a non-union shop since day 1. nt

[Demo_Chris]

23. Why did Toyota move? nt

[yeoman6987]

54. Because California has become extremely expensive with taxes

Texas has a much more favorable tax structure for businesses. Of course everyone wanted Texas to turn blue, this is helping it.

[pstokely]

55. but how many will actually come from CA?

a lot of those employees won't be trading beaches for bigger houses, they'll stay in CA and Toyota will replace them with someone cheaper and younger, when Nissan NA moved to Nashville from CA most of it's then employees stayed in CA, Hyundai has actually expanded it's American HQ in OC

[yeoman6987]

56. It depends

Some people will put career before the beach. Some will stay in California. It is an individual decision. I most likely would move especially if I had a decent number of years in the company. This has been going on for years. I remember my Dad was transferred out of state by the same company in 1976. We all moved and it turned out pretty good. I don't know why this is such a surprise to folks. Transferring with the job has been going on for decades. In fact, I have found it decrease a bit.

[pstokely]

57. it's a loss for a blue state, a win for a red state

they're blaming taxes, unions, regulations, etc., but DFW is closer to Toyota's plants and suppliers, they probably would have moved even without massive corporate welfare from Goodhair or some other place, it's cheaper to hire a Texas Tech grad than a UCLA grad if they don't mind possible brain drain

[npk]

144. Can you elaborate on your last statement

Are you saying that a Texas Tech grad is automatically less educated or equipped to perform the task Toyota will hire them for, than a UCLA grad. That's a pretty ignorant statement to make on it's face, if that is what you intended.

[pstokely]

153. Well UCLA is more selective than Texas Tech or Oklahoma State, and UT

Last edited Thu May 1, 2014, 05:42 AM - Edit history (1)

the best talent may not be interested than no regulations, no income tax, or Jerryworld

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/p/UCLA_Profile.htm
http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/p/UT_Austin.htm
http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/p/texas-tech.htm
http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/p/oklahoma-state.htm

[AnalystInParadise]

180. But why didn't you talk about Rice University?

Interesting since they are more selective than UCLA. I would put a UT grad against a UCLA grad and expect pretty similar results. Wouldn't you?

[sweetapogee]

59. 10 years ago

my company closed our facility on the Jersey Shore and moved. Out of 100 workers, I was one of 5 who chose to move to PA. Best decision we ever made. Not that PA is so good, but the cost of living and slower pace has been very good for us. So it all depends on the individual. My guess is the bulk of the Toyota workers offered positions in TX will take it. From what I can tell they are not hourly workers.

[haele]

167. Toyota moved because they need to consolidate their North American operations.

They used to build Toyota parts and vehicles in California, but have scaled way back and moved everything east over the past couple decades - when we had Republican Governors, BTW...
So having an operations and sales center in California when that's pretty much the only Toyota plant facilities in the state no longer makes sense. A friend who just retired from Toyota Torrence there tells me this wasn't a surprise at all; they had been thinking of moving to the SE closer to their manufacturing plants for a couple years already.
Perry apparently gave them a good deal to move now. Probably promised them a dollar a year 10-year lease on a business park that has been empty since the real estate bust.

Haele

[tammywammy]

168. They're moving to the Legacy Business Park in Plano

This is a popular business area. It won't be " dollar a year 10-year lease on a business park that has been empty since the real estate bust."

[haele]

170. Okay - so it's not as sweetheart as it potentially could have been...

But the costs of moving are a lot more expensive than just giving a 30 day notice, packing the place up, and moving out. There has to be some cost/benefit for the move to Texas, and much of it would have to be in waived leasing and other taxes and fees for a significant period of time to make up for the costs of shutting down and disposing of what they own in California.

Fairly soon, all those subsidies that encourage companies to move will catch up with the state of Texas. One still has to pay for infrastructure and upkeep to support those large corporations that are getting a free ride to make profits on - and California found that out the hard way over the 1990's and 2000's. Which is why we "aren't so business friendly" as we used to be.

Haele

[MohRokTah]

29. Thanks for this OP. I'm in the market for a new car.

Toyota is now off the list.

[Savannahmann]

44. Why?

Personally I am boycotting as many things California as possible. Why are you taking Toyota off the list?

[sweetapogee]

60. perhaps

the available colors of the Prius are not acceptable?

[Romulox]

30. Wait...the people who go out of their way to buy non union made product will care about this why?

Because it's California (this time)?

These were the same people who didn't care (many were/are gleeful about it!) the destruction of the industrial Midwest that accompanied Toyota's rise to dominance, mind you.

[betterdemsonly]

35. And so the game will continue because you think

this is about states and not workers.

[Romulox]

36. It's not up to me. It's up to Toyota's consumers. They're anti-union, pro-race-to-the-bottom

This didn't all start yesterday, you know. There's a history, and a context. Toyota is the choice of union-busters, and has been, since the beginning.

[betterdemsonly]

47. I am well aware of that

we need to turn it around though

[Demo_Chris]

53. Toyota Prius, the union busters car of choice. nt

[badtoworse]

61. That's not true. People just want to get the best car they can for their money

The last car we bought was a mid-size SUV. We looked at the GMC Acadia and the Toyota Highlander. The Highlander was better built, had more features and cost less money. In short, it was a better car.

We would have bought the Acadia, but we were disappointed in it.

[Romulox]

94. Listen to yourself. You went non-union to save a buck. That's what union-busting is all about.

[badtoworse]

108. Save a buck? Try a few thousand more for an inferior car.

Sorry, but that's not a choice consumers should have to make.

[Romulox]

174. And I'm sure they save thousands per head by moving from California. So why complain? nt

[AnalystInParadise]

136. So wait I bought a car that cost me and my family less money

allowing me more money to put my kids through college and I am the bad guy? Good luck selling that.

[Romulox]

173. I didn't invent the concept of "solidarity", I'm just trying to explain it to you guys.

It *doesn't* mean that you get to buy a non-union car, and then *everybody else* rallies to your side when somebody undercuts your cheap labor with even cheaper labor. That's just infantile.

[AnalystInParadise]

178. My job is recession proof

Having a security clearance at my level means I have work until the day I don't feel like working anymore. Some people make better choices than others.

[Romulox]

190. So maybe YOU are the scorpion in the story, instead of the frog. The moral is the same:

namely, quit whining when your own ideology bites you in the behind.

[Open_n_Shut]

169. Maybe they should make a competitive product...

Why should the average consumer, who especially nowadays in these crappy economic times, be browbeaten into buying an inferior vehicle?

[Romulox]

172. The point of this thread is that *California* isn't putting out a "competitive product".

It's a whine that one of their fellow race-to-the-bottom contestants is pulling ahead. Boohoo.

[PubsFU]

66. Agree NOT buying a non union made car should

be the discussion here.

I do not understand the mindset of those who say they support workers, unions and the middle class yet buy non union made cars, it is no different then middle class republicans voting for tax cuts for the rich and cuts to social programs.

Buying a non union made car is no different then voting against your own self interest

Talk about cognitive dissonance!

[AnalystInParadise]

137. I bought a non union car

saved 7,000 dollars. That was just enough to help my daughter pay for her college of choice rather than her third choice. Sorry friend, but my family comes first.

[PubsFU]

157. Guess you must be part of the 1% whose wages for labor are not impacted in anyway, shape or form

by union wages.

Many talk the talk but few walk the walk.

By Their Deeds, You Shall Know Them.

[AnalystInParadise]

181. Yeah I am actually.

Good guess.

[Populist_Prole]

184. Is that a deliberate taunt? Or is it sarcasm?

Just wondering. Surely you must realize the incongruence of such an opinion to a progressive forum. Progressive not just in the "save the whales" and "earth day" bullshit sense, but in deference to the hoi-polloi.

[PubsFU]

186. So basically you are just self centered and selfish

OK at least others will know where you stand and from my point of view cannot be counted on or trusted.

[LTX]

187. How exactly did you "save 7,000 dollars" by buying a non-union car?

Was there something on the window sticker that said "non-union package: -$7,000"? What kind of car did you buy, and what did you pay for it?

[Savannahmann]

90. To the average person, the average consumer, it's about bang for buck.

In 2005 I was in the market for a mini-van. I shopped around. I compared quality, warranty, cost, and expected reliability. It came down to two choices, the Ford or the Kia. I went with the then new company Kia. The reasons boiled down to cost versus quality. The Kia came with a 100k mile warranty, the Ford, Dodge, Chevy, all had 36k mile warranties. The cost of the Ford was nearly double what the Kia cost.

Think about that last statement for a moment. The Kia with the 100k mile warranty cost about half as much as the Ford with the 36k mile warranty. Now I can understand getting two for the price of one, but why would I get one for the price of two? That is what it came down to, the fact that the Ford was going to cost me almost double what the Kia would.

2012 came around and again, the need for a mini-van presented itself. Again I shopped around. Again I compared the models, and again I made a choice based upon the same factors, cost, quality, expected life of the vehicle, and bang for the buck. The price of the various models was going to be in the same ballpark. The warranty was going to be reasonably similar. So we had equaled price, and we had equaled warranty. That left quality, and that left bang for buck, or features of the vehicle.

I ended up buying the Toyota Sienna. I considered the Kia, and then decided if I was going to pay Toyota prices, I might as well get " target="_blank">Toyota quality and reliability. It isn't the first Toyota I've owned, and probably won't be the last. This time however, the final two models was the Volkswagen and the Toyota, and the final thing that pushed Toyota over the edge was that the Sienna was built in Indiana of 75% American parts. It came down to how many American Jobs could be tied to the vehicle, and Toyota won. I nearly ordered the mobility assist model which is the only factory installed, as opposed to after market add on, mobility assist system for handicapped people there is.

Toyota's system is brilliant. The rear passenger seat waits until the door opens automatically, the seat turns, and then slides out and down to the ground allowing the limited mobility person to get in and out of the car with much more ease than trying to crawl into it.

I'm already thinking about the next car, the Sienna is the Wife's, and I am not going to drive it any more than I must. I got the Hand me down Kia for driving to work. When the Kia gives up the ghost, my choice is almost certainly going to be a Toyota Tacoma pick up truck unless Volkswagen starts making a truck, which I kind of need around the rural areas I'm in. I definitely want one car that is 4WD in case the dirt road I live on gets exceedingly soupy during an extended rain storm. Did I mention that the Tacoma is built using 70% US parts in the US?

The Toyota Tacoma is well known quality, and well known reliability. After all of those decisions, I learned of Volkswagen's green earth policies at the plant in Chattanooga. I kind of wish I had bought the Volkswagen, because that stuff is astonishing in it's broad spectrum approach to conservation of resources and earth friendly production.

[Romulox]

93. OK. That same analysis applies with equal force to the average person. *You* haven't been excused

from the race-to-the-bottom competition that you support by buying non-union.

[Savannahmann]

104. Indeed?

The Kia had a better warranty, 100k miles opposed to 36k miles. But even if I had lain that aside, if the prices had been somewhat comparable, then the Ford would have been a better choice. But the prices weren't close to equal. Now, this is money that I work for, I sweat for, I get aches and pains for. This is not money that comes easily, and it's not something that is done casually.

The next decision, Ford didn't offer a Mini-van, the closest I could come was the explorer, which wouldn't work because the wife is handicapped, and can't climb up into the SUV, or down into a car, the mini-van seat is at the best level for her to ease into it. Dodge offered one, but it was a disaster of a machine with poor ratings in many catagories. Chevrolet offered huge vans, far outside of our needs. How disloyal am I now? The companies in question didn't offer a vehicle that met my needs in the slightest. But we will continue.

The Ford Fusion is built in Mexico, you can confirm the percentage of American made here. The Ford Fusion is roughly speaking 20% american made. The Chevrolet Cruze is about 40% American made.

But let's take a moment and consider the import cars. Let's take a look at the Toyota Prius. It's built only in Japan. But it is shipped over here on a boat. The boat is guilded to the dock by tugboats and by Harbor Pilots. They are all Americans, and part of a union. The boat is unloaded by the International Longshoremen's unions. ILA on the East Coast, the ILWA on the West. The cars are then loaded onto truck driven by drivers, a good many are Teamsters, or rail cars handled by people who are in the Rail Road union.

The van I bought from Toyota that was built in Indiana was 70% American made. That means that the remaining 30% parts were shipped in by truck and rail. Again Teamsters and railroad union. Then the completed cars were shipped by rail and truck, once again teamsters and railroad unions.

Now do you see my obvious question? Why are we unconcerned about the ILA, ILWA, Teamsters, Railroad Union workers? What makes their efforts less worthy than those of a union around Detriot? The workers in the other plants, like Volkswagen, have the right to vote, and they do. If they choose to be a part of the Union, I admire and support their choice. If they choose against it, I may raise an eyebrow at them, questioning their wisdom, but I am not going to announce that their decision requires me to boycott them. Only the actions of the people that are unsupportable, in other words effect the rights of the people would I take such actions in response to a vote, which is why I am still boycotting as many California things as I possibly can. The majority of the voters passed Prop 8, and because the AG did the right and IMO constitutional thing in not defending that abomination, does not mean that the proof appears to be that a majority of Californian Citizens are Homophobic and opposed to equal rights for all people.

Yes, the Unions have done a lot of really great things in the past. the problem is the present, and the future. Safety regulations under OSHA are often as stringent, if not more so, than Union requirements. The ILWA slowed down their work during a contract dispute and said that without a contract they had to work to OSHA standards. Standards for truck drivers are now law, and managed by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. These standards are enforced by "Diesel Bears" or State Police who specialize in Commercial Truck regulation enforcement. I know, I was a truck driver. Discrimination is enforced by many laws, both state and federal, via the courts and the labor boards in the states. OSHA can shut a factory down if safety is ignored. Labor Laws are both federal, and state. Breaks, lunches, and numbers of hours worked are all legislated now, and no longer can the sweat shops of yesteryear exist. The only exception may be those that operate using undocumented workers, but even those are falling out of favor.

I've worked in Union Shops, and non union shops. They both have the exact same posters up on the wall telling me my rights under the law in case I'm injured at work. They both have the same lines painted to show where safety equipement must be worn. They both have the same overtime rules. The same breaks apply to both places. The reason both are the same is the law requires employers to put those posters up, and provide those benefits to the workers.

Teamsters are active in Texas. The ILA unloads and loads ships in Texas. The railroad workers in Texas, are union. Why should I punish those union workers because the only one not present is the UAW? Why is it patriotic to punish the Union Workers who are active in the state because one union isn't there? The UAW could be there, but the workers would have to say yes, they want them there. Many people feel as I have described above, that they would get little from the Union, and it's not my job to change their minds, it's the job of the Union to show they are relevent. The ILA, Teamsters, and Railroad unions manage to demonstrate their relevence to the workers. If the ILA is unable to do so to those who matter, those who are in a position to vote, then that is not anyones fault but mine.

But let's take that to Chattanooga shall we? " target="_blank">Volkswagen has the only car plant in the world to get the Platinum certification for environmental policy. They have thirty acers of solar panels. They use a revolutionary system to capture overspray of the painting process. They have used high efficiency LED lights, motion sensors to turn lights off when not in use. They landscaped with native plants that were hardy enough to survive without excess watering. They saved a creek that was drowning in trash, and insulated the building exceptionally well. They capture rainwater and use it in the industrial process and in toilets, thus saving millions of gallons of water from the city. As one who is concerned about Global Warming, shouldn't I support those companies that are taking the available technology and techniques and support them?

Or am I supposed to shun a company that invested $1 Billion in environmentally friendly technology because the UAW isn't there in favor of a factory that pollutes more but has the right union?

[Romulox]

105. Standing up for one's principles has a cost. So does not doing so.

Your wall-o-text notwithstanding.

[Savannahmann]

106. So in other words

Fuck the ILA, that union doesn't matter. Fuck the Teamsers, they don't matter either. The railroad union, fuck them. Fuck the environment, because the UAW isn't in the greenest car plant on earth.

My point is that it's never as clear cut as some may wish to make it. I would also point out that the world doesn't revolve around the UAW, and IF everyone suddenly started buying the Big Three again, and eschewing the "foreign" imports, and those foreign brands built here, that a lot of Americans, and a lot of union workers, would suffer. But whatever, we've already found that your attitude towards those unions is somewhat less than supportive.

[AnalystInParadise]

138. My principles

revolve around doing what is best for my family, but fuck me and my family, huh? Charming.

[Union Scribe]

110. Yep.

It's been very curious watching this. Like seeing a cheating ex get dumped.

[Mr.Bill]

34. I'm betting they will pay their people less in Texas. Toyota will gain, their workers will not.

They will justify it by saying, hey, there's no state income tax here, housing is cheaper, etc. They will calculate it down to a no-gain for their employees.

[joeglow3]

76. Why shouldn't they

I have NEVER understood why businesses would operate in a high cost of living state. Majority of those states are that way because of massive population and scarcity of resources (i.e. land/space). Why not operate where your employees can be slightly better off (from a cost of living standpoint), while company is also slightly better off with paying less?

[pstokely]

80. the talent needed may be attracted to places that have a cost of living

often large urban areas, Toyota is keeping a styling center in CA

[joeglow3]

87. I agree.

I live in Omaha and we have 5 Fortune 500 companies here. We could clearly handle 1 or 2 more, but if 5 more come here, there is not way we would have the talent needed.

[pstokely]

97. but the talent needed for some companies might be in NY or CA instead of Omaha

low cost of living or low taxes doesn't matter to those kind of people

[joeglow3]

103. Currently, maybe

Google, Yahoo and many other tech companies have been constructing operations in the midwest. I would not be surprised to see more operations move to the Silicone Prairie as the talent is continually being upgraded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Prairie

[Recursion]

148. Workers in Plano will gain; it's a better paying job than average there even if it's less than CA

That's the big problem, isn't it? You can't base CA's prosperity on TX staying poor...

[Mr.Bill]

152. How do you know Toyota will pay more there

than the average Plano wage you speak of? Why should they or would they? Many who will work there will be current Plano residents anyway. Why pay the ones that move from California more?

[pstokely]

154. It may take a big raise to get those California employees to come to Plano away from the beaches

but they'll just replace people with new cheaper employees if they don't come with the company

[Mr.Bill]

155. I'm sure that's their plan. n/t

[pstokely]

41. there wasn't any need for Toyota to be on the West Coast with their plants in the Midwest/South

the extreme corporate welfare probably lured them from going to Atlanta or Denver instead of TX but the unions can't be blamed since these are mostly white collar jobs, they're also moving jobs from KY to MI and TX

[Romulox]

43. That's fairly circular reasoning. Their plants are in the South because of cheap labor and lack of

unions. That's why Toyota shuttered the NUMMI plant.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

45. Business wise California is a great place to do a lot of things

Head/back office paper pushing isn't one of them.

[JI7]

48. i think california is used when appearances matter more

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

50. To an extent that is true,

Our business, by its very nature (international legal, accounting and regulatory) requires recruiting international lawyers, accountants and wonks. Asking anyone in the world if they want to live here isn't usually a very tough sell most of the time.



But there is more to it than that, the most "pro-business" policy in California is there is nothing to stop you and a couple of your friends from telling your boss to go fuck himself and start a new company the next day. There never would have been a Silicon Valley were it not for the fact that non-compete agreements are generally unenforceable here. If you think you are smarter than the management wherever you work, they can't stop you from competing with them. Most anywhere else a company like Intel would have been sued out of existence before it got of the ground by the former employers of the founders. And there is a self-perpetuating culture around that because the investor funding a start-up today had the same experience ten, twenty or fifty years ago. Funding the weird guys who got fired from Apple or walked out of a sure thing at Microsoft working out of a pool cabana isn't against the conventional wisdom here.

[Lonusca]

70. I have read this board for a number of year

"the most "pro-business" policy in California is there is nothing to stop you and a couple of your friends from telling your boss to go fuck himself and start a new company the next day. There never would have been a Silicon Valley were it not for the fact that non-compete agreements are generally unenforceable here"

Thank you Senator. True words. This makes the area a hotbed of innovation and thinking. In all areas of business - not just tech. And it's good for the little guy.

[zappaman]

49. It's not easy to start or run a business in CA.

Look at what's going on with Siracha.
I think most of the guys who make it difficult don't roll on Shabbos.

[pstokely]

52. If you don't have time for the beach, you might as well go were you get the most for your $

It's supply and demand, more available cheap land in DFW than SoCal

[pstokely]

51. how much corporate welfare would be needed for Toyota to stay in CA?

and how many of their current employees will move with them to TX? Some would rather have beaches than a bigger house, traffic isn't much better in DFW than SoCAL, both are sprawed out

[badtoworse]

58. California is not a business friendly state

8.84% corporate tax rate in California vs. 0% for Texas. About a 10% personal income tax rate in California vs. 0% in Texas. Dealing with regulators in California is a pain in the ass, not so much in Texas.

In the past, I have tried to develop projects in California and gave up. Toyota's move makes complete sense to me.

[oldhippie]

63. Tell me about it ...

I moved from California to Texas 20 years ago. It was a significant upgrade in my standard of living.

As to dealing with the state, it was worth it just to no longer have to deal with the California DMV. Here in Texas when I need to go to the county DMV office for anything I can walk up to the counter, pull up a stool, and the little old ladies working there will offer you coffee or a soft drink and chat awhile before getting down to business. A refreshing change from CA.

[pstokely]

64. an over-regulated state vs no-regulated state

nt

[bullwinkle428]

65. Texas is all sunshine and rainbows until the fertilizer plant one block

from your house blows up in a mushroom cloud.

This comment is not a "Texas-bashing" - it's a bash of the right-wing politicians in that state that have enough of a stranglehold on things where they can move de-regulation along at a break-neck pace. I know damn well that if enough of these assholes gained power in my state of residence (Iowa), we would be facing the very same situation.

[pstokely]

67. lack of fertilizer plant regulations didn't attract Toyota to DFW, it's location did

they choose their new location and then asked for massive corporate welfare they knew they'd get, the race the bottom continues, they were gonna move out of CA anyway with or without massive corporate welfare

[Throd]

68. We used to be able to have nice things in California.

[alp227]

149. So? Should "business friendly" be the be-all end-all of a good state?

Too many people are brainwashed into thinking the Free Market(TM) has their best interests at hand. Shouldn't a civilized nation be the referee for the market?

[badtoworse]

158. It's up to the state to make that decision

As for the Free Market, business is going to operate in its own best interest, not the state's. That's the way it is and how it should be. Businesses always have the option to leave and states need to consider that when they impose high taxes and onerous regulations. At some point, businesses will decide they've had enough and they'll move, which is what Toyota has done.

Some years ago, I was working in power project development and we were considering a project in California. I met with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and they told me what we'd have to do to get an air permit. After hearing their process, we decided they were either crazy or they just didn't want any new plants built in the state. We just gave up on California and focused on Washington and Oregon.

[Starry Messenger]

151. That's why we are the 8th largest economy in the world.

Because we suck so hard.

[badtoworse]

159. You sound like Alfred E Neuman

[Starry Messenger]

160. You sound like Ayn Rand.

Namecalling, so mature.

[badtoworse]

162. Sometime's it's the most efficient way to communicate.

You wouldn't admit if you did, but I'd be willing to bet you laughed at Alfred E Neuman .

[whatthehey]

69. I'm not only unsure of the means, but also the assumptive reason.

I have no dog in this fight. I have no bias for or against either state, while of course preferring CA's typical EC results. But I personally don't see how any state or city has any more claim to a plant or HQ than any other beyond any contracts between the parties. What exactly makes CA have a greater right to these jobs than TX does? Precedent? I've lived in more than a handful of states. Did the first have a greater claim on my taxes than the most recent or those in between? What besides quantity is the difference?

Presumably at some point CA themselves granted some kind of tax relief or aid to have such a large facility located there. I don't know for sure but either they did or did not. If they did, has Toyota fulfilled the obligations detailed in that agreement? If so there is no remaining claim on CA's part. If not then the courts can handle remedy. Furthermore if they did offer benefits, by what principle can they claim unfairness now TX has simply bettered their offer?

Perhaps though CA either stood on principle or by chance needed to offer no benefits in the first place. But then what does Toyota owe them, having employed thousands of CA residents and generated millions in taxes for many years? Should companies be loyal to geography? Again a self-defeating proposition, since if they should be, Toyota would not be in CA in the first place, but rather in Toyota City.

Loyalty to workers? Surely a nice idea, but do we know yet what relocation they are offering for transferees? I've twice moved states with employers, and paid not a penny to do so. One paid me a COLA to move me to a higher cost of living state. The other moved me for free to a lower cost of living state with no reduction in pay - an effective raise, as would the same deal be here assuming no paycuts. I can't recall too many stories of transferees taking lower pay when making this kind of downward affordability move. New hires yes but not transfers. What if te employees refuse to move? Then any disloyalty is not on the company's part. What if Toyota refuses to move any of them and starts afresh with new cheap labor though? A shortsighted and self defeating move I would be surprised to see from a company well known for recognizing the cost of indoctrination, but even then employers and employees owe each other only pay and labor in mutually agreeable amounts and for a mutually agreeable duration. I have also worked for more than a handful of companies, and would never have expected, or agreed to, a lifetime contract with any of them. I value my free agency, and naturally accord my employers the inverse freedom. I give them what I know and what I can achieve. They pay me for it. I expect no other arrangement, certainly not a permanent commitment to the piece of real estate that we both by chance occupy today.

If my employer decided tomorrow to move to, say, Chicago (this happened in a previous gig) I would refuse to go. They are unlikely to offer a raise big enough to compensate for the 4X increase in housing costs, I detest living in cities with huge traffic jams, and I hate the cold. If however Chicago offers them better logistics, better recruitment, and easier access to customers, the reasons for the move as I well know having been on the site selection committee, by what sane rationale should I expect them to value my continued preference or even service over those gains? Same for substantial diminution in tax bills. If they decided to move to Plano I'd think about it. Much would depend on commute time to acceptable housing. If they decided to move to LA I'd certainly only be willing if I could find by wild chance suitable affordable housing within a few miles - people who commute 90 minutes a day each way in horrendous traffic value their free time and sanity far less than I. If they decided to move to Huntsville or Chattanooga or Baton Rouge I'd be on it like a shot. In none of these cases would I expect them to place my wishes very high on the list, because I know full well a sizeable chunk of my colleagues would have exactly opposite wishes, as if you recall one of the key benefits of the real example was a better ability to recruit in Chicago than in semirural Pennsylvania, where the previous HQ was. Much better for me, but not for the large number of specialty engineers they hired. Do you really think DFW is such a terrible place that Toyota will have any trouble recruiting? If you value your preference for CA over your established career, who is being disloyal - you or Toyota?

[pstokely]

71. many natives of CA and KY may not want to move to TX (or MI) even with raise or bigger house

some may just a buyout or retire while it might be easier to sell TX to others without any deep roots in CA or KY or hate the high cost of living in CA, most employees of Nissan stayed in CA when they moved to Nashville even with a lower cost of living, houses are cheaper in Plano than SoCal but probably more expensive than Northern KY

[whatthehey]

78. Sure - and if it's their choice to make then they can decide what's more important

Don't see anything wrong with that. Toyota should no more refuse to move to prevent that decision than they should choose to move in order to give DFW residents the same choice about whether they want to work for Toyota or not. If "roots", which to me seems to be often used as a synonym for "reluctance to change", are more important than continuing employment with your current employer, I certainly think people should have the right to choose to stay where those roots are.

But Toyota's roots are not in CA. Corporations certainly are not people and don't have such considerations at all. Locations with tradition, such as Detroit long was for the big 3, are more to do with supplier availability, logistics and skilled workforce availability than a concept of "roots". For every CA resident unwilling to leave their roots, a DFW resident or someone willing to change theirs now has a shot at that job. Since I have no bias either way, that's a zero sum game to me, and I suspect for Toyota too. I strongly suspect they have quite carefully estimated tribal knowledge loss potential and weighed that into SWOT discussions. Toyota it must be remembered though has one of the strongest indoctrination programs in the world. As long as they don't lose a critical mass of tribal knowledge, and future training costs are lower than future tax and regulatory savings, their decision is valid. Trading people emotionally tied to CA for those emotionally tied, or not, to TX, is nothing more than passing frictional costs.

[pstokely]

82. would you expect a native Texan from DFW to move to CA or NY

nt

[whatthehey]

86. I'm on my 8th state. Why not?

I'm in a medium sized city of 125k in the lower Midwest now. 3 hours from anything you'd call a major league city. The climate is decent but variable, costs are lower than the norm, commutes are trivial and amenities are acceptable but unspectacular. My boss is from Cleveland. My 3 subordinates are from Cincinnatti, Buffalo and a local. My closest peers are from India, Michigan, Tennessee (who incidentally worked for Toyota at NUMMI) and California. None of us are world-renowned geniuses with unlimited expense accounts, but none of us are ten-a-penny people available for minimum wage in any burg on Earth either. Why can almost all of us relocate to and be reasonably happy in a non-headline location (certainly less cosmopolitan and well-served than DFW) and others can't? We do, in a different industry, the kind of jobs Toyota is moving. Why are we so special? We're not. Even entry-level professional types in the office come from national range. I worked for a Belgian in Kansas, an Indian in Upstate New York, and a guy from Iowa in St Paul my last 3 jobs. For white collar workers moving states is spectacularly unspectacular. Sure not everyone is willing to move around, but for this kind of career in my relatively well travelled experience, most are.

[DFW]

101. Sure, why not?

I moved all the way from DFW to NRW (as long as abbreviations are in fashion) for my posting.

[tammywammy]

112. Yes, I've known some that have done exactly that.

I also know people that have transferred from our facility in California to Texas.

[oldhippie]

99. Your logic and reasoning notwithstanding .....

California is blue. Texas is red. We cheer for the blue states 'round these parts.

[whatthehey]

100. and moving thousands of mostly well educated cosmopolitanmiddle class folks into TX won't help that?

CA can spare more Democrats than TX can absorb before they switch positions. And working for a darn furrin car company that places great emphasis on employee involvement and teamwork ain't likely to make the natives more right wing, but could very well subtly have the opposite influence.

[kentauros]

102. Will y'all EVER learn?

http://tumblr.thefjp.org/post/35708791930/mapping-2012-election-votes


I get the impression that all too often on DU, the answer to that is a resounding "No!"

[oldhippie]

113. It looks to me like .....

... California is blue and Texas is red.

Learn what?

[kentauros]

114. I'm guessing, then,

that you've never heard of the word "purple."

Also, that you're basing your definitions on the electoral college map and not the accurate map I presented which is based on population densities by county.

Texas is a purple state, not red.

And really, why do we continue to separate the states? We're a union! We're all in this together. Why be divisive?

[oldhippie]

115. I live in Texas .....

... and it looks pretty fucking red to me, not purple.

And really, why do we continue to separate the states? We're a union! We're all in this together. Why be divisive?

Because it's The United STATES of America?

Most Texans will tell you that they are Texans first and US citizens a distant second. We may not like that, but that's the way it is, especially outside the few urban areas in Texas.

[kentauros]

117. Then you're not looking at the map I provided

and instead are looking at an electoral map. I see plenty of blue and purple. So, I can only surmise you're still focused on an electoral map that doesn't differentiate voting records by population densities.

And as I figure you've likely looked at my profile by now, I'm also in Texas (native to the state, just so you know.) What you may also not understand when some of us Texans say they're Texans first, and US citizens second, is the idea that we're being facetious. Sure, there are those that aren't, but don't assume everyone is serious about. Sometimes it's just fun to say that just to see if we can get a rise out of the uptight folks.

By the way, we live in the UNITED States of America. Or did you purposely ignore that part for some weird concept that we are actually separate?

Now this is interesting, and supports the idea that Texas is at least purple, and turning blue, seeing as how almost all of our major cities and urban areas (Austin, Beaumont/Port Arthur, Brownsville/McAllen, Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, Houston, San Antonio) are strong purple to blue (Corpus appears to be the last to convert) :

Texas Historical Rural and Urban Populations, 1950–2005



So much for the misinformed contention that we're a "red" state.

[oldhippie]

123. Whatever ....

You think your way, I'll think mine.

So much for the misinformed contention that we're a "red" state.

Good luck with that.

[Orsino]

72. Faster-better-cheaper wins every time.

Should California have dueled Texas in a tax-rate race to the bottom?

[pstokely]

73. it wouldn't have helped, Toyota wanted a central location

Teabaggers are now hoping this will get CA and other states into the race to the bottom

[randys1]

77. CA should refuse to allow a single new Toyota to be sold in the state

That might change the minds of the toyota execs...this is getting ridiculous

[whatthehey]

79. Should Japan have done so when Toyota hired people in CA in the first place?

Surely Japanese locations have a prior claim on Toyota jobs than CA? Why is it ok to benefit from geographical moves and not ok to suffer? Should all companies be chained by immutable law to the zipcode in which they originated? Is one move ok? Two?

[Throd]

84. Then no company would ever set up shop in California again.

California needs to acknowledge that it has created an environment unattractive to business.

Reminds me of a guy I knew who treated women like crap and then got upset when they left him.

[randys1]

85. what is unattractive about it? CA expects them to pay taxes like everyone else?

America is broken, when we create status quo that a corp doesnt have to comply with oversight or pay taxes, then we are creating a mess, which is why we have a mess

[Throd]

88. It is expensive and difficult to do business in CA.

If it wasn't, business would not be fleeing.

[randys1]

89. do you know why?

ask yourself why is it so cheap to do it in RED states...

[IronGate]

92. Businesses are going to go where it's cheaper to do business,

that's just the way it is.
CA. makes it difficult for a business to operate with their high taxes and sometimes extreme regulations.

[Throd]

95. I have been involved in manufacturing in CA for 20 years. I do know why.

But I don't have an hour to type up all the myriad reasons why it is so difficult to run a business in CA.

[randys1]

118. How hard would it be if you couldnt sell your product here at all?

There is a price to pay for clean air, clean water, intelligent oversight of business.

If you want to make cheap crap in questionable conditions, then do that somewhere else, we just shouldnt let you sell it here or for that matter in America at all

I am big on protectionism

[Throd]

120. I support "Intelligent oversight of business". I don't see that practiced here.

The people I work for don't make "cheap crap in questionable conditions" and wouldn't if they could.

Wanting a more business friendly climate isn't a call to return to 1905 where children work seven days a week and occasionally get an arm ripped of by a machine.

[randys1]

121. You havent said anything but generalities

[Throd]

122. High taxes, CEQA, excessive workman's comp, bogus ADA lawsuits...

[joeglow3]

127. I'll add some

Refusing to refund income tax overpayments to taxpayers and paying them 0% interest while demanding people pay the taxes owed and charging them 7-10% interest.

Creating a CLEARLY unconstitutional LLC fee and threatening to refuse to allow them to conduct business unless it is paid, even after multiple courts ruled it unconstitutional.

In short, they fuck companies over in a manner that would land you or me in jail if we did it.

[randys1]

128. that's what i thought

if you want to pollute the environment or not cover injured workers go to India

[oldhippie]

129. You get your wish, kinda, ....

... but they're going to Texas. And people are complaining.

[randys1]

130. If any of us had any guts we would DEMAND

that we make everything we buy, or almost everything

[pstokely]

98. cheaper labor in red states

often less dense areas also

[randys1]

119. That is because people are hungry

the Oligarchs are trying to kill our middle class, this very issue is a great example of how they are doing it

no unions, low wages, etc

[IronGate]

91. So true.

My wife's brother moved his business from Harbor City, CA. to Boulder City, NV.
He just couldn't afford to do business in CA anymore due to the taxes, policies, whereas NV is much more business friendly.
He says it's the best move he made and his business is flourishing.

[joeglow3]

125. Look at post 14

I work in income taxes and can tell you California treats companies like shit compared to just about every other state in the union.

[former9thward]

124. Should the other 49 states refuse to allow Toyota's to be sold if they are not built in their state?

[Dreamer Tatum]

83. Wasn't all that long ago that DU wanted Toyota to die

and now they're bastards for leaving.

[MicaelS]

96. Texans are American citizens, too.

They have just much "right" to those jobs as Californians.

[Jake Stern]

109. As much as I despise Texas this is just the cycle continuing.

There was a time when businesses flocked to CA for, among other things, it's highly educated workforce,a culture that promoted innovation and better climate.

Back in the 50's the owner of the company my great-uncle worked for closed up shop in NYC and relocated to San Diego citing NY's high taxes, byzantine regulations and NY winters.

Now Texas is the hot place to do business due to low taxes, low property costs and low regulation.

Someday Texas will end up where California is today and some other state will be the new Texas.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

That being said, I pay extra airfare to keep from even having to change planes in Texas and would rather take a job manning the grill at McD's than move with a company there.

[AnalystInParadise]

140. You are missing out

After Hawaii and Florida, there is nowhere else in this country I can tolerate living than Texas.

[gulliver]

131. Texas will be blue soon anyway.

They should have moved to Utah.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

141. When my girlfriend was working in the DFW area she got be a bumper sticker

Some crazy woman running for the State House was handing out that said "Don't Californicate Texas" with lines through various symbols (complete with aliased graphics and clipart watermarks) that apparently represent California including a marijuana leaf, pride flag, mouse ears and golden gate bridge etc.

[pstokely]

142. not overnight, but gradually

registration and turnout is the key

[WillowTree]

139. Toyota makes business decisions based on what's best for the company. Quelle surprise!

[Populist_Prole]

145. Didn't realize DU was so teeming with corporatists

I notice economic topics are the wedge issues that bring them out. Here's yet another.

[alp227]

150. What do you expect when the Democratic PARTY has lots of corporatists in office? nt

[betterdemsonly]

165. I think it is astroturfing

In this thread, we have lots of plano community boosters, and a guy with a afcio icon in his sig, who thinks labor laws are too tuff in california.

it really does ruin the board for real dems.

[IronGate]

171. What's an afcio icon?

[haele]

166. I'm not sure it's so much "business environment" issue but consolidation issue that prompted this.

From what I've been hearing (one of my reenactor friends retired last year from the Torrance Toyota complex working on operational strategies), Toyota was already implementing a no new hires/staff attrition policy there as well as the costs of consolidation in many of their North American divisions.
Most of the Torrence employees are supporting products being built in the SE, and this was being considered a distribution and quality assurance strategy move rather than a "it's too expensive to do business in California" move. They had previously been looking at moving some operations to Alabama or Tennessee.
Texas just gave them a better offer that they could take immediately. Just so Perry could brag about poaching.
And a lot of the OC employees are pissed; as another poster indicated, the vested employees who ave been given an offer to move with Toyota Operations are going to be seeing not only a cost of living decrease to move to Texas because "everything's cheaper" - but higher property taxes for the same size housing and higher insurance costs.
And the pain of attempting to sell their California property for market price instead of at quick sell price while they are moving to Texas.

Moving is not cheap for Toyota no matter what incentives Perry's Texas has offered them - unless he's offered to pay all their costs to move and dispose of their California properties also.
As it is, they're going to have to sell the Torrence plant property (unless they think they can lease it out and find a tenant quick), and that's much more difficult and time consuming than either selling a personal home.

Haele

[Romulox]

175. Reminder: Toyota is "consolidating" in the cheap-labor South because that's where they make cars.

[4Q2u2]

176. Who is worse?

A person from another country getting a job by off-shoring or another American Stealing a job from another American.


The South has been stealing jobs from the North for over 100 yrs, with tax free bonds, cheap labor and lax safety standards.

Race to the Bottom.