Toyota Relocating Corporate Offices To Texas
 

"Toyota exit from Torrance inflames Texas/California rivalry" LATimes
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topof...#axzz30h5HjToL

Of course the $40 million gift from Texas taxpayers has nothing to do with this....:rolleyes:

I'd need more than that to move to Texas.

If I owned Texas and Hell I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas.





[Credit to Texas/hell quip to General Phillip Sheridan.]

They are moving closer to Mexico. :D

Thats some piss ass chump change, all the others that moved got 4 times that amount.

Common practice.

Now Cal is loosing all it's big businesses because of democratic economic policies.

Via con dios pendejos ;). Toyota esto muertos to California. I can't wait to see how much their sales plummet in California after this.

Will not matter on bit for sales.

Tesla took over the NUMMI assembly plant in Fremontesla, CA.
Tesla is contributing quite a bit to the local economy which Toyota never did. I never did own nor tempted to own a Toyota.

Ok

You have a far better chance at owning Toyota than this.

http://www.teslasociety.com/pictures...a_roadster.jpg

A bit more in your budget


http://www.corolland.com/images/corolla/1969.jpg

Toyota also pulled out of Australia and moved production from there to South Korea.

I couldn't care less if Toyota moved their business to the Sun. There are many things I think are wonderful about Japanese culture, employee relations aren't one of them.

Dave

Torrance's larges employer by far.


Torrance city officials confirmed the move would impact approximately 4,000 Torrance-based Toyota employees, including 2,000 in motor sales, about 1,000 in the company's financial sector and 1,000 in manufacturing.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe, who represents the Fourth District, called the move "extremely disappointing and concerning" for the county.

"For years, we’ve seen businesses flee California’s high taxes and strict regulations for more business-friendly states like Texas. This mass exodus should have sent a message to our state leaders that something needs to change, and fast," Knabe said in a statement. "This is a textbook case and we need to do an 'exit interview' with Toyota to learn what we can, as a state, do better, so that we stop being a target for other states."
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...257082981.html

The bigger picture is that Texas has become more economically competitive while California has become less so, particularly for energy- and labor-intensive industries. Let us count the ways.

Start with right-to-work laws in southern states that have limited unionization and thus labor costs. Just 4.8% of workers in Texas and 6.1% in Tennessee belong to a union compared to 16.4% in California. Real estate is also cheaper in the South due to less restrictive zoning and environmental regulations, and taxes are lower. According to the Tax Foundation, the state-local tax burden is more than 50% higher in California than in Tennessee and Texas, which don't levy a personal income tax. California's top 13.3% marginal rate is the highest in the country.

Electricity prices are also about 50% higher in California than in the South due to the Golden State's renewable-energy mandate, and its gas is 70 to 80 cents per gallon more expensive because of taxes and blending requirements.

The hostility to fossil fuels has cut California's oil production in half from its 1985 peak while output in Texas has doubled in three years and lifted incomes. The Bureau of Economic Analysis has ranked Midland the country's fastest growing metropolitan area in personal income for the past three years. Nearby Odessa was second for the last two. Between 2008 and 2012, personal income grew 8.05% in Midland and 6.98% in Odessa compared to 4.48% in San Jose and 1.81% in Los Angeles. In March, the unemployment rate was 3.2% in Odessa versus 6.8% in San Jose and 9.7% in L.A.

No city epitomizes California's malaise better than Los Angeles, which hasn't recovered its mojo since the post-Cold War aerospace wind-down. Since 1990 its employment base has declined by 3.1%, which is more than even Detroit (-2.8%). Job growth in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio exceeded 50% over the same period.

According to a report last year by the Los Angeles 2020 Commission, led by such Democratic grandees as Mickey Kantor, Gray Davis and Hilda Solis, Los Angeles added one million new residents between 1980 and 2010 but lost 165,000 jobs. L.A.'s poverty rate of 17.6% is higher than any other major American city. The city has developed a "barbell" economy "typical of developing world cities, like São Paulo," the report notes, with "growth at the top of the income ladder and at the bottom, while the middle class shrinks year after year."

Mr. Brown, promoting his re-election tour, doesn't seem all that concerned that California's middle-class jobs engines are fleeing. "We've got a few problems, we have lots of little burdens and regulations and taxes," the Governor said on Monday, "but smart people figure out how to make it." California's problem is that smart people have figured out they can make it better elsewhere.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...175451998.html

Meanwhile, the departure from Torrance will leave more than a gap in employment.

According to the city's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the company was also Torrance's third-highest property taxpayer, with a taxable assessed value of $473 million or over 2 percent of the city's total taxable assessed value last year. Toyota also paid the city $203,037 in water revenue.

Torrance had a $271.5 million budget in 2013 and about $121.5 million in long-term debt. In December 2012, credit rating agency Moody's downgraded Torrance to Aa2 from Aa1, citing a moderately weakened general fund compared to pre-recession levels, increasing pension payments and public safety costs.

The departure could also hurt efforts by Los Angeles to regain its footing in the job market. The region's unemployment rate stood at 8.1 percent in February, well above the national rate of 6.7 percent.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A3R1AF20140428

Ya Bob nothing to do with operating a business and again this is an extremely small incentive. So that mean Toyota is moving for much bigger reasons, gee I wonder what they could be?

As recently as the 1980s, California still had the aura of an unstoppable growth machine, and such a view would have been unthinkable. Now, Texas is the object of economic envy and California is the object lesson, the toxic state.

It's a partisan narrative to be sure, with Republican-run Texas as a low-tax, right-to-work mecca for business. But propaganda aside, though, there is statistical reality to the idea that Texas is rising and California is falling back. In 2000, California’s jobless rate was 4.9%, while the Texas rate was 4.4%. Ten years later, that half-percentage-point gap had widened to more than four points: 12.4% to 8.2%. Texas is also adding more jobs than California, which has 50% more people.

Californians needs to ask if the state has started a cycle of decline, in which a loss of jobs to other states leads to a loss of tax-paying residents, and in turn to a deterioration of the public services that make the state even less desirable for businesses. This “toxic state syndrome,” as it might be called, could be very difficult to shake. The businesses that bring jobs (or take jobs with them when they leave) look for certain things: a skilled work force, relatively low costs, sound infrastructure and public services, and—maybe most important of all—some assurance that these conditions will stay the same.

A state in chronic fiscal distress can’t offer such predictability, and California is a very distressed state. For most of the past decade, its credit rating has been at or near last place in the nation; currently it is rated the lowest by Standard & Poor’s, and Moody’s ranks only Illinois lower. Texas, on the other hand, is just one notch from the top on the S&P scale.

Californians could make things worse this November when voters decide on a measure, backed by Gov. Jerry Brown, to raise its income tax rates (already near the highest in the nation) to prevent deep cuts in school spending. That might produce a temporary burst of revenue but leave the state even more dependent on a volatile revenue source. Then again, if the tax hike doesn’t pass, schools will take a hit that could leave California that much less attractive to employers and employees.

What may be most damaging about California’s tax debate is its tone of desperation. The state is like a man at the end of his rope who has taken hostages—in this case, the schools. Meanwhile, Texas and other states are poaching California jobs with tax incentives at a scale that California state and local governments can’t afford, most recently with the $36 million package of tax breaks and investment funds that convinced Apple Inc. to expand in Austin and add some 3,600 jobs.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...xas-rises.html

Two dozen companies commit to leaving California

Feb 18, 2013

Two dozen California companies have said they are tired of the business-bashing in Sacramento, along with the high taxes.


The day after Proposition 30 passed, triggering $6 billion in new annual taxes, Arizona launched a campaign to lure some of California’s top companies.

KCRA 3 has learned that 24 chief executives are flying to Phoenix, Ariz., to explore the land of lower taxes and a much friendlier business environment.

Business relocation expert Joe Vranich has been counting.

“I tracked for 2011, that 254 companies of all sizes and shapes and kinds left the state for primarily other states,” said Vranich, the president of Spectrum Location Services in Irvine.

He told KCRA 3 that companies leave California for three primary reasons: “High taxes, excessive regulations and the threat of really ridiculous lawsuits.”



Read more: http://www.kcra.com/news/Two-dozen-c...#ixzz30l0tzK82

Some interesting points. I am not sure they are all accurate, but well intended for sure.

I have to ask, is this a good thing that Toyota is moving to texas? I understand that it is for their bottom line. But what about the employees? When should a companies dedication to its employees trump increases to the bottom line? At some point "free market" no longer is free and the people become slaves to the businesses. I can't see when that is ever good. When a business has to move, that is one thing. To me it is a bit unethical to fire a plant full of people so that you can rehire a new group of employees at a lower wage.

I do think you are correct in the reasoning that Toyota did this for income tax, energy cost, real-estate costs, etc. So why not bring the employees with them to texas and share some of the savings with them. Thus they are more competitive and the employees win too? Just a thought

If I get this correctly, these are corporate/management jobs and not manufacturing jobs so the union question is pretty much a moot point. I also get the impression that Toyota was going to move somewhere else to consolidate, no matter what. It sounds like Toyota is going to offer many of their current employees the opportunity to move to Texas and keep their jobs, which could work out even better for the employee as long as they are paid the same.

Texas to pay $10,000 for each Toyota job relocated
www.marketwatch.com/story/texas-to-pay-10000-for-each-toyota-job-relocated-2014-04-28

This is bribery. I don't believe that the state of Texas is paying this bribe to relocate workers from other states, especially California. Question I would have is if the cost of operation is so much lower than California, why didn't they move on their own rather than be enticed monetarily?

It is a rhetorical question. :(

They were going to move on their own. They had already narrowed it down to Denver, Atlanta, Charlotte, or Dallas.
Texas just happened to be willing offer a big financial incentive to boot.

http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=7403


As far as Texas is concerned it also has the highest number of uninsured Americans in the United States.

Toyota is moving for all those reasons. Employees are offered their jobs if they want to relocate. Their wage will stay the same, they get $10,000 to help in the cost of the move. No income tax in Texas so thats about a 20% raise. Home cost between the two locations is around 50% less. All cost of living expenses are less in Texas.

This is a huge win for employees if they are able to move. Even if they own a house here with a mortgage they can probably get out of debt.

Agreed. I have not looked into all of the details of the Texas transaction, but my intuition tells me that relocating current employees from California is not in the cards. Typically a state (or city) will offer incentives based on the number of "local" jobs they create.

I keep saying the incentive is mute as it's extremely lower than what other states offer big corporations.

Typically, corporate jobs are offered an opportunity to move with the company. Since this is a fairly extreme restructure, I am sure there will be some job loss as they are bringing folks from New York and Kentucky, as well as from California. I don't think there are going to be a whole lot of Texans working for Toyota for a while. It will however bring a lot of money to the local economy with several thousand new people spending money and paying taxes, plus a whole lot of Texans working to build the facilities.

A slave to the state? I don't think I'll ever buy that one. I am 50 and have had numerous jobs. I have been through all sorts of downsizing, outsourcing, etc. it never had to do with the state, never. It did have to do with corporate profits, sometime needed, other times just plain greed.

The new campus will bring together approximately 4,000 employees from sales, marketing, engineering, manufacturing and finance. That includes 2,000 employees at the current headquarters in Torrance, Calif.; 1,000 employees at Toyota Financial Services, which is also in California; and 1,000 employees from Toyota's engineering and manufacturing center in Erlanger, Ky.


Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the state offered Toyota $40 million in incentives from the taxpayer-funded Texas Enterprise Fund. Perry, who made two visits to California to lure Toyota, said Texas expects Toyota to invest $300 million in the new headquarters.

Toyota said it will donate $10 million to nonprofits and community organizations in California and Kentucky on top of any existing commitments. Those funds will be distributed over five years starting in 2017.

Lentz said Toyota expects to keep more employees than Nissan did because of a generous package of benefits for those who stay. Any employee who wants to move will be given a relocation package and retention bonus, he said. The company is also offering to send employees and their spouses or partners to look around the new locations.

Lentz told employees about the changes Monday morning in a large conference room in Torrance. The announcement was broadcast elsewhere. He said it should help that most employees will have two or three years to plan their moves.

"They understand the business decision. It's a little bit of a shock in the beginning to people. They're trying to understand, what does this mean for me, what does this mean for my job," he said. "We made it very clear to them that we want them to come along with us."

By 1975, Toyota had become the top import brand in the U.S. It opened its current U.S. headquarters in Torrance in 1982.

Toyota sold 2.2 million cars and trucks in the U.S. last year.

Dominique said the placement of the headquarters probably won't have much impact on Toyota's sales in California, which is a critical market for the automaker. The Toyota Prius hybrid was the best-selling vehicle in California last year, and Toyota controlled 22 percent of California's new car market.

"From a consumer's point of view there won't be much change," he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireS...3502134?page=2

I wouldn't call this move "Greed" although a nice buzz word for some. Businesses need an environment to thrive they can't and will not stay in an area that hinders growth. It would just be stupid to stay at a location that cost you and your employees so much more to live and operate. I live in Cal so I know how high all the cost are climbing. I love the state that I was born and raised in but the bureaucracy is even pushing me out of here.

"Two dozen California companies have said they are tired of the business-bashing in Sacramento, along with the high taxes."

“I tracked for 2011, that 254 companies of all sizes and shapes and kinds left the state for primarily other states,” said Vranich, the president of Spectrum Location Services in Irvine.

He told KCRA 3 that companies leave California for three primary reasons: “High taxes, excessive regulations and the threat of really ridiculous lawsuits.”

It's not a manufacturing operation. Very few hourly employees involved.

^What Mark said.^

Oh, yes, they would. In fact, states have been pitted against each other in the "race to the bottom" just as workers have.

And, that's what it's all about. Thing is, just as it is with workers, once states give so much tax incentive or possibly even start paying companies to locate in their states..........what is to be gained from their presence? Remember the thread about TEXAS crowing about having rapid job growth but struggling to figure out how they are going to pay for the infrastructure to support it? The discussions we've had about the millions of Americans who DO WORK, but can't support a basic cost of living with their wages?

Hello!

Welcome to America in the 21st Century. It's a Brave New World, isn't it?

Dave

Dan,

That's the real "Big Picture", you half-wit.

Tell me. Do you really think this is good?

Dave

Who makes up your data for you? Tell them to do a better job.

The California state income tax has brackets, starting at 2% and topping out at 12.3% for income over $508K. See http://www.tax-brackets.org/californiataxtable

A single person with no dependents would, according to the tax calculator on that page, pay $4170 in states tax on an income of $75,000. That works out to 5.6%. Not 20%.

It's not about the employees and their taxes anyways. Toyota would locate in Massachusetts, if it was somehow to corporates advantage. Nobody gives a hoot about the employee. Figure it out, guys.

Besides, Don. IIRC, he has made comments about how "people" pay 50% federal tax, the corporate tax is 50%, now "people" pay 20% state tax.

As they say here in the Old Dominion, "He's talkin' out his ass.". Just ignore the troll.

Dave

Not to mention that property taxes in Texas are about double, so if you sold a home in California for 300K and bought one in Texas for 200K, you are still going to be paying higher property taxes in Texas. Texas would still probably have a slight tax benefit to the moving employee, but it won't be as great as it looks if he buys his own home.

They don't give a shit about the employee. It's not about the employee.

Precisely what I was trying to point out. Not a simple cost reduction but a bidding process. Once again governments giving away money that they do not have or cannot afford to in the long run. Hate to be a cynic.

Property taxes are frozen in CA from the time of purchase (Prop 101). So if some one has lived in their home for several years, their effective property tax will be relatively low. So it may not just be a simple comparison of house cost and tax rates.

The Reverse-Joads of California - http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...26402863024028

True dat.