Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas • Hacker News Board

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#171

Post by zer00eyz » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

_jal wrote: post #164

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren’t taxes highly regressive in Texas with sky high property taxes which exempt rich people ?

Here is a recent comparison: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/11/taxes-are-sur... Short answer: yes, Texas is regressive, with tax rates being lower in California for the bottom 60%.

The problem is that the cost of housing (to purchase and rent) is so out of line. I would guess that the "bottom 60%" pay more for housing in ca than they would in taxes in Texas. That payment is wealth transfer to people and not taxes for services.

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#172

Post by wpasc » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

fourstar wrote: post #155

crwalker wrote: post #130

As a San Franciscan, I am so happy to see this. SF needs negative feedback on the poor choices it makes, and so far the tech boom has somewhat obscured the consequences.

The negative feedback is all the people who moved from other states to SF over the years, voted for politicians that virtue signaled loudly enough to attract said transplants’ votes, and then moved to another (likely conservative) state after saving enough money to live comfortably with their new families. That’s ultimately one of the biggest issues in the Bay Area that no one ever talks about.

What about all the longtime existing homeowners who make it very difficult to build new/denser housing?

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#173

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 6:38 PM UTC

pjg wrote: post #106

Am I the only one who thinks nobody is talking about the elephant in the room ? i.e. the cause and effect. Fintech companies like Robinhood have popularized the concept of (a) zero fee trading and (b) better UI/UX and just better service/offering on highly scalable platforms that allow them to introduce new products/services, which are virtually impossible for legacy providers like Schwab. Seems like that is the sing…

> the traditionals haven't been able to survive the second wave of disruption

Pretty much all major American brokerages now offer zero-commission equities trading. It’s been a long time since retail equities traders depended on commissions to butter its bread.

This merger was driven, in part, by the greater fraction of revenues commissions represented ex ante for Ameritrade versus Schwab.

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#174

Post by wutbrodo » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 6:42 PM UTC

rsj_hn wrote: post #167

hkmurakami wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TD Ameritrade is headquartered in Omaha. The HQ location choice is not driven by existing Ameritrafe footprint, or by the merger itself. The FAQ is simply addressing what will be, not starting that there was a cause and effect because of the proposed merger. Also, Schwab was already reducing SF headcount for years. Also, afaik the merger is still in the prices of regulatory review. All this being said, the merger lik…

There is nothing wrong with moving to a better tax jurisdiction because you want lower taxes. It is perfectly legal, happens all the time, and is not something subject to a 'government review', because firms are expected to optimize their behavior in order to avoid taxes as much as possible, and even legally required to do so if they are to meet their obligations to maximize shareholder value. The whole idea that peo…

> and even legally required to do so if they are to meet their obligations to maximize shareholder value.

This is a solid comment overall, but I really wish this particular widespread canard would die already. It's flatly untrue, the kind of myth that lives on because there are so many people who aren't capable of processing the benefits and costs of corporations and treat them as one-dimensional boogeymen out of a children's bedtime story.

(to be clear, that doesn't appear to be the case for you).

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#175

Post by zer00eyz » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 6:43 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #105

zer00eyz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing and taxes in CA are close to oppressive. The housing situation will not change unless CA voters agree to a change in property taxes and they won't. I would also bet that the move will come at the expense of Texas tax payers and to the benefit of Schwabb.

While California taxes are high, this doesn't seem to be the main reason that building more housing is difficult? For that you can blame zoning restrictions and political opposition.

That is a piece of it. But the housing market lacks liquidity due to prop 13. When your tax basis doesn't reflect the value of your property and doesn't keep up with inflation it makes NO sense for you to move in response to market conditions.

Not building housing increases the value of what I already own, and the tax policy means I don't face the economic pressure to change any of it. The two are deeply linked and going to be nearly impossible to change.

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#176

Post by undefined3840 » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC

lykr0n wrote: post #99

undefined3840 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schwab isn’t exactly competing for the “tech” talent pool so there isn’t anything particularly special about staying in SF vs elsewhere for them.

Why not? Billions in assets. Automated investment and market prediction projects. Extremely well built Web UI- you can tell they're hiring industry UI/UX people by the interface they are beta-ing- upgrade in functionality but major downgrade in usability.

A middle of the road developer can make all of those things. You don’t need a 10x ninja in SF who demands 500k/year to do that. Highly doubt Schwab has really been competing on salary in SF for tech roles as is.

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#177

Post by bretthoerner » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

rory096 wrote: post #126

fzeroracer wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to be funny in 5-10 years when the major Texas cities become the next SF because none of them are planning for any sort of large population growth. Austin already suffers from horrific traffic and poor infrastructure. City planning here is a joke.

Austin has been attempting to create a plan for an extensive zoning rewrite for the last several years. It recently restarted after the previous attempt was abandoned in August 2018 (after spending $8.5 million on consultants) because "it became a political lightning rod for preservationists and neighborhood groups who warned the effort would upend longtime neighborhoods." https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2019…

Correct, but this time we brought in a new City Manager to handle the code. He just came from Minneapolis, see what they've done: https://slate.com/business/2018/12/minneapolis-single-family...

We also voted in a city council that is majority pro-density/urbanist, and the new code timeline claims it should be voted in early next year: https://www.austintexas.gov/department/land-development-code...

We still have very loud neighborhood NIMBY groups. But the votes are what matters. I'm hopeful.

As for the grandparent, this doesn't mean suburban traffic will improve. I doubt it ever will, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand -- I recommend relocating to walkable/bikeable/busable parts of town, which are expanding (albeit slowly, because of pushback from drivers).

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#178

Post by rizwank » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #104

justinzollars wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with housing in California is that we do not build it because regulations prohibit new housing. Look at a zoning map in San Francisco. Housing is illegal.

I believe the full reasoning is that (1) if property owners paid property taxes on the full market value of their property, then (2) they would lobby for (or at least cease opposition against) upzoning for density, and (3) more dense housing would be legalized and built.

Can you help me understand how #1 becomes #2?

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#179

Post by jdavis703 » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

throwGuardian wrote: post #159

jdavis703 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is perception. If a company seems to only move their headquarters in name only (IOW most of the staff still stays in SF), then that seems sketchy. If they make a clean separation and shutdown their SF presence, that doesn't appear as dodgy. And these companies are not just moving to Texas. I live in Oakland, CA and many of these companies are relocating here. I don't care if they leave SF, but if they're…

How are they "cheating"? It appears like the city is the one cheating, refusing to enforce criminal law, which taxes are paying for. The city is cheating so much that they make some of the highest per capita tax revenue disappear without providing commensurate services Maybe you can mention the statute relevant to HQs? I'm not aware of any

This was one of the most contentious ballot initiatives for 2018. The text called headquarters "adminstrative offices" FWIW: https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Propositi...

This measure was pretty well known. It was one of the most controversial local measures in 2018 (even gaining substantial regional coverage: I'm in Oakland not SF and heard a lot about it).

Re: Schwab Leaves San Francisco for Texas

#180

Post by guelo » Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 6:50 PM UTC

You probably didn't hear a few weeks ago that Visa will vastly expand it's SF headquarters. Since San Francisco is despised by conservatives we get this constant schadenfreude highlighting of any SF bad news by people who need their partisan views reinforced.