Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 451 posts

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#371

Post by pixl97 »

RC_ITR wrote: post #233
jeffbee wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bay Area had 99 straight days of poison air in 2020 and there's no reason to expect 2021 to be any better, especially considering that so far the 2020-2021 water year has been the driest ever recorded in human history.

Texas - Famous for not having wildfires. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Texas_wildfires

Right, and how many have we had since one of the most exceptional years on record? Also our flatter land tends to avoid temp adversions that trap smoke and really reduce air quality.

That said, the pollen is terrible.

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#372

Post by pixl97 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #170
KoftaBob wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the typical person leaving California for Texas is doing so explicitly for the lower cost of living and lower tax burden, why would they vote for policies that go against that goal? You could argue that it's the longtime locals in the Bay Area, those who bought homes cheaply in the 60s/70s, that are usually the NIMBYs voting for the policies that caused the current state of things. Those same people are the least…

I think people moving may like the politics of where they're moving to, in the abstract. But they get there, and they decide they'd like something between where they are and where they came from - say, 25% California and 75% Texas. But that's still trying to move Texas, not all the way to California, but in that direction. To those already in Texas, that raises hackles.

Anecdotally I've heard just that come out of peoples mouths...

"It's cheap here in Texas but why don't you have ___thing that costs millions in tax dollars___"

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#374

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #143
warmfuzzykitten wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't be a problem for local republican politicians as long as people keep moving to already democratic locations like Austin, whose impact has already been gerrymandered away. https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/13/texas-redistricting-...

Gerrymandering makes districts extremely sensitive to population changes. The country was heavily gerrymandered by Democrats until the 1990s, and Republicans managed to flip it around within the decade: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Po... The chart shows the House popular vote compared to the number of House seats. When Biden entered Congress, Democrats were winning 10 percentage points mo…

[deleted]

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#375

Post by throwaway201103 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #317
jeffbee wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem like mid-90s property appreciation in Seattle could have been pinned on Californians anyway. Wouldn't it have been more related to Microsoft, a gigantic and extremely successful company with an in-house Porsche dealership among other perks? I see a similar defective thought process right here in Berkeley, CA. Everyone here blames housing demand on peninsula companies like Facebook, Apple, and Google but…

Microsoft in the mid-90s didn't seem like it was having much impact on Seattle itself. If there was a staffing explosion, it just wasn't evident in town. Redmond and the rest of the 405 corridor? Yeah, maybe. But not so much Seattle itself. By contrast, the "Californication" period (say, 87-94) and the tech boom actually took place in the city itself. Keep in mind that in the 87-94 period, Boeing and UW were still th…

Yeah I would expect that Microsoft in the late 1980s was paying much more modest salaries for software developers. That job didn't really start paying crazy salaries until the VC money arrived with the Dot-Com wave.

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#376

Post by throwaway201103 »

tidepod12 wrote: post #115
avl999 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Californians, after years of having higher salary, more savings, and a job that lets them move, goes to Texas and offers $400k for that same house. The Californian thinks it's a great deal, because they get the same size house they previously lived in for only half the price! And the seller thinks it's great, because he now suddenly gets a huge premium on his previously-valued-at-$250k-house. All of the real es…

The supply of housing isn't a problem in Texas, but "supply and demand" isn't the end of the story. When two Texans want the same house, a bidding war is artificially capped (at, say $300k) because that's all the average Texan can afford. But when a Californian moves in with high net worth and a higher paying job, they can bid much higher, and they don't mind doing so (the mindset I have personally heard from most CA…

> they don't care if they paid more than the average Texan pays, because at the end of the day they're still paying less than half what they were paying in CA

I don't understand not caring about 6 figures of money. Is that really the outlook of the average California tech worker?

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#377

Post by redisman »

beagle3 wrote: post #42

Likely irrelevant, but reminded me of this[0]: """Basically, we’re moving because of William Whyte‘s rule: virtually all corporate relocations involve a move to a location which is closer to the CEO’s home than the old location. Whyte discovered this principle after an extensive study of Fortune 500 companies that left New York City for the suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s""" Tesla will likely move its HQ to Texas foll…

Seems like a good time to invest in some Austin real estate

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#378

Post by throwaway201103 »

monocasa wrote: post #116
lotsofpulp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The Californians, after years of having higher salary, more savings, and a job that lets them move, goes to Texas and offers $400k for that same house. Nobody pays more for something just because they have more savings. They pay more because they might be getting outbid by someone. I don't see the purpose of characterizing that as "California exporting higher costs of living". People with more money outbid people wi…

At least in Denver, it's common to see Californians come in and for the first offer drop down 20% over asking. No bidding war. They want to guarantee they get the house _without_ having to deal with a bidding war, and have enough savings that the marginal cost of each of those dollars is less than those living and working in Denver.

As a seller if I got an opening offer 20% over my ask, I'd counter at 40%. Might as well take while the taking is good.

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#379

Post by jeffbee »

throwaway201103 wrote: post #375
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft in the mid-90s didn't seem like it was having much impact on Seattle itself. If there was a staffing explosion, it just wasn't evident in town. Redmond and the rest of the 405 corridor? Yeah, maybe. But not so much Seattle itself. By contrast, the "Californication" period (say, 87-94) and the tech boom actually took place in the city itself. Keep in mind that in the 87-94 period, Boeing and UW were still th…

Yeah I would expect that Microsoft in the late 1980s was paying much more modest salaries for software developers. That job didn't really start paying crazy salaries until the VC money arrived with the Dot-Com wave.

I'm curious if you are old enough to remember this stuff first-hand. Microsoft employees were importing ships full of Porsches. Not a joke. Here is a 1992 NYT article about how Microsoft HQ had at least 2200 millionaire employees.

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/28/business/microsoft-s-unli...

Re: Oracle Moving HQ to Austin

#380

Post by redisman »

tidepod12 wrote: post #67
rainyMammoth wrote: post #10

How long before all the Californians make Austin the exact same place they fled from?

"Californication" (yes, as referred to in the Red Hot Chili Peppers song) has been a thing for almost a century now. Oregon literally tried to ban immigrants from California back in the 1940s, and Coloradoans have a notorious saying from the 60s "Don't Californicate Colorado" (it used to be a pretty common bumper sticker) due to this effect. Go to Wyoming or Idaho and people feel the same way. California has unfortun…

That songs gonna be stuck in my mind the rest of the night
Post reply on HN