Sad to watch SF and SEA be the cause of their own slow-motion downfall.
I moved out of Seattle a couple of months ago. One of the reasons I left was because I knew this was coming.
Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate
71–80 of 103 posts
Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
except housing is about the same as seattle, with much much lower salaries. moving to vancouver doesn't make sense in terms of finances.
Renting is about 30% more expensive in Seattle, and just about every other metric that you can measure costs of living by also favour Vancouver. The fact that Vancouver is on the west coast, and the fact that salaries are lower there than there are in the US is what is currently attracting more technology companies to open offices there. This isn't a theory, Vancouver has Canadas fastest growing tech sector. These ar…
Average price of a detached house in Vancouver is $1.5 million and avg software salary is C$72,945 per year (completely unaffordable). Average price of a detached house in Seattle is $772,729 and avg software salary is $110,907 a year. Still unaffordable and getting moreso, but doable with dual income.
Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate
#73This seems a little silly - it's an irritation, but it's not big enough to amount to anything really. If anything, it hurts lower-end positions more than any other, since it's a flat head tax. If you're counting the beans closely, it starts to make sense to hire 9 people with the salary you might have allotted to 10, and so forth. All this would really seem to do is piss off Amazon and Microsoft and the other big pla…
It only applies to companies that make $20 million a year. At that point, I don't think someone is going to say we won't an extra person because it's the tax. The $15 minimum wage but the companies a lot more. This is essentially thirteen cents an hour tax.
Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In spite of all the bitching about California, more people come in than go out. The truth is the direct opposite[0]: > California continues to see more folks moving elsewhere in the nation rather than relocating here > Last year, California had 142,932 more residents exit to live in other states than arrive > California’s net outmigration has been ongoing for two-decades-plus. [0]: https://www.ocregister.com/2017/1…
> > In spite of all the bitching about California, more people come in than go out. This is correct. > The truth is the direct opposite[0]: No, even your source doesn't support this. You have confused what your source says about domestic migration with total migration. More people are coming in to California than leaving (the state has positive net total migration) even though more people are leaving California for o…
And also births.
The big issue with the migration differential is that it is expensive to move into California while it is relatively cheap to move out.
So, you need a job and you have to save money to eat the differential (rent increase, security deposits, car registration) if you want to move into the state.
Selling your house in most other states barely gets you a down payment on a house in California.
On the other hand, Californians selling their houses and then paying cash to buy another house in Texas, Oregon, etc. is sufficiently common that most of such places have derogatory terms for it.
Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
you don't want to work in downtown seattle for google because of a 275 dollar tax? that's ridiculous. google probably doesn't even have any software engineers working for less than a 100k, and you think about $25 / month?
Not at all. I'm against taxes that cost me more money on the homeless problem while disproportionally effect me more than others. Spending more money locally on the homeless giving them handouts is only going to attract more worsening the problem. My girlfriend was recently assaulted downtown by a homeless person which is why we liked kirkland when we checked it out because there seemed to be less of them in kirkland…
The lack of empathy for those being displaced by huge tech companies moving in and eclipsing everyone else's salary in this thread is incredibly stunning. Not to say that homelessness is entirely caused by this, but its definitely a factor.
91% of the homeless in Seattle are from the greater Seattle region. Home prices have doubled in 10 years, and tripled if you count the bottom of the great recession. Renters have had to move further and further away. Saying there's no effect on people falling into homelessness is both silly and dangerous.
That's not to say Seattle doesn't have some of the blame - they are not great at solving actual problems with their tax money, they're slow, and they don't tend to enforce a lot of quality of life things like panhandlers or break-ins.
But for heavens sake, if you suddenly drop a huge amount of upper class people that buy up all the housing in an area you should have to be at least partially responsible for cleaning up the consequences.
Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate
#76One question comes to mind... I wonder if this will result in more companies allowing/encouraging remote work. Obviously, it won't work in every case. I just wonder if things like this will push companies more in that general direction.
It sounds like a win-win to me. Seattle's housing prices come down and there's more prosperity elsewhere. The only reason everyone is so concentrated in Seattle or the Bay is that the companies insist that they must be there for the talent.
Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all. I'm against taxes that cost me more money on the homeless problem while disproportionally effect me more than others. Spending more money locally on the homeless giving them handouts is only going to attract more worsening the problem. My girlfriend was recently assaulted downtown by a homeless person which is why we liked kirkland when we checked it out because there seemed to be less of them in kirkland…
The lack of empathy for those being displaced by huge tech companies moving in and eclipsing everyone else's salary in this thread is incredibly stunning. Not to say that homelessness is entirely caused by this, but its definitely a factor. 91% of the homeless in Seattle are from the greater Seattle region. Home prices have doubled in 10 years, and tripled if you count the bottom of the great recession. Renters have…
I agree that it does feel like a terrible self-centered choice to be so against this. I'm actually working in Seattle at a smaller software company where I will have to pay that tax. I used to work at Google in Seattle, so I would have had to pay it there too. There's a tremendous problem here with homeless people. I can believe that rich techies coming in and raising prices by increasing demand must have helped push people out of seattle. I want to help, and I support taxing rich people like me to help pay for it. I also want the city to build way more housing so that the prices go down (via usual market forces) and we should also build housing for lower income people with lower prices.
Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
i think the east side is the best place to live, the worst place is sodo.
I don't know many young people that agree with that. Families, sure, east and north side is better for schools and such, since it is basically suburbia. Most of Sodo still isn't zoned for residential.
I have a family and live in the east side :-) I've seen it a million times, people move to seattle, get an apartment, then couple up and buy a smaller condo, have kids, need space, move to the evil eastside.
Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate
#79So let me see if I understand this. Companies hire people, they become successful and make their employeees successful (at least their non warehouse, non call center employees) making the city and population at large successful; growing the economy. For that good they get taxed more? It’s no wonder AMZ for one is looking for an HQ2 location. I know it makes people feel good, but honestly, the only answer to homelessn…
> making the city and population at large successful; growing the economy
The economy doesn't grow for most of the population, only those with the ability and skills to ride the wave. The rest are pushed out and forgotten. This is like asking why someone like Trump would get elected when GDP is at an all time high.
Re: Seattle passes smaller ‘head tax’ on big companies after impassioned debate
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the case of Seattle, Kirkland and Bellevue are host to quite a few small and large tech companies already. The office space is plentiful and cheap on this side of Lake Washington, and there is less of a worry of being hit with poorly planned taxes and regulations that Seattle is, at this point, infamous for enacting. With the way the housing market is going, and the upcoming King County property tax hike, I wouldn…
East side is far more expensive, and so is office space, head tax notwithstanding. Does the over/under on that work out? My guess is no. Seattle has far better transit, still cheaper housing and office space.
The problem with location is that for almost all the companies I have worked for in the Seattle area, almost every single person lives on the east side (cause we are older, have families, etc and got imported here by Microsoft). New people, those young college kids, they all start in Seattle, whether at amazon or not. When I moved here years ago I wanted to be close to my work, so I was at Microsoft.