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

Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 85 posts

Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California

#71

Post by rsynnott »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #50
rjbwork wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that his trans child won't speak to him - I surmise it indicates hate, but perhaps not. Usually when people say things like "this is the final straw" it indicates anger. You can read more on the former by searching "Xavier Musk" and/or "Vivian Musk".

Isn't there an inversion taking place in that logic. It stands that she might hate him, but not that he hates her.

Well, he seems to have had a complete and very public nervous breakdown about trans people in the last few years, so, well, you do the maths.

Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California

#72

Post by throwthrowuknow »

acdha wrote: post #55
falleng0d wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there is a chance employees would actually be in favor of that. Considering that the high taxes also affects them and there is also the increasing criminality problem

“High taxes” is really a question of how rich you are: Texas famously does not have an income tax but they compensate with other taxes and that ends up making it much closer, possibly even in California’s favor, for most people: https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer... Texas also has worse public services so you’re going to be paying more out of pocket for replacements, too, and spending more t…

That’s a big fucking asterisk on that site. Somehow I don’t think those calculations are going to apply to X and SpaceX employees living in LA and SF.

Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California

#73

Post by acdha »

throwthrowuknow wrote: post #72
acdha wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“High taxes” is really a question of how rich you are: Texas famously does not have an income tax but they compensate with other taxes and that ends up making it much closer, possibly even in California’s favor, for most people: https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer... Texas also has worse public services so you’re going to be paying more out of pocket for replacements, too, and spending more t…

That’s a big fucking asterisk on that site. Somehow I don’t think those calculations are going to apply to X and SpaceX employees living in LA and SF.

Yes, those employees will be paying even higher property taxes because their homes will cost more than the U.S. median, which will further lower the benefits of moving to Texas for them.

They use the national 75th percentile household income of $75k, while more local figures have LA at $76k, Austin at 89k, Dallas at $65k, and the Bay Area at $126k so it’s going to under-weight the income tax savings for SF more than anyone else.

Tesla’s median employee earns $45k since they have a lot of manufacturing jobs. SpaceX and X appear to have medians in the low $100k range which gives a household a California income tax rate around 8% or, for a working couple, something like a $16-20k versus the higher local taxes in Texas. Again, likely a modest savings but it’s not transformative the way it is for their boss whose income has 3+ extra zeros on the end.

Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California

#74

Post by red-iron-pine »

ryandrake wrote: post #65
bsder wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"High California taxes" is a meme. However, the reality is that if you own a home, taxation in Texas may be even worse than California.

Yea, it's a meme but let's not exaggerate. When you consider total[1] tax burden, including property tax, income tax, sales and other taxes, California is high, but not the highest, and Texas is low but not the lowest. There are many other states that also have lower taxes than California that don't have the massive cultural downsides of Texas. Honestly, if I were planning to move out of California (I probably never…

WA for example has no income tax as well.

sales and property tax aren't trivial, and you'll get some weird cultural artifacts on either side of the Cascades -- literal Portlandia on one side, insane Idaho-militia-wannabes on the other.

Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California

#75

Post by s1artibartfast »

rsynnott wrote: post #71
s1artibartfast wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't there an inversion taking place in that logic. It stands that she might hate him, but not that he hates her.

Well, he seems to have had a complete and very public nervous breakdown about trans people in the last few years, so, well, you do the maths.

Did he? What did he do?

Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California

#76

Post by pandaman »

acdha wrote: post #55
falleng0d wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there is a chance employees would actually be in favor of that. Considering that the high taxes also affects them and there is also the increasing criminality problem

“High taxes” is really a question of how rich you are: Texas famously does not have an income tax but they compensate with other taxes and that ends up making it much closer, possibly even in California’s favor, for most people: https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer... Texas also has worse public services so you’re going to be paying more out of pocket for replacements, too, and spending more t…

As someone who actually moved to Texas from California I am calling bs. I pay less in local taxes than I did in CA despite my income growing more than double. It's not just the lack of income tax but also lower sales tax, lower vehicle taxes, lower insurance, lack of CA payroll taxes.

And as for lack of parks and inferior public services, I have not noticed anything like that. Parks in Austin are actually useful as the trails are not blocked by tent cities, like in LA, and the main public service that I use, roads, is vastly superior here too. Frankly I don't even know how they managed to keep roads and streets in such a bad shape in LA, where the temperature never drops below freezing.

Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California

#77

Post by scruple »

dragonwriter wrote: post #62
vel0city wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houston has mission control, lots of astronaut training, and a lot of administration in Houston. But Pasadena CA has the Jet Propulsion Lab, which is a big part of the design of the rockets and robots and what not.

SoCal also has Edwards AFB ("the Center of the Aerospace Flight Testing Universe"), Vandenberg Space Force Base, etc.

I lived in Lompoc, CA for a while (next to Vandenberg -- which is a really cool experience, the rocket launches were absolutely amazing). I had always assumed that the El Segundo presence was in big part due to access to Vandenberg for launches.

Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California

#78

Post by sqeaky »

strangattractor wrote: post #23
derdi wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes - I agree (I am a parent) that the law is stupid. If a kid doesn't want their parents to know something they should do it the old fashion way and lie as I did and my parents did before me etc:) The law seems to be about making it possible for kids to lie without the school snitching on them. You should be in favor of this law, no?

First the :) means I was somewhat joking. Second as much as I love CA the state has become increasingly interested in creating unenforcible and intrusive laws. Although I can see a case for protecting children from abusive parents (we have laws for that already) it seems to ignore other things. Like the following: 1. AFAIK - If a kid decides to change their pronoun around their friends the school is not required to r…

So let me see if this is a rephrasing of your point: I don't need this sort of protection so no kid should be protected because I think that protection hasn't been proven effective and the school shouldn't need to be a safe space for kids if the circumstances of their birth affect that.

Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California

#79

Post by strangattractor »

dragonwriter wrote: post #60
strangattractor wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The measure Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Monday, is the first to rebuke laws in a handful of other states that say educators must alert parents if a student requests to go by a different name or pronouns. At least 10 states say educators and classmates don’t have to use a student’s name or pronouns if it doesn’t align with a student’s sex assigned at birth." [1] [1] https://www.edweek.org/leadership/should…

> So the law was passed to fix a problem that does not exist in CA. No, it wasn't. The article is, at best, abusing "rebuke" to mean "buck the trend", but the law does not literally rebuke foreign state laws. It addresses two related issues, both of which do, in fact, exist in California: (1) It provides school-based support and resources for LGBTQ+ students and families thereof responsive to research on specific nee…

I understand what it does. I asked a different question - is it necessary? Please give your references. I am not able to find any data on school districts in CA doing what you said. It could very well be true - I would likely change my opinion with more info.

I do not disagree with the intent of the law. Previously I was pointed to a bunch of research on foster care LGBTQ+ youth in good knows what state being bullied or having problems with their foster care. None of which specifically pertained to CA. I do not see how we can continue to create laws to solve problems we do not understand. CA is a large state and can afford to do the home work. S

Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California

#80

Post by strangattractor »

strangattractor wrote: post #79
dragonwriter wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the law was passed to fix a problem that does not exist in CA. No, it wasn't. The article is, at best, abusing "rebuke" to mean "buck the trend", but the law does not literally rebuke foreign state laws. It addresses two related issues, both of which do, in fact, exist in California: (1) It provides school-based support and resources for LGBTQ+ students and families thereof responsive to research on specific nee…

I understand what it does. I asked a different question - is it necessary? Please give your references. I am not able to find any data on school districts in CA doing what you said. It could very well be true - I would likely change my opinion with more info. I do not disagree with the intent of the law. Previously I was pointed to a bunch of research on foster care LGBTQ+ youth in good knows what state being bullied…

Found a pretty good article at the Guardian. Chino seems to be having the beef.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/17/gavi....

Post reply on HN