• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Toyota Moving US Headquarters to Texas

Companies as a general rule do not move to where state governments are friendly, as much as away from where they are unfriendly.

If a company is happy where it is, they will almost never pack up and move to a new location, especially with all of the costs involved. But they will do so if they see the condition where they are at becomes untenable. This is becoming the status of a business in California. And I expect the exodus to increase even faster in the coming years.

Its a factor but its not the only factor, I promise a global automotive company like Toyota isn't making decisions based on a single factor.
 
Texas receives about 58 billion dollars more in federal spending than it pays in federal taxes, do for yourself and give it back please.

But what is included in that 58 billion? I'm pretty sure the record will show that it involves some agricultural subsidies and such as that--the same all states get--but the huge lion's share of it will go to fund NASA, military bases, and other defense spending plus Medicaid and Medicare that Texas had or has little say or responsibility for. New Mexico receives proportionately more federal money per capita than Texas, but here too it goes mostly to the national labs, military bases, White Sands proving grounds, and other military installations plus allotments for Medicaid and Medicare. The average New Mexican benefits only minimally from that and New Mexico remains one of the poorest states per capita.

But hey, if more big business chooses to move out of the tax and regulation hell hole of California and move to Texas and New Mexico, the increase in tax base should start correcting the imbalance.
 
But what is included in that 58 billion? I'm pretty sure the record will show that it involves some agricultural subsidies and such as that--the same all states get--but the huge lion's share of it will go to fund NASA, military bases, and other defense spending plus Medicaid and Medicare that Texas had or has little say or responsibility for. New Mexico receives proportionately more federal money per capita than Texas, but here too it goes mostly to the national labs, military bases, White Sands proving grounds, and other military installations plus allotments for Medicaid and Medicare. The average New Mexican benefits only minimally from that and New Mexico remains one of the poorest states per capita.

But hey, if more big business chooses to move out of the tax and regulation hell hole of California and move to Texas and New Mexico, the increase in tax base should start correcting the imbalance.

Still counts.
 
Still counts.

Sure it does--we all pay for it or have it added to the debt we are saddled with--but it is not due to any policy or special benefits or unfair advantage that Texas is getting. In other words, you can't blame Texas for it. The Federal government does pretty much whatever it damn well pleases and if we the people don't like it, don't want it, hate it or whatever, well that's just tough.
 
Sure it does--we all pay for it or have it added to the debt we are saddled with--but it is not due to any policy or special benefits or unfair advantage that Texas is getting. In other words, you can't blame Texas for it. The Federal government does pretty much whatever it damn well pleases and if we the people don't like it, don't want it, hate it or whatever, well that's just tough.

I never said it was unfair, but don't act as if Texas is just helpless in the face of all these Federal dollars. You don't think their congressmen lobby and push for that spending in their own state? They want it and they go looking for it.
 
I never said it was unfair, but don't act as if Texas is just helpless in the face of all these Federal dollars. You don't think their congressmen lobby and push for that spending in their own state? They want it and they go looking for it.

Well I'm sure you can prove that and document how the decision to place all those federal installations in Texas was made. Go for it.
 
Well I'm sure you can prove that and document how the decision to place all those federal installations in Texas was made. Go for it.

The decision to place many of these installations isn't relevant, many of them started life as simple forts on the frontier or training installations during WW2 but you don't think that Texan Congressmen didn't support and work towards expanding several of them after their function in that regard was over into modern permanent military facilities, and thus enjoy all the windfall that would bring, youre nuts.

These places bring in a lot of money, it would be absurd to suggest that the state legislator or the Congressmen from Texas are completely apathetic towards it.
 
Texas receives about 58 billion dollars more in federal spending than it pays in federal taxes, do for yourself and give it back please.

That is true of many states. Federal income taxes are very progressive so states with a lower cost of living (and lower average income) will generally get more in federal benefits than they pay in taxes. Texas also has many retirees getting SS/Medicare that may have worked in other states but chose to retire in Texas because of the mild winters, lower cost of living and no state income taxes.
 
I didn't disagree with you I was just wondering why it was relevant.



Is that because liberals are more successful than conservatives in your opinion?

No, its just the part of the 1% you never hear about from liberals.
 
That's better. Besides, Houston is too hot and rainy.

All of Texas is hot, and most of it dry. It was 100 degrees here in south Texas yesterday. I would take rain any day.
 
Last edited:
I've only ever driven the interstate which was pretty good, but its good everywhere and its paid for by federal dollars. I did post a source though to give an example of what I was talking about, did you see it?

Oh, I thought it was paid for by tax payers.
 
According to this, both Texas and California are net tax contributors to the federal government.
 
The decision to place many of these installations isn't relevant, many of them started life as simple forts on the frontier or training installations during WW2 but you don't think that Texan Congressmen didn't support and work towards expanding several of them after their function in that regard was over into modern permanent military facilities, and thus enjoy all the windfall that would bring, youre nuts.

These places bring in a lot of money, it would be absurd to suggest that the state legislator or the Congressmen from Texas are completely apathetic towards it.

The decision to place them, the who and why and how the money is targeted, IS relevant though if partisans are going to point at a state and accuse it of receiving more in federal money than it pays in taxes and suggest that the state should do more, pay more, or somehow be more self sufficient.
 
Look its perfectly fine to be proud of your state, but to take success an excuse to be a dick is uncool. Texas is good for business, there's no doubt its had some good governance in regard to attracting business and the ease of doing business once your established plus favorable tax rates as well. But that comes with a cost as well, despite all the revenue and economic growth Texas has trouble with even simply matters like keeping its roads paved.

Plan to Convert Roads to Gravel Begins Despite Pushback | The Texas Tribune

You'd think with a mutli-million dollar oil boom chewing up local roads not designed for that kind of traffic could produce the tax dollars required to maintain or improve those roads, but instead the plan is to unimprove them and return to gravel roads.

Either way its more complicated than just local politics, things like the development of fracking can give states big economic booms with no effort by government, and in the end both California and Texas were top performers in economic growth among US states. So stop economic shifts like a business moving to a new location as some indisputable sign about the superiority

List of U.S. states by economic growth rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Percent_Change_in_Real_GDP_by_State%2C_2012.png

It's so touching to see you so concerned about the condition of Texas roads. We don't all drive Land Rovers for nothing. :)

I doubt that Toyota and all those other companies moved to Texas for the fracking. I think it has more to do with state and local government policies and the fact that a company can do business for 20% less in taxes, fees, etc..

I'm sure the roads in blue states are really nice.
 
It's so touching to see you so concerned about the condition of Texas roads. We don't all drive Land Rovers for nothing. :)

I doubt that Toyota and all those other companies moved to Texas for the fracking. I think it has more to do with state and local government policies and the fact that a company can do business for 20% less in taxes, fees, etc..

I'm sure the roads in blue states are really nice.

I didn't say they moved for the fracking I said there are other factors that lead to economic growth that can be totally unrelated to the actions of the government of the state, fracking was just an example. But in regards to Toyota specifically your own article states reasons in addition to Texas' good business climate as reasons for moving.

Again I don't deny that Texas has done a good job attracting business to its state, I just disagree with the notion of some that every bit of economic growth can be credited to conservative government.
 
Its a factor but its not the only factor, I promise a global automotive company like Toyota isn't making decisions based on a single factor.

Then explain this:

For almost 50 years, the "Japanese Big 3" of Toyota, Honda and Nissan all head their headquarters in California.

After Toyota goes, there will be none. Nissan left in 2005 for Tennessee, and Honda is finishing their move to Ohio.

When you have this kind of exodus, to 3 different states, it is not the states that are attracting them, but the states they leave repelling them.
 
Then explain this:

For almost 50 years, the "Japanese Big 3" of Toyota, Honda and Nissan all head their headquarters in California.

After Toyota goes, there will be none. Nissan left in 2005 for Tennessee, and Honda is finishing their move to Ohio.

When you have this kind of exodus, to 3 different states, it is not the states that are attracting them, but the states they leave repelling them.

No question about it. Two manufacturers in our industry left California for Idaho. Both cited taxes and regulations for the move.
 
Non stop flight availability from Narita to DFW might have more to do with it. These aren't dock workers moving.

The thing is Toyota's Japanese headquarters are located near Nagoya, not Tokyo. And this isn't GM, either. Toyota executives don't fly coach with the rest of the cattle into DFW:

The global boss of Toyota, Akio Toyoda, arrived in Australia on a private jet :)shock:) late on Sunday night so that he could deliver the news in person.

Toyota’s Altona plant shutdown to hit 50,000 jobs | News.com.au
 
Then explain this:

For almost 50 years, the "Japanese Big 3" of Toyota, Honda and Nissan all head their headquarters in California.

After Toyota goes, there will be none. Nissan left in 2005 for Tennessee, and Honda is finishing their move to Ohio.

When you have this kind of exodus, to 3 different states, it is not the states that are attracting them, but the states they leave repelling them.

The first transplant in the U.S. was Volkswagen's UAW plant in Westmoreland, Pennsylvania. It proved to be a painful experience for VW that the Japanese didn't want to see repeated. So it's no accident that all of their plants are non-union and generally located in right-to-work states.
 
The first transplant in the U.S. was Volkswagen's UAW plant in Westmoreland, Pennsylvania. It proved to be a painful experience for VW that the Japanese didn't want to see repeated. So it's no accident that all of their plants are non-union and generally located in right-to-work states.

Actually, it is more like that is all their plants left.

And actually, if you look at the history of labor relations, very few companies that were created Post-WWII are "union". Pretty much every company in the country (or founded since then) has learned that keeping their employees happy is of critical importance. The birth and spread of unions in this country was part of an era that is gone and part of history.

Most companies involved in manufacturing today prefer to establish themselves in more rural areas, where costs are lower. And not just labor costs, but land costs, taxes, utilities, and everything else associated with creating and running a large facility. And most communities fight to get such plants, because of the huge boost in employment it gives them.

But the unions stay out because businesses have learned over the decades how to keep their employees happy. Happy employees see no reason to unionize, it is the ones that feel like they are being taken advantage of that feel this need.
 
Actually, it is more like that is all their plants left.

Left from where? To my knowledge, the Japanese have had only ONE UAW organized plant in a non-right-to-work state, and that was the Toyota joint venture with GM in Fremont, California. Toyota pulled out AFTER GM pulled the plug because the plant was a money loser.

And actually, if you look at the history of labor relations, very few companies that were created Post-WWII are "union". Pretty much every company in the country (or founded since then) has learned that keeping their employees happy is of critical importance. The birth and spread of unions in this country was part of an era that is gone and part of history.

I'm going to cry BS on this to some extent. "Downsizing" and "synergies" were words U.S. workers heard on a daily basis during the '80s and '90s. I think the decline of union representation has less to do with corporate executives turning over a new leaf on labor relations and more to do with right-to-work laws and the simple fact that U.S. manufacturers can churn out more goods with fewer workers due to increased productivity.

Most companies involved in manufacturing today prefer to establish themselves in more rural areas, where costs are lower. And not just labor costs, but land costs, taxes, utilities, and everything else associated with creating and running a large facility. And most communities fight to get such plants, because of the huge boost in employment it gives them.

I'd say corporate managements that depend heavily on human labor prefer to establish themselves in right-to-work states where it's more difficult to establish a union. :lol: Cheap, abundant land and a good regulatory environment are also pluses. From the employee's standpoint, if you previously stuffed mattresses, plucked chickens, or sewed zippers and were paid by the piece, working for wages in a clean, modern manufacturing plant for better pay is an improvement.

But the unions stay out because businesses have learned over the decades how to keep their employees happy. Happy employees see no reason to unionize, it is the ones that feel like they are being taken advantage of that feel this need.

I'm not sure it's a question so much of they're happy without unions. I think they just have come to the realization that capital flows downhill, like water. If they make too much of a fuss and join a union they might ruin a good (or better) thing than what they had previously. I also think there's a definite bias against unions in the South for various reasons. Honestly, I really can't see why anyone would be happy working for a wage that would put a full-time worker below the U.S. poverty level like we see in so many service industry jobs.
 
I'm not sure it's a question so much of they're happy without unions. I think they just have come to the realization that capital flows downhill, like water. If they make too much of a fuss and join a union they might ruin a good (or better) thing than what they had previously. I also think there's a definite bias against unions in the South for various reasons. Honestly, I really can't see why anyone would be happy working for a wage that would put a full-time worker below the U.S. poverty level like we see in so many service industry jobs.

Yea, yea, we got it. You are a union hack who will say anything they do is awesome, and anything done that is not union sucks.

Now tell us, what non-union auto assembly worker is living below the poverty line in the United States?

See, here is the difference between us. You come in with lots of talk and propaganda, I come in with actual references. And those references say you are full of it.

The average annual wage at Alabama's three auto assembly plants, including Hyundai, Honda and Mer*cedes- Benz, tops $54,400, according to data from the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama.

By contrast, the overall annual average wage in Alabama is $34,600.
New jobs at Hyundai plant draw more than 22,000 applicants | AL.com

And I knew people who were on the waiting list for those jobs, they were the highest paying ones in the region. And in a region where rent was in the $300 a month range.

Now please explain to us (and give references) that show us how almost 100% above the local median income is "below the US poverty level".

Oh, and manufacturing is not a service job, it is manufacturing, or industry. Service jobs are those like maid, sales clerk, waiter, and the like. Those are service jobs, auto assembly is not one of those.
 
Yea, yea, we got it. You are a union hack who will say anything they do is awesome, and anything done that is not union sucks.

You were able to discern that because... ? Perhaps it's because I wrote that people who once stuffed mattresses or plucked chickens for a living might prefer working in an auto plant? Or perhaps it was because auto plants are moving to right-to-work states? What "facts" brought you to that conclusion, Corporal Oozlefinch? Either take off your Size 2 hat for a moment and think or FOAD.

See, here is the difference between us. You come in with lots of talk and propaganda, I come in with actual references. And those references say you are full of it.

Right. Like your "references" that drew you to conclude I'm a union "hack." If you only knew the facts. :rofl

Anyway, what, other than the union hack conclusion, do your references tell you? They tell me that people would rather build cars than tend catfish farms or peel shrimp for a living.

Oh, and manufacturing is not a service job, it is manufacturing, or industry. Service jobs are those like maid, sales clerk, waiter, and the like. Those are service jobs, auto assembly is not one of those.

Yes, I know. But you seemed to suggest that corporations in general turned over a new leaf in recent decades when it came to labor relations, resulting in the conclusion that unions are no longer necessary. I'm just pointing out that if that's the case then why are so many people struggling to make a living? Part of being nice is giving people other than yourself a raise, isn't it? I don't think the transplants coming into right-to-work states in the South pay more than shrimp processors out of benevolence. They do it because they can afford to due to higher levels of productivity and the desire to retain a trained and experienced workforce. It's just good business.
 
Back
Top Bottom