[rdub1968]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

Hmmm, California can't be that bad for business if it has the largest GDP in the country (yeah, more useless facts, I know).

Well, the company I work for has a plant in San Diego, and they need to keep WD40 in the hazardous materials shed or else they get a steep fine.
Not to mention the union there is worse than this area - nobody can cross-train for other positions. It is crippling for production sometimes.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by rdub1968

Well, the company I work for has a plant in San Diego, and they need to keep WD40 in the hazardous materials shed or else they get a steep fine.
Not to mention the union there is worse than this area - nobody can cross-train for other positions. It is crippling for production sometimes.

And yet they still have a plant in San Diego (and not Mississippi)...

And all the world's largest technology companies are based in California (and not Mississippi)...

[rdub1968]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

And yet they still have a plant in San Diego (and not Mississippi)...

It is the headquarters for one of our business units, but they do the same thing in Alabama and Poland so are slowly moving production to the lower cost states/countries. Its actually in Chula Vista, just south of SD.
Our big company has just been bought by a very large company, and most likely production will cease in a few years due to the high cost of doing business. It will be sad for that area, the campus is probably a mile long along the coast. It is huge.
But the land is extremely valuable.

[zthatzmanz28]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

Mostly is is what she did not do. She did almost nothing. If hse had done some of the kinds of things Snyder is doing now, we would not be int eh condition we are in.

This "poll" s strange. The reports or polls I have seen has Michigan in the top 10 and in one case number 2 as the best places to do business or for business opportunities. What was the most recent Forbes ranking? We had a huge jump on some list when they did away with the MBT. Which list was that?

I said this 3 years ago and ...

Anyways, whenever CEOs or corporations start to identify what is good or bad, it is generally based on their perspective and what is in it for them.
Just because a place like North Dakota has few if any regulations (like the one related to financial interest rates and the credit card companies all relocate there to charge maximum interest) or bigger longer tax rebates, does not make it a better place for business to grow, just better to enhance their profit margin.
When business become carpet-baggers and shop from state to state for ZERO tax rate, they will never stay around long and will be off to the next state when current tax incentives expire.
I would think a state that encourages business (big and small) to establish roots in a community, provides the business with quality employees and a customer base would be highly rated for business growth, not a state that gives away FREE land, tax incentives near ZERO and other subsidized incentives.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

Hmmm, California can't be that bad for business if it has the largest GDP in the country (yeah, more useless facts, I know).

You need to look at per capita. Also, the trend is important.

Businesses are tripping over each other heading for the door. This is particularly true of manufacturing companies.