How long before companies just pick up their shit and leave the Taliban states?

I’ve been waiting for years to see a mass exodus of companies that say it’s not worth having HQ, factories, or offices in Republican controlled states in the Midwest or South.

Why hasn’t this happened, and do you think it ever will? There is no way on Earth I would ever have my company in one of these hellholes. It’s basically supporting ISIS at this point.

It will never happen because at the end of the day companies care about money and lower tax rates in red states means more money.

They’ll bitch, moan, and gnash their teeth publicly, but they’ll stay where the tax breaks are and vote for people who promise less taxes and regulation.

The only way it changes is if massive boycotts hit them and change the math. We’ve seen that Americans can’t be bothered.

Why is it not worth it?

I can imagine finding high skilled candidates willing to live in places that don’t fit their ideology or threaten their well-being could be an offset to tax breaks.

The thing that might move the needle is as @jpinard notes, the work force. If your college-educated, technically adept and competent workers start fleeing for jobs in other states, and your recruiters get the door slammed in their face as soon as they mention the job is in Texas or whatever, companies might take notice. But as @ShivaX says, it’s all about the Benjamins, so don’t hold your breath.

The USA was once a place with some promise. Now it’s sort of a wealthier version of a shithole country, to quote one if its former leaders.

Never. GM, IBM, Coca Cola all continued operations in Nazi Germany.

Taxes. It is all about the money.

Is this the part where we, once again, remind everyone that the electoral map is not representative of much of anything, and there are (for example) far more Biden voters in Texas than there are Trump voters in New York? The divide is urban/rural, not red state/blue state, and lots of highly skilled, liberal folks live in blue cities in red states.

You shouldn’t want those people to move, by the way - concentrating liberal voters into even smaller geographic concentrations is exactly the opposite of what’s needed.

Most of these companies give money to the Republicans. Whatever they are saying now is just PR.

Companies only pretend to care about progressive causes because they want Democrats money. The only effective way to force them change is to not buy their stuff.

This is undoubtedly true, but there is a big disconnect between the logical part, of wanting to keep progressive (read, sane) voters in these states to counter the crazy, and the fact that such balancing appears to be impossible due to gerrymandering and outright election manipulation and voter suppression on the part of the Republicans. All the affluent white collar employees of big companies can vote any which way they want but without the votes of the poor, the black, the working class, the rest of the population–the exact population being disenfranchised–those yuppie votes won’t do squat.

True, although the solution where those “yuppies” pick up and leave for bluer pastures doesn’t solve anything either, being as the other groups you mention don’t have the luxury of that kind of mobility.

Hell, I’m in none of those groups but, despite being at the intersection of three red states, I am in no position to move (for both family and employment reasons). I’m hardly alone.

When it comes to moving from a “red state” into a “blue state”, one other very important consideration – for both employers and employees alike – comes into play, and it involves one of the key failures of liberal/left leadership AND rank-and-file voters over the past 30-40 years or so: affordable housing.

See, funny thing about people, especially people who can vote: it turns out even the liberal-est and left-est folks get a big case of NIMBYism when it comes to building more housing and specifically more affordable housing in their areas. And…that’s an issue (and I’ve seen some still pay-walled, not yet peer-reviewed) white papers that suggest it’s an issue which, if Liberals and progressives could solve, might go a little bit of a long way to helping out on other progressive issues.

The smartest progressive politics data scientist I know of is Jonathan Robinson at Catalist. And if you follow him on twitter, pretty much his main issues to tweet about involve affordable housing as the major achilles heel of the progressive movement.

Bingo. I live in Vermont, which has become kind of a poster child for progressives. Leaving aside the complex makeup of this small state, which is far more politically varied than it might seem to those outside the 802, a huge issue especially where I live, Chittenden county around Burlington, is housing. This is a prime area for affluent people to relocate to, whether for permanent living or for a second or third dwelling. It is also the place where high-income earners employed by the few industries we actually have tend to concentrate. At the same time, though, it is also home to a large long-time population of middle to low income Vermonters. And because if a job is in Vermont it is likely to be around Burlington, it is also home to the middle income journeyman type white collar employees in fields like education and small to medium size businesses.

Housing is a nightmare. Average home cost is just under $400k, a 2-bedroom dwelling averages $1500 or more a month, and it’s hard to find anything to rent especially if you aren’t into student-level rat traps. Utilities are costly, too. Where I live, I guess you could call it a semi-rural exurb town, new construction is largely north of $500k, usually single family. It has taken a major push to start shifting zoning to allow multi-family housing development, even duplexes and mother-in-law apartments, though that is finally happening. But the economic facts are that as a developer, you will make far more money for far less hassle building McMansions than building apartments or multifamily condos. And yeah, NIMBY. Even though we do have in other parts of the county, like Williston, some subsidized apartments (which are very nice, actually, and impossible to tell apart from any other apartments), in general people all want them built somewhere else.

You get a lot of pushback about protecting the historical character of the town (very common in Vermont), even though that “character” usually meant in reality a one-horse town full of poor and uneducated hard-scrabble farmers who wanted nothing more than to actually move into the modern era.

Funny, most of what you wrote about Vermont applies to that other ‘progressive’ bastion of Seattle (just double the prices you quoted). 90% of the city is zoned single-family, and any attempt to change that, even at the state level, is met with huge resistance- local character, etc. And of course what new construction we do have is all super high-end luxury condos. Of course we have a homelessness problem that needs to be ‘dealt with’, but if you want to deal with it by building affordable housing, well, NIMBY, etc. Service workers basically can’t live in the city, unless they’re packed into an apartment like sardines in a can.

At game night every week I have to listen to my tech industry friends talk about how they’re looking for houses for 900k (as a single dude), or just bought one for 1.5 million, and knowing this is something I’ll never be able to do.

Yeah, this. When asked just what, exactly, they want their city/state to do about homelessness, it usually devolves to a variation on “I don’t care, just get them away from me,” which in turn devolves ultimately to “lock them up, let them die, bury them far away.” And this is from people who are often quite strident in their progressivism, as long as it doesn’t interfere with their particular personal nirvana I guess.

Heh, yeah. It’s like the dudes telling you to stop complaining about gas prices and just buy a Tesla.

At least I’ve got a motorbike that gets 30+ mpg to fend off that, for now, heh.

We have similar game night conversations.

Minneapolis banned single family zoning in 2018.

Well, that’s because while it’s easy to say you don’t want to arrest homeless people, it’s way different when you and your family are afraid to walk on the sidewalk to go to the park because it’s become a third world country of drug addled crazy people.

The thing is, in most places, people are only given these two options… Either police beat and arrest homeless, or they do nothing at all and crap degenerates into lawlessness. Normal people don’t want to live in lawlessness.