|
BabyMauler posted:I wonder what kind of handjobs and tax loopholes Rick Perry and his crew are giving them. Gross. Almost nothing. It gives the numbers in the article; about $40 million, for 4000 jobs, or roughly $10k an employee, which might cover relocation expenses, maybe. The city of Plano is probably going to give some property tax breaks for the new HQ but that's about it.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:00 |
|
|
$40million, almost nothing? Man can someone give me almost nothing, shiitt. I can't help but think that line of thinking is very US-centric. I'll wait to see if any of our Euro-Goons weigh in on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Almost nothing. It gives the numbers in the article; about $40 million, for 4000 jobs, or roughly $10k an employee, which might cover relocation expenses, maybe. The city of Plano is probably going to give some property tax breaks for the new HQ but that's about it. Probably though there's a decent amount of savings due to the high cost of doing business in California. The tax burden alone is pretty different between California and Texas. Coredump posted:$40million, almost nothing? Man can someone give me almost nothing, shiitt. I can't help but think that line of thinking is very US-centric. I'll wait to see if any of our Euro-Goons weigh in on it. If you know about business or government it's not really a lot of money though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Coredump posted:$40million, almost nothing? Man can someone give me almost nothing, shiitt. I can't help but think that line of thinking is very US-centric. I'll wait to see if any of our Euro-Goons weigh in on it. I'm perfectly happy to be wrong, but it appears that Toyota Motor Company's annual revenue is something around $220,000,000,000 USD. I would say that to them $40 million in incentives is not going to be very much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Moving from CA to TX is a huge tax break even without any other incentives. In this case they are claiming Perry had almost nothing to do with it. The location itself is what drew them in. Plus every employee immediately gets a 10% pay increase. TX has sales taxes and fairly high property taxes but no state income tax, where CA has even higher sales taxes and normal property taxes AND a giant state income tax.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
On the downside, they have to live in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:On the downside, they have to live in Texas. I don't think they're taking most of their employees in the move. From what I hear, many of them were ok with this due to the whole living in Texas thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
DJ Commie posted:I don't even understand how the thermodynamics would work with this. They don't, especially when your cooling source is ambient air. How do you expect to have condensation inside, let alone freezing? It's a legit problem on newer TDI models in cold climates. http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5574701-TDI-Intercooler-Issue-Design-Flaw  http://forums.tdiclub.com/showpost.php?p=3278239&postcount=386
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
A lot of companies are doing this to save money. Austin is blowing up with tech firms increasing their presence in Texas. My company moved a good chunk of engineering away from the Bay Area to Austin. The salaries are a little lower (but not that much), but there is less competition right now. It's hard to keep employees when everyone wants to work at a big name tech company.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:A lot of companies are doing this to save money. Yeah, it's all part of the race to the bottom. As soon as Alabama legalizes indentured servitude and cuts the corporate tax rate to x% lower they'll all move there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
I've done some research and have been talking about the Toyota thing for the past two days, and I think it's overall pretty lovely and is going to saddle the TX taxpayers with more poo poo just so that Rick Perry can further his national ambitions. It's a fantastic deal for Toyota and Toyota executives, though. It just sucks for everyone who isn't a Toyota executive, a Texas politician, or someone who is finding work at Toyota's new HQ. Fun fact: Texans pay more tax to state and local taxes than Californians, it's 8.6% vs 8.2% (I can't remember what the National average was). Also, the exclusion of an income tax means that the poor and middle class pay disproportionately more towards taxes than their wealthy counterparts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I've never found an even half decent mustang forum period. This but Subaru KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Hahahaha the whole loving car world is still on AS/400. Literally every fortune 500 company. Phone posted:I've done some research and have been talking about the Toyota thing for the past two days, and I think it's overall pretty lovely and is going to saddle the TX taxpayers with more poo poo just so that Rick Perry can further his national ambitions. But they lead the country in so many important metrics! Like, percentage of uninsured?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:Believe me dude, I've spent a fair amount of time in European hatchbacks and understand where you're coming from. The average poster here dreaming about hot european diesel hatchbacks would call a 70hp 1.3 diesel dangerously underpowered and unsafe. It'd make a perfectly good subcompact engine option in the US as far as performance goes. However the bigger sticking point is going to be that it's in a subcompact and not particularly cheap when emissions equipment is accounted for. If there's only a hatchback option, then that's not helping matters in the US either. The larger engines are really the ones with the most chance of showing up in the US but even then it'd be for sedans that have a better chance of being sold. The thing that would actually result in performance diesel options in the US wouldn't be for European manufacturers to bring existing models over. It'd be for NASCAR to drop the vast majority of its engine restrictions and replace them with a fuel per race limit. Suddenly diesel becomes perfectly competitive since producing more power for the same amount of fuel with one is much easier than producing more power for the same displacement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:It'd make a perfectly good subcompact engine option in the US as far as performance goes. However the bigger sticking point is going to be that it's in a subcompact and not particularly cheap when emissions equipment is accounted for. If there's only a hatchback option, then that's not helping matters in the US either. The larger engines are really the ones with the most chance of showing up in the US but even then it'd be for sedans that have a better chance of being sold. The top motorcycle racing class has a similar fuel restriction and it certainly isn't going to diesel; the disadvantages quite literally outweigh the benefits. I don't think there's much at all trickle-down tech from NASCAR to regular street vehicles, nor has there been for decades. And NASCAR fans are going to be more than familiar with rolling coal so it's not like there'd be an image boost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Sadi posted:Is ford still using as400? God I hate that program. It's not a program, it's an OS. IBM basically makes all of it's money off of POWER processors to run the thing. There's a reason they made this beast:  quote:POWER8 is designed to be a massively multithreaded chip, capable of handling 96 hardware threads simultaneously. The chip makes use of very large amounts of on- and off-chip eDRAM caches, and on-chip memory controllers enable very high bandwidth to memory and system I/O. An embedded on-chip power management microcontroller based on a PowerPC 405 with 512 KB of dedicated SRAM monitors the entire chip and can regulate voltages through 1764 integrated voltage regulators on the fly.[2][3] For most workloads, the chip is said to perform two to three times as fast as its predecessor, the POWER7.[4] 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
KillHour posted:It's not a program, it's an OS. IBM basically makes all of it's money off of POWER processors to run the thing. Technically I think the OS is now just called i. Literall just the letter "i".
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:Believe me dude, I've spent a fair amount of time in European hatchbacks and understand where you're coming from. The average poster here dreaming about hot european diesel hatchbacks would call a 70hp 1.3 diesel dangerously underpowered and unsafe. I went to school with a guy who tooled around in an old Escort wagon as his family vehicle with a worn-out BP, maybe 100 horsepower, who raved that any car (even full-size sedans) with more than about 120HP was dangerously over-powered; he'd be in nirvana!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:I went to school with a guy who tooled around in an old Escort wagon as his family vehicle with a worn-out BP, maybe 100 horsepower, who raved that any car (even full-size sedans) with more than about 120HP was dangerously over-powered; he'd be in nirvana! I bet this guy has never even driven a car with more than 120hp and has no fuckin clue. It always seems like the people who hold positions like these just refuse to acknowledge that there are different/better things out there than what they already have and that anything else is just unnecessary/excessive/wasteful/unsafe/pick your adjective. I could use another 120hp on top of the 230 I've already got in my E46... Guinness fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Really, I can't imagine any amount of horsepower being a terrible thing, unless it's literally so powerful it's impossibly twitchy to drive. It's not like you're ever forced into using extra power you don't want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Really, I can't imagine any amount of horsepower being a terrible thing, unless it's literally so powerful it's impossibly twitchy to drive. It's not like you're ever forced into using extra power you don't want. I guess if it completely killed your low end torque or mileage or something maybe, but with modern engines most of the extremes are kind of worked out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:I went to school with a guy who tooled around in an old Escort wagon as his family vehicle with a worn-out BP, maybe 100 horsepower, who raved that any car (even full-size sedans) with more than about 120HP was dangerously over-powered; he'd be in nirvana! Pretty sure I remember click and clack complaining about this about 10 years ago--they argued that a stock WRX had too high of a power to weight ratio and that it was unsafe. I'm not sure anyone who has actually driven one would say that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Really, I can't imagine any amount of horsepower being a terrible thing, unless it's literally so powerful it's impossibly twitchy to drive. It's not like you're ever forced into using extra power you don't want. I don't have much experience driving high-horse power cars, but coming from the bike world, I can say there is a lot to be said about being able to red-line your engine, and still be only going 35mph in first gear through a turn. The GT86 school of thought. Versus having a lot of power that you can't possibly tap on a day to day basis (like most super sports). Granted, the power to weight ratio on any bike compared to cars is so far, we're really talking about a 350-400HP car compared to a 800-1000HP car in my comparison. Morphix fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Really, I can't imagine any amount of horsepower being a terrible thing, unless it's literally so powerful it's impossibly twitchy to drive. It's not like you're ever forced into using extra power you don't want. Who's the goon that added so much power to his Corvette that it became undriveable and then sold it for a GTO that he then modded to point that it became undriveable and then sold that for another Corvette? Because that's what I think of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Also the punishment for small fuckups tends to be a lot less severe in cars than on bikes. But even world class superbikes with mind bending power like the S1000RR are renowned for being easy to ride and manage and not just "for a literbike", especially with advanced traction control, ABS, and engine modes making it to bikes these days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Bulk Vanderhuge posted:Who's the goon that added so much power to his Corvette that it became undriveable and then sold it for a GTO that he then modded to point that it became undriveable and then sold that for another Corvette? Because that's what I think of. That's a problem we should all have  Can't remember the name either, I just remember him/her saying all his/her friends have high power cars/trucks too so that throws off their baseline for what power level feels fast. I still think the general consensus is that 100hp more than you currently have is the perfect amount.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Really, I can't imagine any amount of horsepower being a terrible thing, unless it's literally so powerful it's impossibly twitchy to drive. It's not like you're ever forced into using extra power you don't want. I see it a lot (and get stuck behind it a lot) where people are too scared of driving their car.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
The easy available torque in my dad's foxbody I used to sneak out during high school has colored my taste. The car doesn't have much hp, only rated at 210hp from the factory. But that torque tho, 260 ftlbs. It would break the tires loose at silly low speeds and being able to scoot the rear end out at low speeds under power made the car a shitload of fun. Much less scary than having to sling a car to break it loose and slide it. I think the biek analogy is a bike you can clutch up wheelie vs. one you have to bounce up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
There are a couple hilarious things about the Toyota move. 1. They're moving manufacturing operations (aside from the actual plant etc) from KY to Plano. In theory, this makes sense - you're consolidating all NA operations. In practice, this is probably really stupid since most of their manufacturing happens in KY and IN through Subaru's Indiana facility. Arguably, they are closer to San Antonio where they build the Tundra/Sequoia, but the Tundra is low volume. It would make sense to anticipate any Toyota manufacturing expansion to occur in Texas based on this move, which is A Big Deal kinda. 2. Texas isn't even in Toyota Motor Sales' territory. Rights to Toyota sales in Texas are owned by Gulf States Toyota, an independent importer. I wouldn't read anything in to this in terms of a TMS attempt to buy out GST (Toyota already bought out their importers in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic in the past, leaving GST and Southeast Toyota as the remaining importers), since GST is wildly profitable. Still, it's hilarious. 3. Nobody I have talked to at TMS is excited about moving. Most of the folks I know appear to be treating this as a two-year timeframe to find a job at Honda, Hyundai/Kia/Mobis, Mazda or one of the design centers that is in the LA area. 4. There's a rumor going on that the whole purpose of this was organizational shakeup. It seems a little silly, since if you RIF people you can just be guaranteed that you can the people you want to get rid of and keep your winners. Relocating tends to mean you keep the useless people who are out there who know they can't compete for jobs elsewhere, while you lose the winners. Don't know how much credibility that one has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Really, I can't imagine any amount of horsepower being a terrible thing, unless it's literally so powerful it's impossibly twitchy to drive. It's not like you're ever forced into using extra power you don't want. Mark Donohue posted:"It will never have enough power until I can spin the wheels at the end of the straightaway in high gear." 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Wouldn't that be torque that can break the wheels free?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:There are a couple hilarious things about the Toyota move. Well in regards to number one, wasn't it already known that Subaru is slowly pushing Toyota out of their facilities because they're now running short of manufacturing capacity due to high demand? Also I thought that Toyota was keeping their design centers in California.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Well in regards to number one, wasn't it already known that Subaru is slowly pushing Toyota out of their facilities because they're now running short of manufacturing capacity due to high demand? Toyota's NA Engineering is centered around Ann Arbor, in Michigan. They're pretty well established in that area, and would be leaving behind a non-insignificant amount of equipment if they moved. Things like track simulators and hemianechoic dynamometers are not known for their cheap or easy mobility. It looks like it's specifically a Corporate and non-engineering aesthetics guys who may move to Texas - though they'll have to keep a design center in MI, since it's so tightly tied to engineering.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
When I hear these "Texas is steeelin' r jerbs" stories and inevitable "California is a horrible place to do business" squeals and comments repeated everywhere......nobody ever mentions that the primary reason companies move is because they can build a 500,000 sq foot HQ in Texas for the cost of a small fixer upper bungalow in L.A.  Plus they get to treat their employees more like serfs or some poo poo too.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Bajaha posted:That's a problem we should all have I shudder to think of what my Civic would be like with another hundred horsepower
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:When I hear these "Texas is steeelin' r jerbs" stories and inevitable "California is a horrible place to do business" squeals and comments repeated everywhere......nobody ever mentions that the primary reason companies move is because they can build a 500,000 sq foot HQ in Texas for the cost of a small fixer upper bungalow in L.A. Also that the execs don't have to pay personal income tax and they can weasel their way out of paying property tax, and oh yeah, they gave us this Olympic sized swimming pool filled with $100s and we don't have to pay corporate taxes for like 30 years. Phone fucked around with this message at 01:27 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The top motorcycle racing class has a similar fuel restriction and it certainly isn't going to diesel; the disadvantages quite literally outweigh the benefits. You're looking at a situation where the engine weight is a large portion of the vehicle weight and there's still restrictions on displacement and aspiration. If it's got to be a 1000 cc naturally aspirated engine and still fit in the available space for a motorcycle, it's not going to be competitive. Stock cars are close to ten times as heavy and the engine only really needs to fit inside the hood. LMP1 cars are more constrained than that and a couple of diesels dominated for years. Besides the point is more that it gives diesel engines visibility as car engines rather than truck engines and as powerful car engines rather than just as comparatively wimpy ones. Seeing an actual diesel race car win against other race cars makes the idea of buying a V6 turbodiesel Mustang or Camaro more plausible and getting better fuel economy in the process is a nice perk.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
13 INCH DICK posted:I shudder to think of what my Civic would be like with another hundred horsepower Pretty much would be like a modern civic, they have about 130 horsepower too. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Coredump posted:The easy available torque in my dad's foxbody I used to sneak out during high school has colored my taste. The car doesn't have much hp, only rated at 210hp from the factory. But that torque tho, 260 ftlbs. It would break the tires loose at silly low speeds and being able to scoot the rear end out at low speeds under power made the car a shitload of fun. Much less scary than having to sling a car to break it loose and slide it. I think the biek analogy is a bike you can clutch up wheelie vs. one you have to bounce up. A big part about this and why new cars seem to need high horsepower and torque to do similar is going to come down to tyre technology. I remember reading something a few years ago that mentioned one of the biggest contributions to motorcycle safety and performance over the last 40 years is the tyres. I'd imagine it's similar with cars too.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:a V6 turbodiesel Mustang or Camaro This honestly sounds like a miserable driving experience. Hey, the people who say they love their "sporty diesel", well, I'm not going to sit here and tell you what is fun and what is not that's entirely a subjective thing and I respect that, but I truly don't understand it. I get that having lots of low-end torque is good for everyday driving but when I think performance car I think about winding up the engine. I just don't get what the appeal is that makes some people agitate for diesels not in something sensible like trucks but sports cars. Why? It's not like you're going to be saving any money in the US, especially since diesel costs more than gas here. What is so magical about diesel engines?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:00 |
|
|
The magic is in the cancer. Give me a diesel Ford Transit or maybe something like an X5, but I'll be goddamned if I drive a diesel in something small & light.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:10
|
|
