I read in the paper today that GE was moving it headquarters from Connecticut to Boston.
Thousands of high paying executive jobs gone.
Et tu ESPN.

(01-14-2016 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  I read in the paper today that GE was moving it headquarters from Connecticut to Boston.
Thousands of high paying executive jobs gone.
Et tu ESPN.

GE said that the high corporate taxes in CT weren't the main reason (although they played a part). Talk of moving had been in the works for years as the main reason is that they want to become a premier technology player and a "top 10 software company" by 2020. Also, they will now be located next to a tunnel that leads directly to an international airport located just a few minutes away.

Here is a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/techno...rters.html

Some notable quotes from the article:

"The Boston region, Mr. Immelt said, is “an ecosystem that shares our aspirations.”

The area is crowded with 55 colleges and universities, including research centers like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard and Northeastern University. G.E. said it was also attracted by the area’s thriving venture capital and start-up community, and pro-business state and local government.

There was also this quote which explains the move away from the suburbs:
The new headquarters will be leaner, faster and more open with a constant flow of industry partners, customers and innovators, G.E. executives say. The intent, they say, is that it will be more like walking into a start-up in an urban setting than the remote suburban headquarters of the past.

(01-14-2016 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  I read in the paper today that GE was moving it headquarters from Connecticut to Boston.
Thousands of high paying executive jobs gone.
Et tu ESPN.

When you can come up with a way to move a billion dollar campus, then maybe we can talk about ESPN moving from Connecticut. But moving where? How far from the media capital of the world? As it is now, it already takes an hour and a half to get from Bristol to NYC. How much further do you want them to move?

And what are they going to do with their investment of over a billion?

Just one studio set alone cost ESPN $125 million: http://www.fastcompany.com/3030871/most-...ter-studio

(01-14-2016 04:18 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  I read in the paper today that GE was moving it headquarters from Connecticut to Boston.
Thousands of high paying executive jobs gone.
Et tu ESPN.

When you can come up with a way to move a billion dollar campus, then maybe we can talk about ESPN moving from Connecticut. But moving where? How far from the media capital of the world? As it is now, it already takes an hour and a half to get from Bristol to NYC. How much further do you want them to move?

And what are they going to do with their investment of over a billion?

Just one studio set alone cost ESPN $125 million: http://www.fastcompany.com/3030871/most-...ter-studio

A friend of mine in North Carolina thinks that ESPN will move to NC, too. I just don't see it. Being near the media capital of the world is huge. The only way ESPN leaves CT is if they head to another huge city like Chicago or LA (and I am sure that they would prefer to remain on Eastern Standard Time).

ESPN has spent so much money on that CT campus that they would never recoup it in a sale. In addition, their most important players are raising families in CT and are firmly entrenched there. Chris Berman is a CT native (and he is essentially the face of ESPN).

The worldwide leader will stay in CT.

(01-14-2016 04:07 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  I read in the paper today that GE was moving it headquarters from Connecticut to Boston.
Thousands of high paying executive jobs gone.
Et tu ESPN.

GE said that the high corporate taxes in CT weren't the main reason (although they played a part). Talk of moving had been in the works for years as the main reason is that they want to become a premier technology player and a "top 10 software company" by 2020. Also, they will now be located next to a tunnel that leads directly to an international airport located just a few minutes away.

Here is a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/techno...rters.html

Some notable quotes from the article:

"The Boston region, Mr. Immelt said, is “an ecosystem that shares our aspirations.”

The area is crowded with 55 colleges and universities, including research centers like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard and Northeastern University. G.E. said it was also attracted by the area’s thriving venture capital and start-up community, and pro-business state and local government.

There was also this quote which explains the move away from the suburbs:
The new headquarters will be leaner, faster and more open with a constant flow of industry partners, customers and innovators, G.E. executives say. The intent, they say, is that it will be more like walking into a start-up in an urban setting than the remote suburban headquarters of the past.

It was the increased taxes from last year that caused the decision. WSJ article was quoting about every company with a corporate HQ in Connecticut as saying it was serious enough they were looking at moving.

(01-14-2016 04:37 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  Being near the media capital of the world is huge.

Well, considering modern technology, it's not what it used to be.

(01-14-2016 04:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 04:07 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  I read in the paper today that GE was moving it headquarters from Connecticut to Boston.
Thousands of high paying executive jobs gone.
Et tu ESPN.

GE said that the high corporate taxes in CT weren't the main reason (although they played a part). Talk of moving had been in the works for years as the main reason is that they want to become a premier technology player and a "top 10 software company" by 2020. Also, they will now be located next to a tunnel that leads directly to an international airport located just a few minutes away.

Here is a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/techno...rters.html

Some notable quotes from the article:

"The Boston region, Mr. Immelt said, is “an ecosystem that shares our aspirations.”

The area is crowded with 55 colleges and universities, including research centers like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard and Northeastern University. G.E. said it was also attracted by the area’s thriving venture capital and start-up community, and pro-business state and local government.

There was also this quote which explains the move away from the suburbs:
The new headquarters will be leaner, faster and more open with a constant flow of industry partners, customers and innovators, G.E. executives say. The intent, they say, is that it will be more like walking into a start-up in an urban setting than the remote suburban headquarters of the past.

It was the increased taxes from last year that caused the decision. WSJ article was quoting about every company with a corporate HQ in Connecticut as saying it was serious enough they were looking at moving.

It was a factor but it's not like they moved to a low tax state. I think it's the overall value of the location or what you are getting for your money. They will still be paying fairly high taxes in MA but will be in Boston with more visibility and have an easier time recruiting young talent. Being a higher tax state without dynamic urban regions will definitely bite CT in the long run if we don't make serious changes.

CT is one of the most left leaning states out there - at least at the gov't level. People are sick and tired of confiscatory taxes plus being taxed twice or thrice on the same income. Any state with a high corporate income tax is going to be in huge trouble moving forward. That game is going to end real soon.

(01-14-2016 04:51 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 04:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 04:07 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  I read in the paper today that GE was moving it headquarters from Connecticut to Boston.
Thousands of high paying executive jobs gone.
Et tu ESPN.

GE said that the high corporate taxes in CT weren't the main reason (although they played a part). Talk of moving had been in the works for years as the main reason is that they want to become a premier technology player and a "top 10 software company" by 2020. Also, they will now be located next to a tunnel that leads directly to an international airport located just a few minutes away.

Here is a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/techno...rters.html

Some notable quotes from the article:

"The Boston region, Mr. Immelt said, is “an ecosystem that shares our aspirations.”

The area is crowded with 55 colleges and universities, including research centers like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard and Northeastern University. G.E. said it was also attracted by the area’s thriving venture capital and start-up community, and pro-business state and local government.

There was also this quote which explains the move away from the suburbs:
The new headquarters will be leaner, faster and more open with a constant flow of industry partners, customers and innovators, G.E. executives say. The intent, they say, is that it will be more like walking into a start-up in an urban setting than the remote suburban headquarters of the past.

It was the increased taxes from last year that caused the decision. WSJ article was quoting about every company with a corporate HQ in Connecticut as saying it was serious enough they were looking at moving.

It was a factor but it's not like they moved to a low tax state. I think it's the overall value of the location or what you are getting for your money. They will still be paying fairly high taxes in MA but will be in Boston with more visibility and have an easier time recruiting young talent. Being a higher tax state without dynamic urban regions will definitely bite CT in the long run if we don't make serious changes.

Barney Frank was literally just on CNBC. He was saying that if a company wanted to avoid high taxes, they wouldn't have picked Massachusetts. The move to Boston is all about the highly educated workforce and what the city of Boston respresents to the high tech world.

The same applies to ESPN. The location near NYC affords them greater access to the movers and shakers of the sports world. Many athletes are frequently in NYC to be on talk shows (Fallon, Colbert, Seth Meyers, etc). and use the opportunity to also appear on ESPN broadcasts when invited. CT isn't cheap, but it is well located.

No offense to NC (nice state), but Charlotte is mostly banking.

(01-14-2016 04:51 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 04:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 04:07 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  I read in the paper today that GE was moving it headquarters from Connecticut to Boston.
Thousands of high paying executive jobs gone.
Et tu ESPN.

GE said that the high corporate taxes in CT weren't the main reason (although they played a part). Talk of moving had been in the works for years as the main reason is that they want to become a premier technology player and a "top 10 software company" by 2020. Also, they will now be located next to a tunnel that leads directly to an international airport located just a few minutes away.

Here is a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/techno...rters.html

Some notable quotes from the article:

"The Boston region, Mr. Immelt said, is “an ecosystem that shares our aspirations.”

The area is crowded with 55 colleges and universities, including research centers like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard and Northeastern University. G.E. said it was also attracted by the area’s thriving venture capital and start-up community, and pro-business state and local government.

There was also this quote which explains the move away from the suburbs:
The new headquarters will be leaner, faster and more open with a constant flow of industry partners, customers and innovators, G.E. executives say. The intent, they say, is that it will be more like walking into a start-up in an urban setting than the remote suburban headquarters of the past.

It was the increased taxes from last year that caused the decision. WSJ article was quoting about every company with a corporate HQ in Connecticut as saying it was serious enough they were looking at moving.

It was a factor but it's not like they moved to a low tax state. I think it's the overall value of the location or what you are getting for your money. They will still be paying fairly high taxes in MA but will be in Boston with more visibility and have an easier time recruiting young talent. Being a higher tax state without dynamic urban regions will definitely bite CT in the long run if we don't make serious changes.

Well, reportedly, taxes did play more than an inconsequential role here. In the past year, the CT state government passed new business taxes that were strongly opposed by businesses, including GE. There have been reports that these new taxes were the "last straw" for GE.

GE is also reportedly getting significant breaks from Massachusetts.

That said, as the Hartford Courant noted, the bigger concern among many in the state of CT is the overall business climate compared to Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/...story.html

Otherwise, you are right about recruiting talent. Also, Boston's reputation as an "innovation center" was very attractive to GE, according to sir public statements. If anyone hasn't been to Boston in recent years, you should visit. It is a very cool city. A lot of the social ills affecting many urban areas in the US are comparatively less of an issue in Boston thanks in part to smart public policies. In this case, there was a Democratic Mayor of Boston and a Republican Governor of Massachusetts who are friends and worked closely together to make this happen. This is something that happens often here.

One interesting story that was reported yesterday. When CT made its pitch to GE to stay in the state, they produced a report touting the advantages of CT. In the report was a picture of a jet engine made in CT - by another CT-based company - and GE competitor - Pratt & Whitney. Needless to say, it was reported that GE officials were less than pleased with this screw up. I mean, really, how does a thing like that happen??

IMO, losing a corporate headquarters of one of the largest, wealthiest, and most iconic companies in the world world has to be a major blow to the state of CT, no matter how you parse it.

We've needed som good news in MA business just lost the EMC headquarters to Dell.

(01-14-2016 05:32 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Well, reportedly, taxes did play more than an inconsequential role here. In the past year, the CT state government passed new business taxes that were strongly opposed by businesses, including GE. There have been reports that these new taxes were the "last straw" for GE.

GE is also reportedly getting significant breaks from Massachusetts.

That said, as the Hartford Courant noted, the bigger concern among many in the state of CT is the overall business climate compared to Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/...story.html

Otherwise, you are right about recruiting talent. Also, Boston's reputation as an "innovation center" was very attractive to GE, according to sir public statements. If anyone hasn't been to Boston in recent years, you should visit. It is a very cool city. A lot of the social ills affecting many urban areas in the US are comparatively less of an issue in Boston thanks in part to smart public policies. In this case, there was a Democratic Mayor of Boston and a Republican Governor of Massachusetts who are friends and worked closely together to make this happen. This is something that happens often here.

One interesting story that was reported yesterday. When CT made its pitch to GE to stay in the state, they produced a report touting the advantages of CT. In the report was a picture of a jet engine made in CT - by another CT based company - and GE competitor, Pratt & Whitney. Needless to say, it was reported that GE officials were less than pleased with this screw up. I mean, really, how does a thing like that happen??

IMO, losing a corporate headquarters of one of the largest, wealthiest, and most iconic companies in the world world has to be a major blow to the state of CT, no matter how you parse it.

Oh, I don't really disagree. CT has to find a way to balance smart public investment while striving to create a competitive overall business environment. And on that last part, it's not just your opinion, it's a fact that it's a major blow.

I used to work at Fidelity its headquartered in Boston, there was a "pissing match" with the state then all of a sudden the Marlborough MA office closed and just noth of the MA border in Merrimac, NH and just south of the MA border in Smithfield RI opened up and I then had an hour commute.

(01-14-2016 05:55 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 05:32 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Well, reportedly, taxes did play more than an inconsequential role here. In the past year, the CT state government passed new business taxes that were strongly opposed by businesses, including GE. There have been reports that these new taxes were the "last straw" for GE.

GE is also reportedly getting significant breaks from Massachusetts.

That said, as the Hartford Courant noted, the bigger concern among many in the state of CT is the overall business climate compared to Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/...story.html

Otherwise, you are right about recruiting talent. Also, Boston's reputation as an "innovation center" was very attractive to GE, according to sir public statements. If anyone hasn't been to Boston in recent years, you should visit. It is a very cool city. A lot of the social ills affecting many urban areas in the US are comparatively less of an issue in Boston thanks in part to smart public policies. In this case, there was a Democratic Mayor of Boston and a Republican Governor of Massachusetts who are friends and worked closely together to make this happen. This is something that happens often here.

One interesting story that was reported yesterday. When CT made its pitch to GE to stay in the state, they produced a report touting the advantages of CT. In the report was a picture of a jet engine made in CT - by another CT based company - and GE competitor, Pratt & Whitney. Needless to say, it was reported that GE officials were less than pleased with this screw up. I mean, really, how does a thing like that happen??

IMO, losing a corporate headquarters of one of the largest, wealthiest, and most iconic companies in the world world has to be a major blow to the state of CT, no matter how you parse it.

Oh, I don't really disagree. CT has to find a way to balance smart public investment while striving to create a competitive overall business environment. And on that last part, it's not just your opinion, it's a fact that it's a major blow.

You could start by electing more fiscal conservatives.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(01-14-2016 06:21 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 05:55 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 05:32 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Well, reportedly, taxes did play more than an inconsequential role here. In the past year, the CT state government passed new business taxes that were strongly opposed by businesses, including GE. There have been reports that these new taxes were the "last straw" for GE.

GE is also reportedly getting significant breaks from Massachusetts.

That said, as the Hartford Courant noted, the bigger concern among many in the state of CT is the overall business climate compared to Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/...story.html

Otherwise, you are right about recruiting talent. Also, Boston's reputation as an "innovation center" was very attractive to GE, according to sir public statements. If anyone hasn't been to Boston in recent years, you should visit. It is a very cool city. A lot of the social ills affecting many urban areas in the US are comparatively less of an issue in Boston thanks in part to smart public policies. In this case, there was a Democratic Mayor of Boston and a Republican Governor of Massachusetts who are friends and worked closely together to make this happen. This is something that happens often here.

One interesting story that was reported yesterday. When CT made its pitch to GE to stay in the state, they produced a report touting the advantages of CT. In the report was a picture of a jet engine made in CT - by another CT based company - and GE competitor, Pratt & Whitney. Needless to say, it was reported that GE officials were less than pleased with this screw up. I mean, really, how does a thing like that happen??

IMO, losing a corporate headquarters of one of the largest, wealthiest, and most iconic companies in the world world has to be a major blow to the state of CT, no matter how you parse it.

Oh, I don't really disagree. CT has to find a way to balance smart public investment while striving to create a competitive overall business environment. And on that last part, it's not just your opinion, it's a fact that it's a major blow.

You could start by electing more fiscal conservatives.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

The 2 Governors prior to the current were Republican (1995-2011). Many dislike the current douche.

(01-14-2016 04:37 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 04:18 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  I read in the paper today that GE was moving it headquarters from Connecticut to Boston.
Thousands of high paying executive jobs gone.
Et tu ESPN.

When you can come up with a way to move a billion dollar campus, then maybe we can talk about ESPN moving from Connecticut. But moving where? How far from the media capital of the world? As it is now, it already takes an hour and a half to get from Bristol to NYC. How much further do you want them to move?

And what are they going to do with their investment of over a billion?

Just one studio set alone cost ESPN $125 million: http://www.fastcompany.com/3030871/most-...ter-studio

A friend of mine in North Carolina thinks that ESPN will move to NC, too. I just don't see it. Being near the media capital of the world is huge. The only way ESPN leaves CT is if they head to another huge city like Chicago or LA (and I am sure that they would prefer to remain on Eastern Standard Time).

ESPN has spent so much money on that CT campus that they would never recoup it in a sale. In addition, their most important players are raising families in CT and are firmly entrenched there. Chris Berman is a CT native (and he is essentially the face of ESPN).

The worldwide leader will stay in CT.

ESPNU is already based in Charlotte.

(01-14-2016 06:21 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 05:55 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 05:32 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Well, reportedly, taxes did play more than an inconsequential role here. In the past year, the CT state government passed new business taxes that were strongly opposed by businesses, including GE. There have been reports that these new taxes were the "last straw" for GE.

GE is also reportedly getting significant breaks from Massachusetts.

That said, as the Hartford Courant noted, the bigger concern among many in the state of CT is the overall business climate compared to Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/...story.html

Otherwise, you are right about recruiting talent. Also, Boston's reputation as an "innovation center" was very attractive to GE, according to sir public statements. If anyone hasn't been to Boston in recent years, you should visit. It is a very cool city. A lot of the social ills affecting many urban areas in the US are comparatively less of an issue in Boston thanks in part to smart public policies. In this case, there was a Democratic Mayor of Boston and a Republican Governor of Massachusetts who are friends and worked closely together to make this happen. This is something that happens often here.

One interesting story that was reported yesterday. When CT made its pitch to GE to stay in the state, they produced a report touting the advantages of CT. In the report was a picture of a jet engine made in CT - by another CT based company - and GE competitor, Pratt & Whitney. Needless to say, it was reported that GE officials were less than pleased with this screw up. I mean, really, how does a thing like that happen??

IMO, losing a corporate headquarters of one of the largest, wealthiest, and most iconic companies in the world world has to be a major blow to the state of CT, no matter how you parse it.

Oh, I don't really disagree. CT has to find a way to balance smart public investment while striving to create a competitive overall business environment. And on that last part, it's not just your opinion, it's a fact that it's a major blow.

You could start by electing more fiscal conservatives.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Like Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker and Sam Brownback, whose states (I live in Louisiana) are economic basket cases from their Tea Party policies?

(01-14-2016 07:43 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 06:21 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 05:55 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 05:32 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Well, reportedly, taxes did play more than an inconsequential role here. In the past year, the CT state government passed new business taxes that were strongly opposed by businesses, including GE. There have been reports that these new taxes were the "last straw" for GE.

GE is also reportedly getting significant breaks from Massachusetts.

That said, as the Hartford Courant noted, the bigger concern among many in the state of CT is the overall business climate compared to Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/...story.html

Otherwise, you are right about recruiting talent. Also, Boston's reputation as an "innovation center" was very attractive to GE, according to sir public statements. If anyone hasn't been to Boston in recent years, you should visit. It is a very cool city. A lot of the social ills affecting many urban areas in the US are comparatively less of an issue in Boston thanks in part to smart public policies. In this case, there was a Democratic Mayor of Boston and a Republican Governor of Massachusetts who are friends and worked closely together to make this happen. This is something that happens often here.

One interesting story that was reported yesterday. When CT made its pitch to GE to stay in the state, they produced a report touting the advantages of CT. In the report was a picture of a jet engine made in CT - by another CT based company - and GE competitor, Pratt & Whitney. Needless to say, it was reported that GE officials were less than pleased with this screw up. I mean, really, how does a thing like that happen??

IMO, losing a corporate headquarters of one of the largest, wealthiest, and most iconic companies in the world world has to be a major blow to the state of CT, no matter how you parse it.

Oh, I don't really disagree. CT has to find a way to balance smart public investment while striving to create a competitive overall business environment. And on that last part, it's not just your opinion, it's a fact that it's a major blow.

You could start by electing more fiscal conservatives.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Like Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker and Sam Brownback, whose states (I live in Louisiana) are economic basket cases from their Tea Party policies?

I hear you Terry; but I think there is a difference between traditional conservative governance (which the OP could be referring to) and the Tea Party. Same with the differences between traditional liberals and socialists like Bernie Sanders.

ESPN needs to move to Orlando.

Ex-Im Bank. GE was paying very close attention to who voted on that. It's critical to GE's business and the type of deals they make overseas. Wasn't the original reason for the move, but made a difference in where they chose the new site. Cincinnati was under strong consideration until OH republican representatives voted against the re-authorization. That, and the CVG airport is pretty inadequate.