5 ms·

One of the reason is that, people who are incharge of these decisions are invested in these cities. They've real estate in these cities. So, using public money

by choot 8y ago

One of the reason is that, people who are incharge of these decisions are invested in these cities. They've real estate in these cities. So, using public money of the company to invest in these cities increase the value of their personal investments :) It won't be changing anytime sooner. Shareholders aren't bothered. I wouldn't be surprized if majority of shareholders by value live in these cities too.

shard972 8y ago
That and before they even move in they will be lobbying for foreign work visas because they "just can't find any local talent".
Arnt 8y ago
The names of senior management and board members are public, so you can name the ones you have in mind.
oblio 8y ago
I don't remember the actual source, so it might just be a funny anecdote. But I remember reading that after WW2 a lot of US companies were expanding and looking for new headquarters. They'd commission huge research teams to find the best location for the new headquarters, spend a lot of time and effort to find a good place. A book written about 10 or 15 years after many of these companies found that almost invariably the result of the research placed the best location within a short distance of where the CEO was from/currently lived. So what you're saying doesn't really surprise me :)
- mooreds 8y ago
  I was curious so I hunted the anecdote down. Via https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2003/03/28/20030328/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2003/03/28/20030328/ I found this HBR article: https://hbr.org/1989/03/corporate-architecture-from-the-outside-in https://hbr.org/1989/03/corporate-architecture-from-the-outs... Which has this quote: > A dozen years ago, William Whyte, author of the classic book The Organization Man, tried to do just that. The sociologist took his map and phone book and set out to chart which corporate headquarters had gone where and why. Contrary to official rationales, which emphasized corporate enhancement or a disinterested pursuit of the great outdoors, Whyte found that most of the new campus compounds were sited within eight or nine miles of the CEO’s home—a chilling and widely broadcast statistic that jarred with corporate claims about humane treatment for those uprooted in the move.
- hnmcQIOoQUDv 8y ago
  IBM did this, and cunningly bought land in the weird area where Connecticut cuts into Westchester County, NY. This let them put the HQ near exec homes but routinely threaten to move HQ to the other state in order to extract tax benefits from NY. "Moving" to the other state simply would mean building a new building ~500 feet across the state line, barely changing anyone's commute.
baxtr 8y ago
There is the anecdote that after WWII Bonn was favored over Frankfurt as new capital of West Germany because of its proximity to Adenauer’s home town of Cologne.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  One other reason proffered for Bonn over Berlin was that Frankfurt was enough of a cultural, industrial and commercial hub that it might continue as capital after reunification. Not even seriously discussed when it unexpected happened with Bonn.

by choot 8y ago

shard972 8y ago

That and before they even move in they will be lobbying for foreign work visas because they "just can't find any local talent".

Arnt 8y ago

The names of senior management and board members are public, so you can name the ones you have in mind.

oblio 8y ago

I don't remember the actual source, so it might just be a funny anecdote. But I remember reading that after WW2 a lot of US companies were expanding and looking for new headquarters. They'd commission huge research teams to find the best location for the new headquarters, spend a lot of time and effort to find a good place. A book written about 10 or 15 years after many of these companies found that almost invariably the result of the research placed the best location within a short distance of where the CEO was from/currently lived. So what you're saying doesn't really surprise me :)

mooreds 8y ago
I was curious so I hunted the anecdote down. Via https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2003/03/28/20030328/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2003/03/28/20030328/ I found this HBR article: https://hbr.org/1989/03/corporate-architecture-from-the-outside-in https://hbr.org/1989/03/corporate-architecture-from-the-outs... Which has this quote: > A dozen years ago, William Whyte, author of the classic book The Organization Man, tried to do just that. The sociologist took his map and phone book and set out to chart which corporate headquarters had gone where and why. Contrary to official rationales, which emphasized corporate enhancement or a disinterested pursuit of the great outdoors, Whyte found that most of the new campus compounds were sited within eight or nine miles of the CEO’s home—a chilling and widely broadcast statistic that jarred with corporate claims about humane treatment for those uprooted in the move.
hnmcQIOoQUDv 8y ago
IBM did this, and cunningly bought land in the weird area where Connecticut cuts into Westchester County, NY. This let them put the HQ near exec homes but routinely threaten to move HQ to the other state in order to extract tax benefits from NY. "Moving" to the other state simply would mean building a new building ~500 feet across the state line, barely changing anyone's commute.

baxtr 8y ago

There is the anecdote that after WWII Bonn was favored over Frankfurt as new capital of West Germany because of its proximity to Adenauer’s home town of Cologne.

barry-cotter 8y ago
One other reason proffered for Bonn over Berlin was that Frankfurt was enough of a cultural, industrial and commercial hub that it might continue as capital after reunification. Not even seriously discussed when it unexpected happened with Bonn.