6 ms·
Likely irrelevant, but reminded me of this[0]: """Basically, we’re moving because of William Whyte‘s rule: virtually all corporate relocations involve a move to
by beagle3 6y ago
Likely irrelevant, but reminded me of this[0]: """Basically, we’re moving because of William Whyte‘s rule: virtually all corporate relocations involve a move to a location which is closer to the CEO’s home than the old location. Whyte discovered this principle after an extensive study of Fortune 500 companies that left New York City for the suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s"""
Tesla will likely move its HQ to Texas following Musk's move (if it hasn't already), which would seem to be in line with Whyte's rule. However, it is likely both would have the same underlying reason (legal, financial, taxation or otherwise), rather than just "making it more conventient for musk".
I wonder if Elison or Katz have also moved to Austin recently ......
[0] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2003/03/28/finding-an-office-in-new-york-city/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2003/03/28/finding-an-office-...
- adventured 6y agoIt's particularly interesting given Ellison and Musk have become close in recent years, with Ellison buying a large chunk of Tesla and joining the board (now a $9.5 billion personal holding). Zero chance these moves weren't widely discussed between them over time.
- skinnymuch 6y agoThat sounds like a big personal holding. But if he bought it in Early and mid 2019, then he probably spent under a billion for his stake. Which for him isn’t much. 1.5% of the company is still a solid portion. Especially if Musk ever needs to sell shares for some reason and needs an ally with substantial ownership to align with him for continued control
- zaphirplane 6y agoInteresting, somehow I don’t think how companies where run in the 1950-1960 translates to today Look at the google ML firing/resigning storm, in the 50s someone fired end of story not the CEO saying they will investigate (honesty transparency aside)
- economusty 6y ago"Firing/resigning" which is it, two different events there.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> “Firing/resigning” which is it, two different events there. Which of those is the case is hotly debated. The legal concept of “constructive termination” recognizes that detailed inquiry into the history leading up to the end of employment may be necessary to distinguish those two things, and in this case its even debated whether it was firing or resignation in the superficial sense, as well as being debated as to whether it was constructive termination even if superficially resignation.
- ineedasername 6y agoIn the 1950's without modern media, social networks, etc., it was a lot easier to sweep some scandal or other major bit of unpleasantness under the rug.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y agoAside from this being a somewhat strange example to bring up, it's not true. See, for example, http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/CA2/174CA2d184.htm http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/CA2/174CA2d184.htm, a Supreme Court case concerning wrongful termination from 1959.
- zaphirplane 6y agoNot clear on what you are trying to say, the point I am making is today companies bow to public opinion, and the actions of companies spread fast
- core-questions 6y agoThey're not really going to investigate. Then as now, people say what they have to, and then wait for it to go down the memory hole.
- 6y ago
- canniballectern 6y agoYou've already hinted at this, but it's not just selfishness - CEOs are much more mobile than companies. Both the CEO and the company as a whole are subject to similar incentives, but companies are big ships and execs' families are comparatively nimble.
- suyash 6y agoBoth of those people probably have several homes and easy for them to commute in private jets so don't matter much.
- lock-free 6y agoWhat was the typical tenure of a Fortune 500 CEO in the 1950s?
- vincentmarle 6y agoSame with the Amazon "HQ2" relocation, all of the options that were considered happened to be places where Jeff Bezos owns a home.
- Lammy 6y agoDamn I’d just like to own one lol
- giantrobot 6y agoBack to the salt mines with you!
- rtx 6y agoAt a specific place or anywhere?
- freetime2 6y agoI would like to own one of Bezos’ homes. Doesn’t really matter where as I assume they are all nicer than mine.
- atwebb 6y agoIs that true? Why would any of that be limiting for a person who could by any home in a given city?
- ethbr0 6y agoBecause even Bezos can't afford to build a city one would want to live in, around any home.
- spoonjim 6y agoBut he probably bought homes in cities he thought were good cities with a future.
- simonebrunozzi 6y ago
- femtoparsec 6y agoDon't forget that often (but certainly not always) CEOs will look ahead and try to get a feel for which locations may be a good fit both for their personal and company affairs. Usually due to taxation, regulatory, hiring, cultural, cost of living and a range of other realities. They may make the move themselves ahead of their company's move making it seem like the company later moved merely because of the CEO's new location, but they'd already made the decision that the company move would follow as the sensible thing.
- redisman 6y agoSeems like a good time to invest in some Austin real estate
- trident1000 6y agoThis is exactly how California was a red state during the silicon boom and then turned into a blue state thereafter. Everything gets expensive and then people look to the government.
- option 6y agoare you sure you are not flipping cause and effects here?
- trident1000 6y agoDon't believe I am unless you have a convincing argument I'm not aware of.
- _lazlo 6y agoPeople look to the government and then things get expensive.
- neilparikh 6y agoBig difference between CA and TX: no Prop 13 in TX. That alone will have a massive impact on how things play out.
- karaterobot 6y agoInteresting, hadn't heard about Whyte's rule. I'm sure it is a valid observation, but I wonder whether at least part of it could be explained by a lot of corporations being headquartered on either coast. If your first HQ is as far west or east as you can go, then most places you could move are going to be closer to your CEO's home.
- jb775 6y agoI'd guess that Musk personally moved to TX because he's planning on moving SpaceX and (possibly) Tesla HQs to TX. TX has lots of cheap land, low taxes, business-friendly politics, low cost of living (for employees)....CA is basically the opposite and getting worse.
- mulcahey 6y agoSpaceX and Tesla cannot move with the ease of software companies due to the facilities and equipment needed to build, test (and in SpaceX's case, launch & land) their vehicles.
- ericmay 6y ago???? You can keep factories open in other places and relocate corporate staff comparatively easily. Not to mention you can also build new factories and facilities close to the new HQ once the move happens.