[jRoden]

I'm probably a "fecking eejit," but what exactly is so stupid and ridiculous about the quote "Who are the [Twitter] investors? Probably some of the wealthiest people in this country. And we are giving them more wealth."?

I mean, would the tax really hurt Twitter or Zynga? This stuff is just kind of disheartening. Oh no, your multi-billion dollar massive success of a company might lose a couple mil to taxes, better throw a fit or pack up and move to a new city.

[mc32]

Maybe i am too, but I can't figure out how SF is "giving" [the companies] wealth? Said companies are earning their own wealth. SF is not "giving" it to them, I'm sure.

Let's say you were going to lease storage (physical) and outfit A had a flat fee of 50/mo. Outfit B had a flat fee of 70/mo plus appreciation on the goods you stored. Let's say 20/mo difference had negligible impact on your disposable income. Who would you choose?

If you have a choice, why choose the costliest one?

[vacri]

I might choose the one that is closer to me, or closer to where I would want to use the stored items. I might choose the one that also offers a parcel reception service. I might choose the one that has better security - some storage outfits are just a single room separated into lots by loose cardboard. I might choose the one with greater hours of access.

One day people will get that there is far more to 'value' than 'money'. SF is a nice place. People want to be there. Why shouldn't they capitalise on it? Boo-hoo, stupidly wealthy company can't take the heat, so go move to Idaho and see if that tax is really the kind of thing that cripples your tech company.

Rah, rah, private companies should be allowed to accrete wealth for their superior products because that's The American Way. But should a city offer a superior product, suddenly we're all supposed to be communist equalists when it comes to the public life?

[TillE]

> SF is a nice place. People want to be there.

Exactly. I could count on two hands the number of places I'd be willing to live (unless you were paying me truly obscene amounts of money and doing incredibly interesting work). Proper cities with good public transport and fun things going on. In a country where I speak at least a bit of the language.

Quality of life is not something to be ignored; requiring employees to live elsewhere or make long commutes is a big deal. When you're a startup looking for younger employees and fostering that kind of culture, location is vitally important.

[officemonkey]

If only businesses were as simple to manage as leasing physical storage space.

It's not just City versus Company. Your employees are a factor in this, and employee decisions are based on lots of different variables.

Employees are the most perishable resource a company has. If my company told me they were moving my downtown Chicago office to the suburbs, I would start looking for a new job. I'd wager that half to 2/3rds of my office would not like an office move either, primarily because of the increase in commuting time and cost. (Hell, I would have to buy a car!)

Twitter and Zygna have an enormous investment in the talent of their employees. Many of them are likely to prefer working in SF rather than Brisbane. So they may play hardball with the City, but I'll bet they ultimately do what their employees want them to do.

[scelerat]

Cutting straight to the chase, there may be hidden opportunity costs as well. You might attract better engineers if your company were in San Francisco rather than Brisbane.

Just sayin; ain't sayin it's so.