Chicago Mayor Tries to Poach Oregon Companies because of Measure 66

You probably had more entertainment expenses in Chicago as there is more to do. I felt that both cities seemed comparable in cost of living versus San Fran, LA, etc. As large a city as Chicago is, it seems fairly affordable on the outside looking in. The chicagoland area is vast and the suburbs just go on forever. Its a different feeling, almost hellish to me. The suburbs are so depressing out there.

I'm sure its easier to make more money in Chicago though than in Portland, therefore you can probably buy more valuable real estate if you wanted to, but it seems that people won't get "priced out" of the city. In portland its a matter of small space of valuable real estate with less people with high incomes to afford.

 

I've never met any here, but I'm sure there's a few. One is too many. No one with a conscience could work for Nike.

We don't really want people who made their fortune from illegal child-labor camps to buy anything here. We'd rather they didn't come here at all. We don't want their blood money.

Beautiful Central Oregon is full of good people, and good people from all over the world visit to marvel at the beauty, and buy homes and move here.

Nike should move to Chicago to keep things in balance.

 

Sure, I occasionally would hit Gibson's or Charlie Trotter's, but more often I would go to Zaiqa, Reza's or some dive in Greektown or Little Italy. You can actually drink and eat really cheaply in Chicago. The big difference is things like parking and rent/mortgage.

 

I wonder how many commissions you've collected from people who have engaged in business practices from which you'd disapprove? Since you're pure as the driven snow, I expect you to return those monies immediately.

 

Trying to figure out what the hell Mayor Daley is saying has frustrated many people. His father was even worse.

 

So you envision sustainable economy for Oregon? Great in a small community, but if you want a large populace, you need evil corporations running things to provide real jobs, not Wheatgrass juicers.

 

Boeing (headquarters only) moved to Chicago after buying up their competitors in the defense industry, because the middle of the country is where to be to get that defense business. The Boeing Military Company division of Boeing was always trying hard to expand, so they had their headquarters in Kansas City. The reason BMC was centered in the Midwest was that they wanted to be where the competition's factories were (to siphon off contracts and employees). A few years later, Boeing bought up the defense competition (Lockheed, etc.) and suddenly felt the need to consider moving after 60 years in Seattle. Boeing held a fake competition of cities for its HQ. Chicago won, what a coincidence. With the new base of operations assisting the new direction, Boeing has changed from being mostly commercial airplanes to mostly military business.

Another reason for Chicago was that the top guys spend half their time traveling. So basing themselves in the middle of the country, vs. at the edge, meant less travel time. (The company must have almost 20,000 business air trips per month by now.) Just the travel (centered in Chicago vs. Seattle) alone saves the company a couple hundred million dollars per year. So "significant HQ costs" are indeed a reason, but separately from the HQ tax costs.

The point is that taxes had nothing to do with Boeing HQ "leaving" Seattle. ("leaving"? 90% of Boeing employees who were stationed in Seattle before, still are.)

 

http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/index.php/Kellogg/article/tax_incentives_and_the_city

http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/incentive/ti0106.htm

$63MM for 500 jobs. The original reason to move wasn't tax-based; Boeing is going to transform itself from a manufacturing company to an assembly company, which means they're going to lay off tens of thousands of employees in Washington. You want to make those kinds of moves living out of state. However, once the decision was made, it was a race to the bottom among Denver, the Metroplex and Chicago. Chicago gave up the most.

 

My point exactly.

The vast majority of Chicagoans make nowhere near that amount, nor will they ever.

 

To imply there is somewhere a person could live in Chicago that is "comparable" to living in Portland suggests you've never visited either. Chicago is a an ugly, decrepit and crumbling city in a boring state in an umassively polluted region of the country.

 

Which is why their infrastructure is 50 years behind in maintenance.

I guess their grandchildren will have to pay that debt.

 

Care to make a wager? I'll bet I've lived in both metro Portland and the Chicagoland area. How much would you like to bet?

Once again, I applaud your willingness to expose your idiocy for all to see.

 

I've lived in both. There are plenty of places in Chicago to live "comparable" to Portland. I doubt I would ever move back to Chicago, but there's not a lot about Portland I think is better than Chicago. Got tired of the winters there. Until I discovered ours suck here, too. I suppose the TrailBlazers are the main thing holding me to Portland.

 

Another reason why a company would prefer to be in Portland, where talented employees would prefer to live.

 

Hmm, the numbers don't bear that out.

Chicago has more Fortune 500 headquarters than Portland and a higher population. You and I may prefer Portland to Chicago, but I know plenty of people who believe the opposite. See, people are different in all kinds of ways beyond your understanding.

 

It's apples and oranges. Chicago is a real city, with all the rough edges intact. It's big, it's dirty and industrial, there are dangerous areas, there's racial tension and ethnic neighborhoods. Portland is Mayberry with 2 million people.

I prefer Portland, but I know a lot of people who think differently.

 

Oh, I agree. I like a lot of parts of both, and wish there was a way to combine the two, or meld the two somehow. I know if work doesn't ever take me away, I will likely stay in Portland most of my adult life. And will be plenty happy here. It's just so small to me. I love the size of Chicago. I love the first class nature of a lot of things about chicago. I like the events it puts on. I like that things it does don't generally feel second rate. I like that its residents accept that they are a big city, as opposed to whining about californians moving in and pushing them away from being a mulberry. I hate the cold. I hate traffic, but like the L. For some reason, as ugly as it can be, I love flying into Chicago and seeing the sprawl. Of course, I love flying in to Portland, and actually seeing trees. Flying into Chicago in the winter feels like you're looking at ablack and white picture. Really dreary and ugly looking. The streets are miserable because of the cold. Freezing the roads, breaking apart, and causing miserable pot-holes. I like they have two baseball teams. And a football team. And hockey. Nice to have options.
I like not having bad neigborhoods in Portland. I like when people consider parts of NE "the ghetto" and have no idea what an actual ghetto can be like, instead of just being an area of town where black people live. I like the ease of getting downtown without taking the highway, and it not taking forever. I like the urban growth boundry keeping Portland from sprawling. I hate the small mindedness of the area. The inability AND lack of desire to attract big businesses. The thought that somehow we can get by with everyone working in or owning their own small business. That any sort of expansion and forward thinking is evil, against what Portland stands for, and is obviously driven by those from california.