https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/president-joe-biden-naming-tech-hubs-32-states-104216202
The intent here is obvious. And Chainsaw Charlie is just the useful id--t. There is a political push to prop up cities in this country. As much as we like to blame Charlie for his boneheaded decisions, it's his political preferences and his incompetence that are driving this.
But the nice man on CNN says everything is going just great! Sure, we're sliding into WW3, debt is exploding, people can't afford food, housing is less affordable than ever, and the economy is about to completely flop, but we don't have ANY mean tweets, so I'm calling it a fair trade!
An article from 2022:
North Carolina Set to Become the Newest 0% Corporate Income Tax Rate State
https://poole.ncsu.edu/thought-leadership/article/north-carolina-set-to-become-the-newest-0-corporate-income-tax-rate-state/
Duke, UNC Chapel Hill and Wake Forest are more than 2 and 1/2 hours away (I drove there myself many times) from Charlotte. But there is already a huge technology hub called Research Triangle Park (RTP) within the area surrounded by Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill, where many global technology companies are already present (it's like a smaller version of Silicon Valley). The RTP professionals have easy access to Duke, UNC Chapel Hill and NC State. One thing I want to mention is that most of the IT workers in RTP are H-1B people from India.
Economy is not excellent, we are going into recession. Many companies are struggling to survive and downsizing right now. The fact that many id--ts like yourself believing fake economic reports published by the Biden administration is astounding. Look around you and see what's happening. Yes, their numbers do lie.
The government offers huge tax saving incentives to corporations that move to those designated tech hub locations. So companies inevitably relocate their tech offices to those cities.
Not to mention that banks occupy a miniscule portion of commercial real estate in the vast majority of cities. Our presence in these buildings isn't relevant in the grand scheme. I could "buy it" that all banks leaving their buildings would impact NYC or Charlotte. But believe it or not, the vast majority of the country, and therefore the economy, isn't NYC or Charlotte.
The only problem with your theory about political involvement is that it's not just banks. Miraculously a ton of business spanning many industries all decided to do the same thing at the same time...after working in very close coordination with government for the previous 2 years, now we're supposed to believe that gov wasn't involved with them at all regarding a major and COVID related decision making process. Not buying it.
Charlotte has its fair share of crime (which city doesn’t) and the cost of living is on the increase. Traffic in and around Charlotte is tough, but more and more companies moving here along with people. Talent pool is getting a lot better. I am at the end of my career and will be leaving the Charlotte area soon for a more rural location. Charlotte is just like everywhere else, once the secret is out it is usually downhill.
Ha, anyone moving to a "more progressive city" is an id--t. But hey, at least when you get curb stomped by a rioter, the DA won't prosecute because reasons. I wouldn't want to live in Charlotte either.
Oh boy. You’re either a local or just moved here within the past couple years and in the honeymoon stage. I am trashing Charlotte. I have lived all across this country and this place is a transient town riddled with mediocre people. The housing costs are not cheap. Most these triangle people you speak of will move to more progressive cities. The crime in Charlotte is skyrocketing like the cost of housing. And as banking continues to be over regulated and they push to hemorrhage quality employee across all these mediocre employers here, this city will become the next desert oasis like Detroit.
As I sit her uptown I am looking at miserable people looking at their phones. It’s not a matter of if but when.
It's a statistical certainty that a pool of 200M people will give you better candidates than one of 20M. Will there be some bottom feeders in there? Sure, but who cares? Don't hire them, it's pretty simple. Arguing for a smaller pool is madness.
As far as the benefits of colocation, it's not worth the expense unless you're talking about ultra-creative teams, of which WF has very few. Sure, have some colo space somewhere for those unicorns, 99% of the company doesn't need it. To much cost, to much risk. Never forget that 8 is Great and just about every other stupid thing this company has ever done was the direct result of in-office work. If we don't figure out how to do this right, emerging competitors that aren't saddled with these unnecessary expenses will destroy this company. We've already lost half our value as a corporation. We need to stop before other half is gone too.
Two of the top computer science schools in the world (Stanford, UC Berkeley) are within an hour of San Francisco. It's not like I need to mention the industry players based in the SF Bay Area.
Also multiple world-class sports teams with multiple championships each.
Look at the trash in this thread completely down playing Office based work. WFH is the greatest thing but if you base your talent acquisition on offering WFH you will be swamped with garbage applicants.
And those who can see no benefit to being collocated with others have an exceptionally narrow point of view. Enjoy being raged up all the time at 3 day hybrid.
Duke, UNC Chapel Hill and Wake Forest … these are elite schools about 2 hours or less from Charlotte. Clemson nearby as well. Honeywell is HQ’d in Charlotte along with Lowe’s and other big companies. You should do your homework on Charlotte before spewing nonsense.
The fact that SF is still shown as the corporate headquarters and not a single high level executive is based out of SF tells you much of the hypocrisy of our "leaders". Rules apply to thee but not me. Explain that one Charles in charge.
Who needs hubs when we have email and Microsoft teams … tf wrong wit yall?
That isn’t what I said at all buddy.
Location is irrelevant, transportation networks are irrelevant, and where talent happens to be located on average or specifically for an individual role is irrelevant. Simply offer WFH and you get all the best talent, whether they are in Manhattan or BFE Alaska, full access to lower wage workers, and you save a billion dollars on buildings we don't need. Picking out a few 'hot tech hubs' will never be a superior model and it doesn't matter which cities you pick. It's an anachronism doomed to fail in the information age.
Two fatal flaws in your argument. Again, it's a bias issue. You state: "However, they may not attract the top-tier candidates you find in NYC, Boston, LA, and DC." Personally, I find NOTHING attractive about NYC. That's my bias. But to assume that top talent wants to live there or even willing to move is just so foolish. My 2-cent analysis is you prefer city life. But that's just it. It's a preference. To assume everyone, or "top talent" prefers that is just not accurate.
Second, your argument for NYC is a diverse work force. Isn't a hub-centric approach the exact opposite of diversity? Lol. Your argument is build those ivory towers in a handful of locations make all impactful decisions in those towers and call it diverse. It's anything but.
And I am by no means giving the CEO a thumbs up. He has made things very uncomfortable for us and I think he is one real S-B...but that is the personality that needs to get the job done unfortunately. If he had compassion / soul he would focus more on employee morale, etc.
Point 1: Higher operational costs aside, NYC provides proximity to other financial institutions, granting access to opportunities like investments and capital. It boasts a diverse talent pool, which we'll delve into further in Point 2. NYC also offers a favorable regulatory environment and close government relations. It's worth noting that the CEO of BAC doesn't reside in CLT, just as an FYI.
Point 2: Core Location Strategy takes into account factors such as the cost of living, risk mitigation, industry alignment, and accessibility to transportation hubs.
Locations Considered: Minneapolis/Charlotte/Dallas/Des Moines/New York/San Francisco/Phoenix...St. Louis (a hub for some)
Personal Bias: (Charlotte, Dallas, Phoenix): These locations offer a lower cost of living, resulting in reduced salary expenditures, transportation hubs, and some degree of industry alignment. However, they may not attract the top-tier candidates you find in NYC, Boston, LA, and DC. We are in these locations to cut cost. If you build it they will come.
Des Moines/St. Louis/Sioux Falls: These places lack a robust transportation hub, have little to no industry alignment, and may not possess a diverse talent pool. It seems they are shrinking.
Atlanta/Richmond: The situation there is unclear, but the quality of living may not be strong, and the pay needs to be higher than Charlotte.
Denver/Portland/Seattle/Phoenix: These cities tend to be expensive to perform business.
Roanoke. Shrinking mortgage footprint but opportunity for cheap labor to manage call center operations.
I do not see incompetence in the CEO ---- I see strategy!!!
I hate the fu--ing office how stupid is this even once a week is too much there’s NO point in a big city or not there’s no more collaboration than already takes place on teams fu--ing weirdos
@mjl+1peTG3Gb No offense taken, whether intended or not. The problem with your argument is it is biased. And I truly mean no offense here. You say it "could have negatively impacted major inner cities." You're proving my point. That is a political argument. Whether it's right or wrong, it's political in nature. And as a CEO, my role is to protect my shareholders, employees. Not play politics.
Frankly, I don't follow your logic in comparing Charlotte to NYC. You state it's about cost cutting. Then explain Hudson Yards. Lol And as for Charlotte, it is a top-3 locale for banking industry, not just WF but other institutions. But here again, let's assume you are correct. Is limiting your talent pool to 8 cities in the US truly wise? Your bias for NYC or against CLT is the exact argument I'd make. Do you believe, or are we really to believe, the most talented among us want to live in NYC (or insert the 7 other golden cities)? If you believe that, well, your bias is overwhelming. Please understand, I'm not trying to be ugly here. Your opinion is just as valid as mine. However, I think the head of an institution's first priority must be about the health of the company, not politics.
And before you say it, yes, a financially healthy NYC is important to WF. But so is a healthy 95% rest of the country.
OP, I don't intend to troll, but have you considered the broader macroeconomic factors driving the push for Return to Office (RTO)? We've discussed forced RTO as a strategy by financial institutions to increase foot traffic in their commercial real estate holdings. Allowing permanent work-from-home could have negatively impacted major inner cities, where substantial investments are tied up in commercial real estate (CRE). It's important to remember that some banks are considered "too big to fail," and their failure could lead to a financial crisis akin to 2008, or possibly even worse.
That's why many people on this forum advise against unnecessary spending while working in the office.
Additionally, the selection of specific hub cities is driven by a cost-saving strategy. I mean no offense to anyone, but cities like Charlotte, NC, for instance, are not typically associated with elite educational institutions and cutting-edge technology innovation. Doing business there tends to be more cost-effective than in cities like Boston or NYC.
I've mentioned this point in previous discussions over the past weeks. Consolidating the work-from-home footprint often goes hand in hand with outsourcing U.S.-based employees. Instead of offshoring to places like Bangalore, some companies are relocating jobs to tax-friendly states within the U.S. This doesn't typically include cities like Boston or Seattle, which are in liberal states, but rather states like North Carolina (NC) and Texas (TX). Ultimately, it's a strategy driven by financial considerations.