Voters could bring the MLS to St. Louis April 4th

[brianstl]

16 minutes ago, bonwich said:

I submit that, rather than scary, this is the best possible thing that could have happened to the local economy.

As that Atlantic article points out, St. Louis had an (adjusted for methodology) 23 Fortune 500 companies in 1980. And everyone here thought that this was a Good Thing. 

Except that giant businesses aren't what drives job growth. They, of course, help to support smaller businesses to start up and grow, but there's a problem: Those small businesses don't really innovate as much as they exist to serve the big businesses -- and, of course, they're almost completely dependent on the health of the big businesses.

That also meant that a bunch of rich white guys had terrifically disproportionate influence on local Civic policy (cap intended), and of course they favored policies that benefited them. Nothing wrong with self-interest, but it snuffed out many progressive policies, as well as making St. Louis an unattractive target for entrepreneurship. 

Flash forward to today, and you have the extreme irony of someone who got extremely rich precisely because of those policies (not Kavanaugh, btw -- he and Steward are the local poster children for entrepreneurial growth) bitching about the lack of "leaders" in the area. There are plenty of potential leaders -- the problem is that the region still operates largely on the (failed) 1980s model. 

A large number of Fortune 500 companies didn't seem to hurt the Bay Area when it came to job growth and innovation over the last 30 years.  

The Fotune 500 companies like SBC and General Dynamics that moved their HQ weren't part of the leadership problem.  

That 80's leadership definitely had some problems, but they actually did try to address the City-County issue on multiple occasions.  They were attacked for it by a lot of groups that resemble the groups today pushing for the merger.  Civic Progress had Bryan Cave write up a whole plan for it.  They were attacked as the rich white guys trying to make it better for themselves.  It was a plan that people who now scream about city-county merger would die to get a chance to vote yes for today.  They dropped trying to even move forward in starting the freeholder process after the backlash.

But hey, it sucked having a bunch of Fortune 500 companies and rich white guys 30 years ago.  Even though they tried to address the biggest problem, let's blame them completely for all of the areas problems.

[Box and Won]

10 minutes ago, brianstl said:

The Fotune 500 companies like SBC and General Dynamics that moved their HQ weren't part of the leadership problem.  

General Dynamics was kind of a unique case. Back in the 70s, they hired a CEO from McDonnell Douglas, and he didn't want to leave STL.  They had a relatively small presence here, and I don't know that they ever planned on staying here long term.  It would be great to still have General Dynamics here, but their move was a little different in that they didn't have roots here.

[wgstl]

Im rather shocked tower grove south was so against the MLS vote.  That's the area most of st louis flocks to on weekends to watch soccer. 

(im trying to figure out how to add this pic)

 

Understanding St. Louis_ Prop 1 (Yes), Prop 2 (No), Prop NS (No) - nextSTL.html

[bonwich]

18 minutes ago, brianstl said:

A large number of Fortune 500 companies didn't seem to hurt the Bay Area when it came to job growth and innovation over the last 30 years.  

The Fotune 500 companies like SBC and General Dynamics that moved their HQ weren't part of the leadership problem.  

That 80's leadership definitely had some problems, but they actually did try to address the City-County issue on multiple occasions.  They were attacked for it by a lot of groups that resemble the groups today pushing for the merger.  Civic Progress had Bryan Cave write up a whole plan for it.  They were attacked as the rich white guys trying to make it better for themselves.  It was a plan that people who now scream about city-county merger would die to get a chance to vote yes for today.  They dropped trying to even move forward in starting the freeholder process after the backlash.

But hey, it sucked having a bunch of Fortune 500 companies and rich white guys 30 years ago.  Even though they tried to address the biggest problem, let's blame them completely for all of the areas problems.

Re: SBC. That was absolutely the result of the leadership problem. The other rich white guys didn't let Whitacre play their reindeer games. (At least a dozen sources have confirmed that the blackball story is absolutely true.) Sure, he had other reasons to leave for Texas, but getting left outside the gates didn't help his ability to interact here. 

And you misinterpret a couple of things. It didn't suck having a bunch of Fortune 500 companies. It sucks that they ran the place like their own private fiefdom. "Civic Progress had Bryan Cave write up a whole plan for it." Pretty much says it all. How many of the "little people" did Civic Progress and Bryan Cave involve so that the whole region could develop a sense of ownership for the plan?

As for the Bay Area, lovely red herring. The sheer number of Fortune 500 companies here didn't hurt. The per capita number absolutely did. We were de facto a company(ies) town. 

"Leadership" ain't top-down, especially in a civic environment. And a large number of the issues that still plague St. Louis can be partially attributed to those fine white knights of Khorossan.  

[keyser soze]

7 minutes ago, bonwich said:

Re: SBC. That was absolutely the result of the leadership problem. The other rich white guys didn't let Whitacre play their reindeer games. (At least a dozen sources have confirmed that the blackball story is absolutely true.) Sure, he had other reasons to leave for Texas, but getting left outside the gates didn't help his ability to interact here. 

And you misinterpret a couple of things. It didn't suck having a bunch of Fortune 500 companies. It sucks that they ran the place like their own private fiefdom. "Civic Progress had Bryan Cave write up a whole plan for it." Pretty much says it all. How many of the "little people" did Civic Progress and Bryan Cave involve so that the whole region could develop a sense of ownership for the plan?

As for the Bay Area, lovely red herring. The sheer number of Fortune 500 companies here didn't hurt. The per capita number absolutely did. We were de facto a company(ies) town. 

"Leadership" ain't top-down, especially in a civic environment. And a large number of the issues that still plague St. Louis can be partially attributed to those fine white knights of Khorossan.  

Ed "Big Tex" Whitacre was all but admitted for membership at SLCC, SBC left St. Louis because Whitacre was offered a deal from the State of Texas and San Antonio and when Whitacre went to Gov. Carnahan and asked Missouri to match, Gov. Carnahan said "NO," Big Tex moved SBC out the door.  The SLCC is the biggest urban legend, he was in....

[Old guy]

16 minutes ago, bonwich said:

Re: SBC. That was absolutely the result of the leadership problem. The other rich white guys didn't let Whitacre play their reindeer games. (At least a dozen sources have confirmed that the blackball story is absolutely true.) Sure, he had other reasons to leave for Texas, but getting left outside the gates didn't help his ability to interact here. 

And you misinterpret a couple of things. It didn't suck having a bunch of Fortune 500 companies. It sucks that they ran the place like their own private fiefdom. "Civic Progress had Bryan Cave write up a whole plan for it." Pretty much says it all. How many of the "little people" did Civic Progress and Bryan Cave involve so that the whole region could develop a sense of ownership for the plan?

As for the Bay Area, lovely red herring. The sheer number of Fortune 500 companies here didn't hurt. The per capita number absolutely did. We were de facto a company(ies) town. 

"Leadership" ain't top-down, especially in a civic environment. And a large number of the issues that still plague St. Louis can be partially attributed to those fine white knights of Khorossan.  

Well, so we have changed from a company(ies) town to a non company town. We have gone from having something that the County might desire to have (the companies) to a city with a dwindling population, severe crime, high taxes and lots of sport venues, some of which (the Dome) are currently vacant with no sports team, which the County wants nothing to do with. The counties (plural St. Charles included) have the (some new) Fortune 500 companies now: MasterCard, Express Scripts, RGA. I am certain that the current situation has developed form the foundations laid in the days you describe. The real question is: are we better off now, or the opposite, and what can be done to stop the slippage.

[brianstl]

3 minutes ago, bonwich said:

 And you misinterpret a couple of things. It didn't suck having a bunch of Fortune 500 companies. It sucks that they ran the place like their own private fiefdom. "Civic Progress had Bryan Cave write up a whole plan for it." Pretty much says it all. How many of the "little people" did Civic Progress and Bryan Cave involve so that the whole region could develop a sense of ownership for the plan?

 

What specific problems do you think existed in Civic Progress's plan?  

If that plan magically appeared today out of the blue today, it would be loved by the group of SJW that are pushing merger today.  They aren't the only people pushing it today, but those were the types that had a problem with it in the early 80's.  My point is just because the process is not the best, the result shouldn't be labeled exclusionary or racist.  The plan should have been judge on the merits of the plan alone.

The problem then is the same as now when trying to bring everyone in on designing a plan.  There are too many people with a vested interest in keeping the structure the same.  Any effort that tries to bring everyone to the table will never come up with a plan as too many people attempt to protect their own fiefdom.

 

17 minutes ago, bonwich said:

As for the Bay Area, lovely red herring. The sheer number of Fortune 500 companies here didn't hurt. The per capita number absolutely did. We were de facto a company(ies) town. 

 

The per capita number in St Louis and Bay Area weren't  dramatically different in 1980.  The San Fransico-Oakland-Hayward Metro Area was only 30% bigger than St Louis in 1980. Today it is almost 70% bigger.

[brianstl]

19 minutes ago, Old guy said:

Well, so we have changed from a company(ies) town to a non company town. We have gone from having something that the County might desire to have (the companies) to a city with a dwindling population, severe crime, high taxes and lots of sport venues, some of which (the Dome) are currently vacant with no sports team, which the County wants nothing to do with. The counties (plural St. Charles included) have the (some new) Fortune 500 companies now: MasterCard, Express Scripts, RGA. I am certain that the current situation has developed form the foundations laid in the days you describe. The real question is: are we better off now, or the opposite, and what can be done to stop the slippage.

The County had its fair share of Fortune 500 company HQs back then and has lost them just like the City.  General Dynamics in fact is one the county lost along with McDonnell Douglass, Kellwood, Interco, soon to be Monsanto, etc.

[cheeseman]

2 hours ago, Old guy said:

Look at what you wrote cheeseman, I have boldened the spot for your convenience. This is exactly what I mean by "survive and being competitive", you must have relatively free access to money to survive and be competitive. You get it?

I get it but the only reason they move to CA  is because the investors insist - they could stay here and still thrive.  There may or may not be any valid reasons other than preference by investors to require the move.  You get it?

[cheeseman]

1 hour ago, brianstl said:

The County had its fair share of Fortune 500 company HQs back then and has lost them just like the City.  General Dynamics in fact is one the county lost along with McDonnell Douglass, Kellwood, Interco, soon to be Monsanto, etc.

Well to fair the defense part of Boeing is still headquartered here.  General Dynamic move to DC which is where their business contacts were - the govt.  Didn't Kellwood and Interco go out of business?

[JMM28]

10 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

I get it but the only reason they move to CA  is because the investors insist - they could stay here and still thrive.  There may or may not be any valid reasons other than preference by investors to require the move.  You get it?

Recruiting. Although I think the entire bay area is a hole - terrible weather, no seasons, expensive housing, terrible roads, and the list goes on. 

[brianstl]

Just now, cheeseman said:

Well to fair the defense part of Boeing is still headquartered here.  General Dynamic move to DC which is where their business contacts were - the govt.  Didn't Kellwood and Interco go out of business?

The Boeing corporate headquarters have never been here.  There are plenty of defense contractors without there corporate HQ in the DC area.   Interco want out of business.  Kellwood got new ownership and is headquartered in New York.  

The point is that both the county and the city have took on the chin when it comes to companies being bought out or moving their corporate headquarters.

[brianstl]

17 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

I get it but the only reason they move to CA  is because the investors insist - they could stay here and still thrive.  There may or may not be any valid reasons other than preference by investors to require the move.  You get it?

Which makes it nice to have larger amount of large corporate HQs in you metro area.  Not only does it give you people with money to invest, it provides an ability to network with a larger group of people that know people.

[bonwich]

Quote

Well to fair the defense part of Boeing is still headquartered here. 

Well, no, it isn't. 

[RiseAndGrind]

12 minutes ago, bonwich said:

Well, no, it isn't. 

Hey, Cheese is only a couple months behind. Not bad for this board. 

[WestCoastBilliken]

1 hour ago, cheeseman said:

 

1 hour ago, cheeseman said:

I get it but the only reason they move to CA  is because the investors insist - they could stay here and still thrive.  There may or may not be any valid reasons other than preference by investors to require the move.  You get it?

 

Why do you think that investors 'insist' that they move to CA? Just because? lol

Companies, especially high paying finance and tech jobs, cannot get the best talent in a place like Missouri.  Your google engineers and your front office finance guys DO NOT want to move to Missouri and will work for another tech or finance firm in CA or NY or Boston, or Singapore or London if the position requires a move to MO. If you want the best talent, want to run in the circles with the deal makers, etc you need to be on the coast.  SF, LA, NY those are global hubs and are companies need to be in global hubs in this now global world.

Tech support, back office finance gigs, sure.... they can put them in Missouri and these are the types of jobs you see mostly staying here or moving back to STL.  

[bonwich]

2 hours ago, brianstl said:

What specific problems do you think existed in Civic Progress's plan?  

If that plan magically appeared today out of the blue today, it would be loved by the group of SJW that are pushing merger today.  They aren't the only people pushing it today, but those were the types that had a problem with it in the early 80's.  My point is just because the process is not the best, the result shouldn't be labeled exclusionary or racist.  The plan should have been judge on the merits of the plan alone.

The problem then is the same as now when trying to bring everyone in on designing a plan.  There are too many people with a vested interest in keeping the structure the same.  Any effort that tries to bring everyone to the table will never come up with a plan as too many people attempt to protect their own fiefdom.

What was it Churchill said about democracy?

 

[bonwich]

15 minutes ago, WestCoastBilliken said:

 

Why do you think that investors 'insist' that they move to CA? Just because? lol

Companies, especially high paying finance and tech jobs, cannot get the best talent in a place like Missouri.  Your google engineers and your front office finance guys DO NOT want to move to Missouri and will work for another tech or finance firm in CA or NY or Boston, or Singapore or London if the position requires a move to MO. If you want the best talent, want to run in the circles with the deal makers, etc you need to be on the coast.  

Tech support, back office finance gigs, sure.... they can put them in Missouri and some do.  

It appears that any number of Google engineers and other highly paid folks would gladly blow town in the Bay Area if given the chance, especially the young'uns. A $200K salary ain't near as much fun if you have to have roommates to afford your apartment. 

(Yeah, I do get that if you've been a WestCoastBilliken long enough, you've seen the booms and busts and there's some argument that prices will eventually normalize. That said, I wasn't immediately able to find the perhaps-apocryphal article about the very-well-paid techie who was living in a garage in Silicon Valley and using a bucket for a toilet.)

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/30/housing-traffic-woes-stoke-urge-to-flee-bay-area-new-poll-shows/

Edit: Well, that was easier than I expected.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/03/facebook-engineers-struggling-with-rents-ask-mark-zuckerberg-for-help.html

[WestCoastBilliken]

11 minutes ago, bonwich said:

It appears that any number of Google engineers and other highly paid folks would gladly blow town in the Bay Area if given the chance, especially the young'uns. A $200K salary ain't near as much fun if you have to have roommates to afford your apartment. 

(Yeah, I do get that if you've been a WestCoastBilliken long enough, you've seen the booms and busts and there's some argument that prices will eventually normalize. That said, I wasn't immediately able to find the perhaps-apocryphal article about the very-well-paid techie who was living in a garage in Silicon Valley and using a bucket for a toilet.)

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/30/housing-traffic-woes-stoke-urge-to-flee-bay-area-new-poll-shows/

Edit: Well, that was easier than I expected.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/03/facebook-engineers-struggling-with-rents-ask-mark-zuckerberg-for-help.html

It tells you something that these same people would rather live in SF in a shoe box then STL.  We are seeing new 'tech hubs' such as Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, and Raleigh NC that are outside of SF, but STL is not on anyone's map. My opinion is pretty clear on this, STL has a very bad image problem that needs to be fixed, or it will continue its decline. 

[RiseAndGrind]

1 minute ago, WestCoastBilliken said:

It tells you something that these same people would rather live in SF in a shoe box then STL.  We are seeing new 'tech hubs' such as Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, and Raleigh NC that are outside of SF, but STL is not on anyone's map. My opinion is pretty clear on this, STL has a very bad image problem that needs to be fixed. 

LA sucks. Your other cities are cool. 

[bonwich]

30 minutes ago, WestCoastBilliken said:

It tells you something that these same people would rather live in SF in a shoe box then STL.  We are seeing new 'tech hubs' such as Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, and Raleigh NC that are outside of SF, but STL is not on anyone's map. My opinion is pretty clear on this, STL has a very bad image problem that needs to be fixed, or it will continue its decline. 

You need to start reading stuff other than the coastal news sites.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/02/five-us-tech-hubs-you-probably-didnt-know-about.html

(And yes, I do realize that it's easier to be "fastest growing" when your denominator is so small.)

[WestCoastBilliken]

Yes.. I guess when you go from $0 to a whole whopping $71 million in funding for a 2.5M population metro area... you can make 1,200% increase sound like a really big deal. Just to put it into perspective, $64 BILLION was raised in that same time period. 

 

Click bait title. But you are right, St Louis is going to be the next tech hub just like it was going to be the next New York finance hub..and stock exchange...and the next central freight port along the mississippi...and the next international airport hub

[RiseAndGrind]

11 minutes ago, WestCoastBilliken said:

Yes.. I guess when you go from $0 to a whole whopping $71 million in funding for a 2.5M population metro area... you can make 1,200% increase sound like a really big deal. Just to put it into perspective, $64 BILLION was raised in that same time period. 

 

Click bait title. But you are right, St Louis is going to be the next tech hub just like it was going to be the next New York finance hub..and stock exchange...and the next central freight port along the mississippi...and the next international airport hub

Man, by reading your posts about SF, I can't imagine why anyone would want to leave. 

[Box and Won]

13 minutes ago, WestCoastBilliken said:

Click bait title. But you are right, St Louis is going to be the next tech hub just like it was going to be the next New York finance hub..and stock exchange...and the next central freight port along the mississippi...and the next international airport hub

For the record, STL punches well above its weight in financial services.

[cheeseman]

6 hours ago, Old guy said:

Look at what you wrote cheeseman, I have boldened the spot for your convenience. This is exactly what I mean by "survive and being competitive", you must have relatively free access to money to survive and be competitive. You get it?

I get it but the only reason they move to CA  is because the investors insist - they could stay here and still thrive.  There may or may not be any valid reasons other than preference by investors to require the move.  You get it?