But the bigger scare of TI being acquired is that they are a major manufacturer of commodity components and Apple is a vertically integrated consumer electronics business. It would be devastating to American semiconductor marketplace if their portfolio was no longer available.
The problem is that Dallas (and other areas) have been sucked dry of talent by tech companies for a while - even before the conservative economic policies you're handwaving about came into effect. Some of that is on the state for not being competitive enough, other parts of that have been on predatory practices by businesses that fuel things like state to state income inequality.
Second, I don't need to be told what to be afraid of, so your condescending tone can take a listening stance. A software engineer in Dallas Texas doesn't make near the cost of living difference between a San Francisco job while doing the same thing and that is a problem. Full stop.
That problem can be remedied by bringing more tech businesses to Texas and gating them out of the traditional coastal areas like New York, SF, Seattle, and Portland. There are other ways of remedying the problem and I'd love to hear them, but finger pointing at the Texas government without pointing at companies and other states sounds pretty fruitless.
Why is that a problem? Do you feel that the same gap needs to be closed globally, or just within the US?
> finger pointing at the Texas government without pointing at companies and other states
I don't think anyone is finger pointing at the Texas government while ignoring companies and other states. GP is saying that Texas is doing thing X, coastal states are doing thing Y, leading to companies (and engineers) choosing the coastal states because they prefer Y.
I'm sure you'd find it problematic if you're forced from an area just because of geo-pay. I can't build that kind of empathy for you though, you'll need to go find it.
Nice whatabboutism on the second part. Yes, I think it needs to be closed on both. These companies produce digital products, not geographically sold ones. The contribution of an engineer in one place is the same as another, as long as the impact is the same.
> GP is saying that Texas is doing thing X, coastal states are doing thing Y, leading to companies (and engineers) choosing the coastal states because they prefer Y.
That's pretty much longer form of what I just said. The state can do things differently, but the state isn't even all or most of the answer. A lot of it has to do with wage suppression, which I covered above.
Edit: I realize I come off a bit salty about this. I am. I am not conservative and this problem has personally impacted me. It's annoying to hear people speak about this with such utter lack of empathy, or rather that their political ideology comes shining through, but I get to most people it's probably just Tuesday.
> A lot of it has to do with wage suppression
This is where I get a bit confused. Why would companies artificially push engineers to the areas where they command these disproportionately large salaries? Are you saying that they overpay engineers in general specifically to suppress wages of engineers that _are_ in Texas?
The problem is that an engineer, doing the same job, in a state that is wage suppressed can only retire in a state with even lower cost of living. When you have engineers in coastal areas on average making ridiculous sums over their counterparts in other states when nearly all the products are subject to the same taxes and distribution pipeline that begins to sound a bit problematic, don't ya think?
The problem largely lies in reward structure: coastal engineers tend to get a lot more in terms of RSUs but will get similar cash compensation. When you add inflation and home prices (which are savings vehicles) on top it compounds the problem into what we have today. As I said, some is on the state, some is on companies.
The net outcome is that an engineer retires from SF, can move anywhere they want but picks Texas. They buy a house in cash, most likely beating out native Texans and drive the cost of goods up while salaries remain low. They live like kings while the people who actually built up a community and contributed taxes to the state get priced out. This whole paragraph is just paraphrasing state-to-state income inequality though, feel free to read up on it's effects.
> Why would companies artificially push engineers to the areas where they command these disproportionately large salaries?
Because now that this paradigm exists it's rife for exploitation. Companies will pay engineers in Texas without giving them the same RSUs as their coastal counterparts. That's a savings. So sure, they pay people in SF more but they pay everyone else substantially less (beyond cost of living differences). Therein lies the rub.
When I worked in Texas there was a lot of outsourcing, but usually it's because there's not enough talent in the area to meet demand. It's a cyclical effect, which is what irritates me about coastal folks trying to deny their states and companies have participated in that process.
Lusting after California salaries is a losing game when the salaries are inflated to pay for high taxes and artificially high home prices driven by a chokehold of regulations on new home building.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/list-of-companies...
Bonus if far enough North to avoid freeze issues!