[mikester]

It was late last night when I replied, I didn't finish my thought but you started to finish it there for me (Not even sure I finished it here).


So, while in the beginning the savings may have been significant due to savings in labor, materials, taxes and regulations.

As the local economy builds and the population becomes educated these savings start to erode.

Our company pays well in the countries we operate in, we pay those folks a decent living wage that they would not be able to get from some local company. Still, it is far less than they would pay someone in the US in salary and benefits. It's a win/win situation for the local economy and the company. Because this is so, the local government of course incentives the company with lower taxes and other niceties. We do this in the US as well.

It can't last forever though, think of our military bases. Typically they are setup outside but near metro areas. Near enough typically that if a small community exists it will grow dramatically to support the base, if it doesn't exist it likely will develop to service that bases population.

Until the base closes, which happened a lot in the late 80s and early 90s. I lived at one such base, March AFB in CA at that time. When the base closed, what had been a thriving new town became a ghost town. We could also use factory towns as an example for the car industry and what not.

A company is never going to stay in one place forever. Period. To expect it is asking for trouble. To incentive them and then expect it is asking for trouble. As long as there is a responsibility to share holders, they will look for how to save money even if they are making money hand over fist (which we are not).

As a company will stay in a location as long as it fits within their balance sheet. Once it no longer fits, time to pack up and leave.

Another fine example of this is Nissan. Headquartered in Torrance for the longest time in the US, moved to TN a couple of years ago. CA stopped fitting in their balance sheet.