Bye, bye Carl’s Jr.: Parent company CKE moving California HQ to Nashville


#1

Bye, bye Carl’s Jr.: Parent company CKE moving California HQ to Nashville
March 9, 2016
capoliticalreview.com
By Stephen Frank

We know that tech companies are leaving California. Campbell’s Soup has left California. Now, Carl’s Jr, the burger joint founded in Orange County, with headquarters, now, in Carpinteria, is moving to Tennessee. In the first year alone, the company will add 10% to their profit—Tennessee does not have an income or corporate tax. The cost of housing and energy is much less than in the former Golden State.

“CKE said relocation, slated for early next year, is tied to the company’s success at re-franchising company-owned locations. Roughly 90 percent of restaurants are franchise-owned, including restaurants near corporate offices in St. Louis and Santa Barbara counties.

CKE is speaking in euphemism. If their store ownership restructuring has reduced their office space needs, there is no shortage of smaller office spaces in Ventura, Los Angeles, or Orange Counties. CKE isn’t just saving $$ by down-sizing their corporate office space, they’re also saving considerable $$ by getting the Hades out of business-hostile California.


#2

It will always be Hardee’s to me. Even after moving across the Mississippi.


#3

I really wish CA would straighten out its problems 'cuz the rest of the country sure as heck doesn’t need them.


#4

Agreed. They are driving a large portion of their illiterate and, frankly, stupid population out and we have to deal with it.


#5

You’d think that the likes of Gov. Brown, et.al., would’ve figured out by now that all raising taxes and regulations does is force businesses out of the economy.

And then it’s the same, old tired story for the rest of us.
People leave 'cuz they hate that.
Come to new state, and implement what they left behind - 'cuz they supposedly hated that.
Ruin said state.

Wash, rinse, repeat.


#6

I wouldn’t call those people and companies leaving California for friendlier climes “stupid” or “illiterate.” To me, they’re using wise judgment. IF they are taking with them the politics that got that cesspool in such a mess, then THAT’S stupid.


#7

Yeah, California is so poorly run. It’s only the 8th biggest GDP in the entire world, with a median income of 60k, and only growing 5th fastest in the country for per capita GDP.
They need some buckets for that dumpster fire.


#8

[quote=“CWolf, post:7, topic:48437”]
SACRAMENTO — Economically speaking, California either is doing fantastically well or is mired in despair, with intractable levels of unemployment and poverty. It all depends on which recent news stories one chooses to believe, although a case can be made that both situations are true at the same time. Some are doing well and others not-so well…
[/quote]Yeah, nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

Then again, here’s some thoughts to consider:

New report shows California becoming a tale of two economies | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com

But using the bureau’s newer supplemental poverty measure, “California’s poverty rate over 2011 to 2013 was 23.4 percent, representing about 9 million people. This is the highest poverty rate of any state “largely due to California’s high housing costs relative to the rest of the country.” The data is a bit old, but there’s little question that distress levels remain high in these places.

Urban writer Joel Kotkin, a fellow at Chapman University in Orange, fears California is becoming a “feudal society” – an economic system with rich and poor and where people lack the opportunities to move into a different economic class. In his view, the state’s tax and regulatory policies are driving good blue-collar jobs to other states, while California’s land-use policies drive up the cost of housing, making it harder than ever to climb those economic rungs.

State leaders are right to tout all the good economic news. But policy makers need to deal seriously with these issues. The latest report doesn’t offer any answers to the state’s poverty problems, but it should raise critical questions when legislators return to Sacramento in January.


#9

Once we send about %10 of California’s population back to their homes in Mexico, you’ll see those poverty levels go to what you’d see in Oregon or Kansas. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and increasingly Colorado all have high rates of poverty as well. That’s to be expected when you have millions of people with no rights as workers. Businesses exploit them, which leads not only to their poverty, but contributes to the poverty of natives who compete with them for jobs.


#10

Yes, massive economic regulations, massive public spending and massive pension plans unavailable to anyone but members of public unions ensure prosperity and combat poverty. The only real problem here is the Mexicans! They are at the root of the welfare state. Once they go, our welfare state will deflate by how much?


#11

AS ANOTHER COMPANY MOVES AWAY
By Steven Greenhut
spectator.org
3.10.16

In 2011, I reported on a California Chamber of Commerce event, where CKE Chief Executive Officer Andrew Puzder “complained about the permitting process here, where it takes eight months to two years to open a new restaurant compared to an average of 1 1/2 months in Texas.” Then there are all those lawsuits, and work rules that force companies to pay overtime based on daily, rather than weekly, hours. He was mulling a move to Texas then.

Granted, CKE is moving its headquarters, not its restaurants. But the point is well-taken. There is a cottage industry here that denies industrial-era work rules and a maddening regulatory process make any difference to business owners. The idea that there’s a business exodus is just right-wing nonsense, they insist, and they point to research purportedly showing that businesses aren’t really leaving.

That high cost of living, by the way, is largely the result of government land-use restrictions that artificially drive up the cost of developable land. It’s also why California has the highest poverty rate in the nation under the U.S. Census Bureau’s new formula. You’d think folks who claim to care about the poor might think more deeply about this.

A recent study found about 10,000 California businesses “disinvested” in the state over seven years, meaning they moved, closed down, or shifted jobs out of state. Business researcher Joseph Vranich relied on public records. His report includes a long list of companies and what happened to them. He only included “disinvestments” clearly tied to the business climate.

If my (very) mental Math is correct, Vranich’s study of public records means that something like 1400 CA businesses a year move partly or entirely out of CA. Such moves are not done lightly: the moves were for serious reasons; those jobs are not likely to come back to CA any time soon, and probably never.


#12

Companies are moving from Cal because of the tax/regulatory structure and to some degree the cultural breakdown that has engulfed the state.

As for not needing California. I disagree. A Cal that was properly administered, not overrun with illegals and not led by crazy Democrats in love with confiscating money from workers and business would be very beneficial to the nation.


#13

[quote=“Rightwing_Nutjob, post:10, topic:48437”]
Yes, massive economic regulations, massive public spending and massive pension plans unavailable to anyone but members of public unions ensure prosperity and combat poverty. The only real problem here is the Mexicans! They are at the root of the welfare state. Once they go, our welfare state will deflate by how much?
[/quote]Pretty much. Look to the Northeast which is quite liberal, regulates business tightly and is economically prosperous. Contrary to what you insist, modest business regulations have very little impact on job growth or profitability. It can be a huge burden in certain specific industries(especially those dealing with natural resources), but rarely holds anything back. Similarly, conservative governance can lead to stagnation when done poorly. Look to many Southern states like Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama to see this.

Competent, smart, realistic conservative government is better than incompetent liberal government. Similarly, smart, realistic, liberal government is better than incompetent conservative governance. I really don’t care much about ideology. Only to the extent that it has a clear track record, and I see very little consistent difference between conservative vs liberal governance. Both can succeed, and both can fail. I care far more about competence. That’s why my two favorite senators are Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren :flag:


#14

As RwNj pointed out, you were a bit more comprehensive in a previous comment:

Originally Posted by CWolf View Post
SACRAMENTO — Economically speaking, California either is doing fantastically well or is mired in despair, with intractable levels of unemployment and poverty. It all depends on which recent news stories one chooses to believe, although a case can be made that both situations are true at the same time. Some are doing well and others not-so well…

CA’s big, the 3rd largest state, and its economy is diverse. Some areas (geographic and marketplace) are doing well. I live and work in one such area, Silicon Valley. It’s doing well, but even here there are potentially ominous signs. Silicon Valley used to be mostly hardware; then it became hardware and software; now it’s increasingly software, with hardware moving elsewhere. The shift may prove more or less innocuous, but the saying about putting all one’s eggs in one basket is an old one.

OTOH, large areas (geographically and economically) of CA are doing horribly, and have been for a decade and more. Specifically, I’m referring to the Central Valley, CA’s largest food production area. Between a Federal Court’s Endangered Species Act ruling taking water away from farmers and (more recently) the drought, Central Valley agriculture has been hit worse than hard (some towns had 40% unemployment for a time!). It’s been especially severe in the San Joaquin Valley (the southern half of the Central Valley). I hope, CW, you aren’t one of those city dwellers who doesn’t give a @#$% about farmers. You probably have that life-long habit of eating food common among humans.

CA farmers weathered a much longer dry spell throughout most of the 1970s and into the 1980s. What is unique to the past decade or so is that a large part of the ongoing water shortage for Central Valley farmers is that it was begun and sustained by that court ESA ruling. IOW, just as I said, a large segment of CA’s economy has been devastated by government (in this case, Federal) regulations.

The study cited in the article I posted yesterday (without having seen your post to which I’m responding) documented, from public records the fact that over the past 7 years an average of 1400 CA businesses a year moved partly or entirely out of CA, or shut down entirely. Obviously, public records probably don’t document all such moves and shut downs. That would be balanced to some degree by start-ups, but start-ups will be small, and may figure in the shut-downs stats a year or two later. Many of the businesses who moved operations out of CA are solid, mature companies, meaning those move-outs represent a lot of jobs and revenue to CA. And some companies closing down are also solid, mature companies.

CA is probably doing well, in comparison to many other states, but that, currently, is not a high standard. CA is hemorrhaging businesses, jobs, and skilled people. Why not look at the causes, honestly, and fix those causes? It won’t bring back many of those who left, in the near term at least, but at least the barriers to new businesses and creativity will be removed or lessened. Why swim in the proverbial Egyptian river until the economic devastation is so great that recovery will take multiple decades?


#15

He just accidentally put my name in the quote. I didn’t say that. It’s not my writing style at all. I’d assume it’s from an article.

[quote=“Pete”] I hope, CW, you aren’t one of those city dwellers who doesn’t give a @#$% about farmers. You probably have that life-long habit of eating food common among humans.[/quote]Nope. I am very much in favor of fighting for the middle class. It’s why I like Trump. He’s the first one to do that since Reagan.

CA is probably doing well, in comparison to many other states, but that, currently, is not a high standard. CA is hemorrhaging businesses, jobs, and skilled people. Why not look at the causes, honestly, and fix those causes? It won’t bring back many of those who left, in the near term at least, but at least the barriers to new businesses and creativity will be removed or lessened. Why swim in the proverbial Egyptian river until the economic devastation is so great that recovery will take multiple decades?
That’s more or less what I’m saying. There are specifics behind any problem. Most people around here want to go “Lol@fail liberal California!” and that’s pretty dense. California is not a case study in how liberalism fails. It’s actually doing well.

Something I stress repeatedly is that ideological purity is useless, because it’s birthed in an intellectual vacuum. I see a lot of calls to ideological purity, and that is just not enough. You can look to Kansas to see this in action. Governor Brownback was someone who received a lot of love around here, because of his ideological beliefs. The problem is, the man is utterly incompetent. Kansas was doing a lot better under Governor Sebelius(generally regarded around here as evil incarnate… because of ideology). And I see similar smack being talked about Kasich for being a “Rhino”. They say he’s just not conservative enough. He’s been an excellent governor in Ohio and presided over a great turn around in a state that looked like it was slowly heading towards a Michigan style future. And that is of course true for highly conservative governance as well, such as Gov Otter in Idaho(but few people here would question his success).

I care about what gets done, rather than how it was attempted. I think priorities are often backwards. Purity first, competence second. That’s not how to do it. Competence first, purity second. A lot of people here would refuse to acknowledge that even Kasich has done a good job, much less Vermont’s Shumlin(who has also been good).

There are some ideologically very conservative people who are complete idiots(like Louie Gohmert), and some very smart, effective liberals, like Sherrod Brown. Very few people on this site would ever acknowledge such a thing. An idea is only as effective as its implementation.

I think the attitude of “There is only one correct way to do anything!” is exactly why there’s so much anger and vitriol spewed around here. At least half of the posters think that if their particular favorite way to do something isn’t followed to a T, literally the entire fabric of society will tear apart and everything will descend into chaos. So of course there’s a vehement push back, and lots of name calling. What’s name calling compared to everyone’s life being ruined? So much of the anger is based on a firmly held belief that there is no alternative. That any deviation will lead to destruction.
If ever that belief can be changed, it opens a lot of possibilities. You can’t work with someone that you think is going to destroy society and your livelihood.


#16

I know of NO ONE–here or elsewhere–who insists on “ideological purity” in their candidates. We’re dealing with human beings here and people will ALWAYS be imperfect in some fashion. However, it’s a simple FACT that a conservative government is better, overall, for the common people than one which seeks to control every aspect of their lives, which is what “progressives” seek to do.


#17

I have to disagree Pappa. The county commissioners were all Rs in my old stomping grounds for some years and the county roads were deplorable. Sheriffs were nonexistence in the county(to busy with speedtraps and writing tickets). It wasn’t until the people voted in Ds that it changed. Granted these are all BlueDog Ds but nonetheless Ds. Now the roads are in excellent condition and to see the sheriff actually patrolling in the county is a everyday thing. Like CWolf said it is all about competence.


#18

Being an R isn’t synonymous with being a C.


#19

What FC just said!!! Where in my post did you get the impression that I equated “Republican” with “Conservative?” However, since you bring it up, back in the 70’s & 80’s here in Oklahoma, 254 county commissioners were indicted for corruption in office and ALL of them were Democrats! My wife had a great-uncle who was a life-long Democrat sheriff in a Texas county. When he first ran, he was living in a hovel of a rental house. When he left office years later, he owned over 4,000 ACRES of prime ranchland butted up against the county seat, and he did that on an average salary of $350/month while raising two girls.


#20

Right as rain but the problem with those R commissioners were that they did not want to spend any money to maintain county roads. They figured why waste the money when the roads are just going to end up in bad shape again. They didn’t employ enough county patrolmen because the area they need to patrol was to larger and even if there was a crime reported it would take most deputies around 15mins(response times with then staffing) just to get there. The county is much better off with Democrats in office than they were Republicans.