They actually shed about 3,000. 1,800 took a buy out and or early retirement. We lost 2200 jobs in 2,200. It's going to get bad here unless the NSTC Tech Research Center lands here. Which is in the decision phase now.
I think a significant amount of personnel at the Hillsboro fab were working on analog chip processes (45nm, 65nm), which are extremely commodified and distract from Intel's goals around becoming a bleeding edge foundry.
That said, Intel Hillsboro employs around 23,000 people so this is a significant but not organization ending layoff.
I'm curious what the increasing price of homes relative to salaries does to innovation in communities like these. If one gets laid off in a major industrial center, the next gig is likely within commuting radius. If one gets laid off in a small town - the next gig could be across the country.
A home costs ~25% of the down payment on the day you buy it. Unless you have the cash to float multiple rental properties - moving is going to be painful financially.
Hillsboro isn't big, but my bet is most people can find new jobs in the area. Intel is hardly the only semiconductor company on the west side of Portland. Hillsboro is on the west of the west side, certainly, but it's still only half an hour out from downtown Portland.
That's an interesting problem to think about, but this is not really that situation. Portland may not be a top-10 tech hub, but neither is it a backwater - the metro area population is 2.5 million. Getting downtown from the Intel campus takes all of 30 minutes; it's the same distance you'd drive getting from Microsoft to Seattle, or from Google to San Jose. I doubt many of these folks will have to move, unless they want to.
You're not obligated to buy property every time you move. I've lived in twelve places in four different countries over the past decade and didn't buy any of them.
The financial outcome for not buying property adds up after ~10 years. On paper, I've been paid to live in my current residence every year that I've owned due to housing appreciation. If I had rented - the financial delta compared to renting would be between ~400k-1MM dollars over 10 years depending on how one counts.
It would require a very large income to offset the financial cost of renting a home, which would in turn reduce the likelihood that I would take a financial risk on a new startup or push harder at work.
Your post I was responding to was complaining of financial pain in buying a home. Now you're saying it's a financial benefit. Either way, what I'm saying is that you have a choice.
Also, it's worth pointing out that your 10 year sample happened to be one during which housing construction was at historically low rates, which lead to exceptional increases in housing prices. There are other 10 year spans in which your outcome would have been very different.
There is currently a shortage of ~3-4 million housing units in the US. This shortage will continue into the future due to a shortage of people to build housing, the cost to build, and a population that remains steady due to immigration inflows. Buying in the US will remain a net positive financial decision well into the future based on these housing fundamentals.
Most attribute that to rising interest rates at the time. Given that the prime rate now is just 40% of what it was in 1980, it's not like interest rates can't rise enough to impact the housing market at some point in the future.
Original point was that a forced move carries a financial cost, as home prices rise - this financial cost rises relative to income. This dynamic creates a disincentive for individuals to move due to the cost relative to income. If individuals are disincentivized from working on the highest impact projects they can - you'd expect an impact on economic productivity.
It's a large financial benefit to own a home, it's a massive cost to move for a job if that forces you to abandon home ownership in favor of renting. This cost would incentivize workers to work at jobs which don't make use of their skills or avoid jobs which could leave them in a career desert of a location.
Exactly. I’m going to give up housing and payment security for an at will job while being exposed to brutalist rental markets that try to “juice the hog”? Absolutely not.
Typical closing costs are 5%, while the seller usually pays these on purchase - it means that you lose 5% of your home price when you move house. On a typical 20% down payment, that means you lose 100% of your down payment when you move assuming a flat market.
Home ownership is a great financial vehicle in up markets, or if you live in a location for a long period of time.
Hillboro manufactures 15% of all Chips made in the US and is one of the biggest Tech Hubs in the US- we don't give a shit about what Portland is doing. They have a City Corporate Tax, Property taxes 2 X those of Hillsboro, and a horrible business climate. Intel has 20,000 jobs here- 1.300 sucks but we won't fold over that.
What I mean is Hillsboro is not some town in the middle of nowhere like Champaign-Urbana, Rochester, or Ames.
It's part of the larger Portland MSA, and Hillsboro-Beaverton has plenty of opportunities.
That said, Intel leadership kept concentrating on Analog Chips for too long (which was overwhelming at the Hillsboro and Kiryat Gan foundries), which made this layoff and buyout situation extremely painful.
PMI is brutal, but it does change a down payment from 20% to 3.5%.
>A home costs ~25% of the down payment on the day you buy it.
I think this is related to the conventional wisdom that you shouldn't buy a house unless you expect to live there for ~7 years (I think, I can't remember if that number is right). I think they're referring to the costs associated with the sale (pulling permits, mortgage costs, real estate agent, etc.).
So on a $500,000 house, a traditional down payment would be $100,000, making closing costs $25,000. Sounds like it's within an order of magnitude.
