Listen - I'm not saying that that isn't the logical response. I'm saying I don't see how an executive would go ahead with that plan thinking that there weren't going to be worse repercussions for their company from the government if they went that route.
The smallest companies that don't have visibility in the market maybe could try and do it (dangerous risk) but the larger companies that have a lot to lose from headline risk will be at significant risk.
Like the executive who only thinks in short term budget will go ahead and do this -- the executives who think maybe 2-4 years down the road will realize its a trap.
> but the larger companies that have a lot to lose from headline risk will be at significant risk
Google [0], Microsoft [1], and Amazon [2] have continued to make headline making investments abroad despite Trump being in office.
And these size of companies are large enough that they can eat the litigation cost, becuase it is significantly cheaper to completely offshore.
And in all honesty, the Trump glare isn't severe. You become part of the media zeitgeist for a couple of days, and then everyone moves on to some other controversy. Look at how this now overshadows the US-Korea snafu, which itself overshadowed the Russian oil snafu, which itself overshadowed ....
Those plans were already in place as a continuation and during a time when they thought tech would have a more coveted space in policy positioning. Watch what happens going forward -- they will re-plan investments (at least for the time being).
The smallest companies that don't have visibility in the market maybe could try and do it (dangerous risk) but the larger companies that have a lot to lose from headline risk will be at significant risk.
Like the executive who only thinks in short term budget will go ahead and do this -- the executives who think maybe 2-4 years down the road will realize its a trap.