Quote:
Originally Posted by Sight-Seer
Delts: Denver is 600 miles away and similar geographically. In 2006 (before the recession) it had 10 Fortune 500 companies. It's metro area is roughly twice as big as Salt Lake. Boise had 2, although it's metro area is half as big as Salt Lake. Salt Lake had one -- Huntsman, a rich Mormon. What does Denver and Boise have that Salt Lake doesn't? Conversely, what does Salt Lake have that Denver and Boise don't? Denver has 11 buildings taller than the Wells Fargo Center.
FACT...Salt Lake has been "passed over" 10 times as much as Denver.
|
I did a little quick and dirty investigation of the fortune 500 issue. On the surface this sounds very damning of Delts argument, but a closer look changes it.
According to Fortune, Denver has 11 companies in the top 500. If my analysis is right only five of those are relocations from other states. Meaning the other 6 are homegrown out of Denver. From those 5 you get two that had their founding in Omaha, which would have given Colorado a advantage because of proximity. So Utah was only passed up 5X as often as Colorado or, depending how you view it, 3X as often. This is not to denigrate Colorado; home growing businesses is just as good, but this should not be used as evidence that companies are largely avoiding Utah. Lastly, I think only one company moved to Colorado in the 90's and none in this decade.
As for Idaho, the one Fortune 500 company they have, Micron, is also a homegrown enterprise. Utah wasn't passed up for Boise.
Utah needs to keep companies here as they grow and develop into large corporations. I think this is the real issue. Utah also appears to be gaining momentum, which will make it increasingly likely that a company like that would relocate or develop here.
Threaded Mode