Run Against This, Charlie!
Cool, via BMG, a link to how IBM has expanded their presence in our area (Westford/Littleton) into its largest software lab in North America. For a company IBM’s size, “their largest lab” ain’t tiddly winks.
The campus, dubbed the IBM Mass Lab, brings together 3,400 IBM employees, which is about 10 percent of its total software development work force, officials said at the event. The opening was marked in Littleton Wednesday with a ribbon cutting event that included Gov. Deval Patrick.
…
IBM said it chose the towns of Littleton and Westford for the combined campus due to the proximity of its geographically-dispersed employee population and the high-tech belt along I-495.
There’s a lot to like about locating your business in greater Lowell! 
But, on top of the good recent jobs report for MA, and other news about our total economic and educational domination, this doesn’t bode well for Charlie “Let’s Crawl Backwards” Baker. Or Cahill.
June 18th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
The key phrase is “in North America.” IBM is largely an Indian company now.
June 19th, 2010 at 3:31 am
obi juan… 3,400 jobs is a lot of jobs. Those will be good jobs, too, and not just for software developers. Some people like to turn lemon into lemonades… other people try to turn everything they can into lemons. I’ll never get that.
June 19th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I’m not knocking it, it’s great news (and bad for Baker). But it’s time to stop thinking of IBM as an American company.
June 19th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Must have missed the part about IBM creating NEW jobs. This looks like a consolidation of already existing jobs into one centralized facility. Save the cheerleading for a real score. If this is the best the Gov can do, along with bragging about temp census jobs, he’s in for a tough fall.
June 19th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Yea, and stop thinking of Toyota as a Japanese company. They have a lot of manufacturing in the states. Come on, get off it.
I’m pretty sure even with the acquired companies, IBM did not have 3400 employees in the state.
Not to mention, that by building the campus here, they’re indicating that they aren’t going anywhere any time soon, which is actually a pretty big deal.
June 19th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Well, it will be tougher for GOPers to use the hackneyed meme of, “Democrats are driving businesses away from the Commonwealth.”
They will try, though. Hackneyed is their thing.
June 19th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Come now Lynne. You’re smart enough to know if even 100 new jobs had been created, that fact would have been trumpeted all over the place. They’re basically consolidating all their acquisitions in Massachusetts into one facility and have probably laid off hundreds in the planning stages of this “momentous” announcement.
It’s a nice thing for Westford but will have no bearing on the election. Baker wins Westford easily.
let’s save the back-patting for real economic growth and leave the cheerleading to the Pop Warner kids.
June 20th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Fuzzy,
You wouldn’t happen to have a news story to back up your angle. Surely The Herald wouldn’t miss a chance to put the case to rest.
I’ll wait here.
June 20th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Try www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/02/25/ibm-builds-critical-mass-at-mass-lab-aims-to-mix-acquired-subsidiaries-without-dissolving-them
I’ll give the cliff notes version. They took 5,000 jobs and turned them into 3,400. So much for the good news, huh?
You guys fancy youselves as intellectuals don’t you? Try reading between the lines every now and then. The Gov shows up to tout a new facility but doesn’t release any numbers about new jobs. Common sense tells you none were created and a little digging would unearth the job cuts. But I guess it’s only convenient to dig deeper when it suits your argument and to believe the propaganda. Where I come from, we call that intellectual laziness.
For the record, I knew two people laid off as a result of Big Blue’s big news, which is now over a year old.
June 20th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
“I’ll give the cliff notes version. They took 5,000 jobs and turned them into 3,400.”
Ah… no. Check the article again.
“…only four of those offices will remain, and some 3,400 employees will have been brought together at the Littleton and Westford locations (which are a short, 3-mile shuttle ride apart).”
That means there are 4 offices, of which 2 will have 3,400 people. You can’t draw any conclusions from the article on the other 1,600.
June 20th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Oh Fuzzy. Actually backing up your point isn’t some much being an “intellectual” as it is being intellectually honest. So charges of propaganda are misplaced.
You can accentuate the negative to your hearts content. Me? I’m glad to have an industry leader setting up shop here. I’d rather this, than casinos.
June 21st, 2010 at 11:15 am
No Mr. Lynne, you check the article again. IBM acquired 21 companies with 5,000 employees and when all is said and done, will have turned that into 3,400 jobs. A fact is a fact.
i’m glad they’re here too, Jack. But the point of the original post was that this is somehow a testament to the Governor and his handling of the economy. It is nothing of the sort. If anything, it highlights job losses in the state due to the economy, not necessarily due to Governor Patrick.
June 21st, 2010 at 11:24 am
Wow. You really need to work on your comprehension. Read what I quoted again:
“…only four of those offices will remain, and some 3,400 employees will have been brought together at the Littleton and Westford locations (which are a short, 3-mile shuttle ride apart).”
So answer me this… how many employees are in the other two offices that will remain (the ones that are not at the Littleton and Westord locations)?
June 21st, 2010 at 12:19 pm
I read quite well, thank you. I read between the lines even better.
The other two IBM facilities are in Cambridge and Waltham. The Cambridge facility employs about 35 people, the Waltham one not many more than that. Again, we can argue specific numbers and semantics all you want. The basic point remains true. IBM has cut jobs in large numbers across the country and in Massachusetts. If even one new job had been created, we’d have been beaten over the head with press releases. The fact we haven’t been says it all, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
June 21st, 2010 at 12:24 pm
If you say so. I didn’t get that information from the article you linked to. You may be right, but you are wrong in thinking the article supported your claim. Facts are facts indeed… then link to them.
June 21st, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Moreover you specifically claimed that the article backed you up: “I’ll give the cliff notes version. They took 5,000 jobs and turned them into 3,400.” That information isn’t in the article. So yeah… that’s a comprehension (or at least a cite omission) problem.
June 21st, 2010 at 12:30 pm
http://domino.research.ibm.com/cambridge/research.nsf/pages/index.html
There ya go. Any more hoops you’d like me to jump through? Is it that difficult for you to admit you ate wrong?
June 21st, 2010 at 12:46 pm
MA job creation: http://lmi2.detma.org/lmi/Newsrelease/NewsLMI20100617.htm
The private sector added 7,000 jobs mainly in the Leisure and Hospitality, Education and Health Services and Construction sectors. Government added 8,800 jobs mostly due to the Federal Government’s temporary hiring for the Census. The May job growth follows on a revised 18,700 (previously reported as 19,100) jobs gain in April, of which 15,800 were private sector jobs. Even with this latest revision, last month’s jobs gain remains the highest jobs growth figure in 17 years. The March to April 2010 private sector gain was 15,800 jobs, the largest over the month private sector jobs gain in 11 years.
Also,
Governor Deval Patrick said yesterday that construction will begin this summer on a long-promised, long-delayed commuter rail link to Fall River and New Bedford. State officials said they would spend $20 million of federal stimulus funds to rebuild structurally deficient freight bridges in New Bedford and prepare them for commuter rail.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/18/work_slated_for_missing_rail_link/?page=full
June 21st, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Go back and re-read (this is becoming a theme) everything I wrote here. Not one piece was wrong. You claimed the article said something it didn’t and all I did was point it out. Then you obstinately refused to look at what I wrote (again a theme here) and address it in preference to just reiterating your debunked assertion about the article. I never said your point about the jobs was wrong, only that your cite didn’t have enough information to conclude your point. Now that you’ve gone out and supplemented your original cite to prove your point (a way of conceding you were wrong without actually conceding anything) you want to sit there and call me wrong. Rich.
I know you really really want me to have said something in this thread that was factually in error, just like you really really wanted the article to say what your ‘cliff’s notes’ said, but unfortunately neither is the case.
June 21st, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Your wife put out a misleading post, intentionally or unintentionally, but it was misleading. We can continue to argue over 50-100 jobs, but the point of my response is still correct. IBM cut jobs. By asking for proof, you not only disagreed with my specific numbers, you were in essence disagreeing with my general premise, just as Lynne and Jack did. Funny thing is my info was much more accurate and complete than the original post. Too bad you don’t hold Lynne or your Progressice comments to the same standards. It speaks wonders about the credibility of the rest of the one-sided info you post here.
Have a good one!
June 21st, 2010 at 3:22 pm
People who post anonymously on blogs don’t feel they have to actually read what other people post or actually back themselves up that well. *shrug*
June 21st, 2010 at 3:33 pm
My post was the only one backed by fact and common sense deducion on this thread. *shrug*
June 21st, 2010 at 3:40 pm
“By asking for proof, you not only disagreed with my specific numbers, you were in essence disagreeing with my general premise, just as Lynne and Jack did.”
That’s a lot of assumption. Now you’re resorting to putting words in my mouth about what I agreed or disagreed with so that you can still hold up this idea that I was wrong. That, is called a straw man. You came up with a contrary view and was asked for backup (not by me). Your backup didn’t quite support your conclusion. I pointed it out and you punted. To quote someone I recently heard from: “Is it that difficult for you to admit you ate wrong?”
As to Lynne’s post - I honestly didn’t really read it and frankly I wasn’t defending it (again, what I wrote is right there for all to read). It was pretty quick and painless to look at your cite and see the problem, which and did and pointed out. This could have been a quick, ‘oh, your right… but I happen to know that the other offices couldn’t possibly hold the other 1,600+ employees’ (or even better with a cite), but that wasn’t my move to make.
June 21st, 2010 at 3:42 pm
That’s the whole point Fuzzy - you can’t stand proud and claim to have backup when your backup doesn’t actually backup, and it isn’t a foul to point it out.
June 21st, 2010 at 7:10 pm
I see nothing in the article to back up Fuzzy Math’s claims.
June 21st, 2010 at 8:42 pm
“Under an agreement to move to Littleton, IBM was granted $26 million in real estate tax breaks over 20 years, according to Keith Bergman, the town administrator. In exchange for the tax breaks IBM invested $50 million in the facility and added 42 new jobs.”
What about the jobs that the $50 million renovation and rail line expansion will add?
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/20100617ibm_debuts_littleton_software_complex/
June 21st, 2010 at 10:15 pm
I see Fuzzy Math’s math clearly. IBM went from 5,000 jobs in Massachusetts to 3,400 combined in their Westford-Littleton buildings and another three dozen in Cambridge. Fuzzy claims there are about the same number in Waltham as Cambridge. Given that he’s been accurate in his assessment and facts so far, its safe to assume he’s correct there, too.
The only straw men here are the LiL backers and their mumbo-jumbo to confuse the real issue. This supposed accomplishment for Deval Patrick doesn’t hold up under closer inspection.
Good work Fuzzy.
June 22nd, 2010 at 5:18 am
You’ve got to be kidding. It’s like one of those SAT comprehension questions. Here’s a few paragraphs from a recent article - assuming the facts in the article is true what is also true about IBM’s jobs: a) stayed the same, b) they created more jobs, c) they lost jobs, or d) can’t tell / none of the above. Really guys, this is basic high school type stuff.
Now sure, when he combines it with other evidence he can draw some conclusions, but not from the original article alone, which was my only point. If you can’t see that, then you’re not reading.
June 22nd, 2010 at 7:25 am
Wow … what a thread! Fuzzy Math … all you had to do was cite all of your secondary evidence in your first post! The article that was linked originally read like a good news story. You really didn’t “read between the lines” but had information that went beyond what was reported.
On the other hand, it was pretty shoddy reporting … the real story is that IBM is moving most of its remaining employees to the Westford/Littleton campus after “consolidating” out about 1600 people.
Good news for Greater Lowell, not great news for the Commonwealth. Hopefully IBM will realize some operational savings and get some “synergies” by locating all of those people in one, or two I guess, central facilities.
June 22nd, 2010 at 7:36 am
It’s not “he who cannot see” but “he who WILL NOT see”
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:21 am
Re this thread - So much energy, thought, time and effort all consumed in partisan bickering over what a few words in an article (referenced in the first place in a partisan blog) really means. Jobs were created - no they were not; you don’t understand what you’re reading - yes I do, you’re the idiot, etc., etc., etc.
No one gives a damn about real issues. It’s all about scoring useless rhetorical points both for and against your guy.
No wonder so many voters are becoming such political skeptics. No wonder the ranks of independent voters continue to increase.
I believe this blog has expressed an affinity for The Bard. I’ll let him deliver my final stand on this thread:
“It is a tale … full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.”
“A plague o’ both your houses!”
June 22nd, 2010 at 10:48 am
The skill of “reading between the lines,” is that teachable? How much bias comes into play with this oracle like wisdom.
Isn’t it like reading entrails?
June 22nd, 2010 at 11:07 am
The only one with a comprehension problem here is you Mr. Lynne. Either that, or you simply aren’t honest enough to admit the obvious. Your wife is dead wrong about the theme and general tenor of her thread. This is not good news for the Governor, and no amount of arguing semantics makes that so. Go back to my original post number 4. All I said was Lynne was wron.g about this being big news. I told you it was actually a consolidation of jobs. You and Jack asked for proof. I provided it, since my accurately proven word wasn’t good enough. You now have that proof. The rest is all B.S. Designed to distract from the fact hat Lynne posted bad info
JC just said it best. Sorry for getting involved in nonsensical bickering over minutiae. It’s just that sometimes I feel the need to correct ignorance and misinformation.
June 22nd, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Hey, people, IBM downsized employees YEARS ago, I don’t see how this is relevant to this thread. Or to the consolidation or to the # of jobs currently in MA or staying in MA.
Fact is, that the new facility means that a shitload of jobs will STAY in MA, which given how people and jobs have been fleeing for YEARS under Republican gov’s, is a turnaround that is extremely impressive. (Couple that with the recent creation of the Cambridge MS innovation labs or “NERD Center” and you’ve begun to see an actual pattern.)
And “Fuzzy,” you’re the one being fuzzy. NO where in my post do I even SAY “job increases” or anything. However, IBM consolidating jobs IN WESTFORD is EXTREMELY important for the greater Lowell area. We saw Wang take down this local regional economy when it went belly up. This is reversing a little of that hurt, albeit decades later. The FACT is, greater Lowell has long been a “bedroom community” of the Boston area. A relocation of 3500 jobs into the Lowell area is HUGE big deal for our regional economy. It’s one that is likely to attract more of the same, as well.
I neither midlead NOR said anything untrue. Get a life dude. Seriously.
June 22nd, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Whatever dude. You’ve already shown I was right when you went to go get more data to fill in the gap in the article. You know, the gap that left undecided if 5000 turned into 3400. Like I said, basic high school stuff. You want to sit there and claim the article really did show it went to 5000 to 3400 (and you’d have to assume two other offices open but with 0 employees to make that work), go right ahead and look dumb for the class.
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Just to add to the Merrimack Valley jobs issue, Cobham-Lowell has recently signed a 15-year lease for ~275,000 sq. ft. of engineering/manufacturing space in Lowell and M/A-COM Technology Solutions has signed a lease to expand their current footprint in Lowell by 50%. Harris Corp. has recently relocated ~200 employees into leased space in Chelmsford. Each of these companies were spinoffs of Tyco Electronics. The fact that all three have signed long-term leases in the area gives me a good feeling about industry’s perception of the environment for business in the Commonwealth and the region. All are good signs that Gov. Patrick is doing something right. I wonder how many permanent jobs Charlie Baker brought to Mass. during his tenure in state government?
June 22nd, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Facts matters in discussions like this one.
So, to add to the conversation here is a statement released last week by the editorial board of the journal Massachusetts Benchmarks, a joint publication of the Umass President’s office and the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. The statement is based on board research and a board discussion of the state’s leading economic indicators. It represents a consensus from the Board and not the viewpoint of either of the two institutions.
Full disclosure - I am a member of the editorial board.
http://www.massbenchmarks.org/publications/bulletin/01_board_061410/01_board_061410.htm
June 23rd, 2010 at 5:08 pm
If IBM cut the jobs years ago, which seems likely, then shifting everyone together in a campus does actually create jobs, even if IMB doesn’t add employees to its payroll, just from the construction of a campus that can fit 3400 people — and given that jobs for construction have been hit harder than just about any other sector in this economy, that’s never a bad thing. Moreover, that secures those jobs here, when they could easily be shipped not only to several other high-tech locations in the US, but many other across the world.
Fuzzy Math… whether you’re right or wrong is a several-years-old question at this point and is, thus, a question of semantics. The point is that some jobs are being created, that the greater region is benefiting from it, and the state has secured a major high-tech facility for many years to come, a facility that makes it more likely for both future IMB investments in this state, as well as other high-tech investments. This is all good news… very good news. Like I said way up at the top… you’re turning lemonade into lemons. Sheesh.
June 24th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Dr. Forrant,
I have a question that you are uniquely qualified to answer.
During the past few recessions, Massachusetts did worse than the country as a whole. We had higher total unemployment, our unemployment increase was larger than the country as a whole’s, we took longer to come out of it, and our rebound was shallower.
This time, it has been just the opposite. We weathered this recession much better than the country as a whole.
Why? I saw a vague reference in the executive summary of your board’s report, but I’d like to know more.
Is it because of something unique about this recession? Did something important change in Massachusetts? Was it policy, or underlying conditions?
I’d love your thoughts.
June 25th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
A few things made this downturn less harmful. One, it was not a technlogy bubble bursting as it was in the early 2000s.So, there was some job loss but nothing on so massive a scale. Second, though the housing crisis was bad enough here for sure, it was nothing like other parts of the country, which were hit with this crash much like we were when the tech bubble burst; so, we had a less deep hole to climb out of.
In addition, after bad recessions in MA in the late 1980s and again the the 1990s and early 2000s we had shed so many industrial jobs, es. in computer manufacturing around here, that our statewide economy had a much different profile. Sectors doing well for us like health care and education up until right now continued to hire during the downturn, slower than before - but they hired.
Finally demographics helped. Lots of people left the state in the early 2000s so they end up on some other state’s unemployment roles, births were low, and in many parts of the state an aging population retired and this left the labor market entirely.
So, a lot of the reason why we tend now to do ‘less bad’ has less to do (in my opinion) with any great policy solutions and much more to do with the earlier restructurings, a less sever housing problem than in Florida, Arizona and Souther CA, and interesting quirks of demography. Of course, the aging population and skills drain of the young people who left may turn around and bite us in the ass further down the road when the job market expands and we are found wanting for a skilled workforce.
Hope that helps.
June 25th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Thanks.
1&2: The collapse started in an industry - homebuilding/financing - that we were not deeply inveted in.
3: We are heavily-invested in recession-proof industries.
Makes sense.
I don’t understand your point about demographics, though. Why would people who left the state in the early 2000s be more likely to have become unemployed if they’d stayed than the people who stayed? Am I missing your point? Why would births over the past decade matter?
I do understand the point about the elderly, though. 13.4% of Massachusetts residents are 65+, while 12.8% of Americans are in that age group.
June 25th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
The demographics matters because the fact that the population is ‘aging out’ of the labor market while others are leaving means there is less demand for the small pile of new jobs being created in the state. Had population growth continued as it had in the 1980s and 1990s and had there not been so much out migration the unemployment numbers would be much higher. So, while the state has not had any net new job creation for a decade the drop in the number of folks looking for work has in some ways masked this grim statistic while at the same time keeping the unemployment rate statewide lower than a lot of other states.
June 26th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Still the golden ray of sunshine, I see!
;-)
Thanks.
June 26th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Such statistical analysis must be blasphemy for those who credit our “lower” than national average unemployment rate to Deval arriving from the heavens above to save us.
Is this the part where Bob is asked to cite proof of his information? Or is that only a requirement of those who question the great and mighty blog Oz?
June 30th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Leave Fuzzy Math aloooooooooooooooooooone!
June 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
God I hate perpetual whiners…
Fact is, a strong, balanced approach for government has a HUGE impact on what happens to your economy. So get over it, your guys sucked ass which is why we were in the mess we were in in the first place.