Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Businesses

Samsung Ditches New Jersey For Texas, Costing Garden State 1,000 Jobs (nj.com) 123

Posted by BeauHD from the moving-down-south dept.
schwit1 shares a report from NJ.com: Samsung is pulling up stakes in New Jersey and heading to Texas, a move that could leave roughly 1,000 Garden State workers facing a stark choice: relocate or risk losing their jobs. The South Korean tech giant confirmed this week that it will move its US headquarters from Englewood Cliffs, NJ, to its existing campus in Plano, Texas, marking a stunning reversal less than a year after it celebrated the opening of a new headquarters in Bergen County. The relocation is expected to be completed by the end of the year, according to company statements. "Samsung Electronics America Inc. is undergoing a business transformation designed to better position our organization for long-term growth and future success. As part of this effort, we are relocating our U.S. headquarters from New Jersey to our existing campus in Plano, Texas, building on our 30-year presence in the state," said Samsung in a statement emailed to NJ.com on Tuesday.

"As part of this strategy, we will be optimizing parts of the organization to ensure our roles and functions align to key business priorities. We recognize such adjustments will have an impact on our people and we will be providing support to those affected," it continued.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Ditches New Jersey For Texas, Costing Garden State 1,000 Jobs More

Samsung Ditches New Jersey For Texas, Costing Garden State 1,000 Jobs

Comments Filter:
  • The suffocating regulations and sky high taxes (with nothing to show for it) are pushing everyone away.

    • Re:Everyone is moving to TX or FL (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04, 2026 @01:11PM (#66175380)

      Enjoy the race to the bottom. Industrial pollution on industrial scale, company towns, no rights. The usa was there once, and going back isn't necessarily progress.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Valgrus Thunderaxe ( 8769977 )
        Where is all this pollution and company town and no rights?

      • I'm preparing to leave California because what you're describing is exactly the status quo in this state, where in my experience, it isn't in either Texas or Florida. Go look at where the dirtiest cities in the country are all concentrated, and you'll see what I mean.

        Actually worse, because the only "race to the bottom" I've seen is California's plan to capture more tax revenue for more social services that it already can't afford. How is that a good idea when the fact that the people who bring in by far th

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

          If everyone paid more in taxes, we wouldn't have to be nickel and dimed for all the piecemeal options that the government (or life) forces people to have - healthcare, insurances, etc.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by alvinrod ( 889928 )
            You presume that taxes are spent wisely. The reality is that more taxes simple mean more for bureaucrats to squander. Consider the state of California which spends increasingly more money on homelessness to poorer results. The bureaucrats don't make more by actually fixing anything and have no incentive to solve the problem they were tasked with and by taking the problem entirely under the wing of government they eliminate any chance of a competitive market forming or even charitable organizations from prov

            • Consider the state of California which spends increasingly more money on homelessness to poorer results.

              Democrats want to spend enough to bring their mental and substance abuse problems under control and to prevent things like medical debt from throwing people onto the streets in the first place. Republicans want to spend nothing to help them out, only to lock them up or ship them somewhere else. So the two sides compromise which means the state spends just enough to keep them alive and dependent on hando

            • The reality is that more taxes simple mean more for bureaucrats to squander.

              You are correct; however, I would like to make it more pointed:
              The reality is that more taxes simply mean more for bureaucrats to send to their friend's and family's companies.

              In other words, more taxes means more wealth transfer from the general public to the 'wealthy elite'.

          • If everyone paid more in taxes, we wouldn't have to be nickel and dimed for all the piecemeal options that the government (or life) forces people to have - healthcare, insurances, etc.

            If we elected leaders won could succeed in building things or fixing things, it we measured politicians by accomplishments rather than by posturing and having good intentions, we could fix things with the tax money already being spent and not need to raise more taxes.

            Spending is not the problem, Other countries spend less and have better results because there is accountability.

            Gavin Newsom failed in his promises as major. Then ran for governor and won, and failed in his promises as governor. Now he is

        • I'm for some taxes on the rich instead of nearly no taxes for the rich. That's the compromise I'm willing to accept, but for some people that's not good enough.

          With an inability to print its own money, states need revenue in order to provide services to its people. Often the services are an obligation under the state constitution (such as California's education budget).

          But ultimately my income tax here isn't the issue. Even the property tax isn't too bad, because it's fixed at a very low rate. It's that the

          • Regardless, unless you're homeless, the state absolutely goes out of its way to make you feel a financial sting. A jizya, more or less. The housing costs are just another means of that, which the state has more control over than most people realize, which primarily comes in the form of overregulation.

            Just to build a house, you're looking at a minimum of two years of permitting, likely even 3 years, possibly more. That's also not cheap, and you haven't even broken ground. And guess what else? The environment

        • "More taxes for the rich" historically graduates to "more taxes everybody."

          That may be true (citation needed), but lowering taxes for the rich definitely translates to higher taxes for everybody else.

          Frankly though, I don't care if my taxes go up a few percent. It's the least of my expenses. What's breaking the budget is everything else. Like, the things that government is supposed to help with. The things that taxes are supposed to pay for. Healthcare, transportation, schooling.

          I've been told that "affordability" is a word liberals invented because they hate Trump, but I'm just w

          • That may be true (citation needed), but lowering taxes for the rich definitely translates to higher taxes for everybody else.

            Go look up why Francois Hollande ended up lobbying to repeal his own 75% top end tax that was his campaign promise after talking about how much he hated the rich, then tell me exactly why you still think this.

            But keep repeating history if it makes you happy.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dryeo ( 100693 )

              OTOH, America's golden age was at a time when the top tax bracket was up around 90%.

              • Nobody ever paid 90% top-end in this country. That also began during the great depression and WWII, so I don't see where you're getting the idea that it was some sort of "golden age".

                Though I guess it depends on your perspective. Socialists and fascists alike certainly thought this about that period. The depression was "proof" to them that capitalism had failed, and saw the rise in power of the USSR, along with the holodomore, the gulag, and many other "necessary evils" to finally show the world that there

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by dryeo ( 100693 )

                  It's the Conservatives who label the 50-60's America's golden age. You're right that no one paid the 90% top end. Instead they paid their workers better, put money back into their business and such which led to a fairly robust spread of wealth and the average person doing OK financially.

      • Well, since you're talking about things that are banned or heavily regulated, what the hell are you pretending you're worried about?

    • Re:Everyone is moving to TX or FL (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dagrichards ( 1281436 ) on Thursday June 04, 2026 @01:12PM (#66175382)
      Yes, that is the messaging. It's not the reality, but it is what what you all tell each other. Posted from the poor unpopulated state of California... with it's puny $4T+ GDP

      • I'm curious, what is the reality? These companies are moving to Texas and Florida for *some* reason. If not for less regulation, what is it?

        • Whatever the reasons are, they certainly won't benefit employees or residents.

          • Maybe there's a mix. More jobs in those states, do benefit employees. Of course, those who lost jobs in the original state, did not benefit. So the benefits and costs are not evenly distributed.

            My curiosity is what OP thought was the motivation if not less regulation.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jythie ( 914043 )

          Judges. Texas is a very 'might makes right' state, judges and other officials are very friendly to corporations and affluent individuals, so people and companies that do not like the legal system protecting other people from them have been flocking there.

          • Interesting theory. But it doesn't explain why regular people are flocking to Texas. If businesses in Texas are so horrible, no one would want to work for them, and they certainly wouldn't want to move to Texas to work for them.

            I came to Texas in 1990 looking for work, and wasn't disappointed. The cost of living is low, taxes are low, and good jobs are plentiful. Maybe that has something to do with why people "flock" to Texas, and businesses go where the people are.

            • Property taxes are not low, actual good jobs are only plentiful when the price of oil is high, cost of living has drastically increased due to inflation as well as food and gas while wages are typically stagnant, the power grid is a piece of shit, public transportation is shit, traffic is shit, 40% of new expressways are toll roads, education system is shit as the government is actively working to kill public education in favor of bullshit vouchers...

              • That's not what Samsung mgmt will be selling the move on. They WILL try to convince some workers that the cost of living is lower, that buying a house and owning land in or around Plano will be within their reach, and that operating costs for the company will be lower, so they can pay the workers more, win win win win. Everybody wins. The reality is that Plano, Texas and Samsung win and workers will probably get bigger houses but inherit a bunch of Texas problems like unstable power grid, terrible education

        • Consolidation. They see the US as a shrinking market. And they are probably right. Just my guess.

        • You're just internalizing advertising (Score:5, Interesting)

          by abulafia ( 7826 ) on Thursday June 04, 2026 @06:14PM (#66175864)
          It is a long-standing Texas marketing campaign. I've listened to them yammering on about everyone in California moving to Texas since the 90s, when I moved to California. I'm sure they were doing it before then.

          So of course they shouted from the rooftops when Oracle moved to Texas, but became remarkably coy about Oracle then moving from Texas to Tennessee [texasmonthly.com]. The Space Nazi also quietly moved a ton of people out after moving them there from California.

          If you're actually curious and wish to align your intuition with reality, look at real numbers [census.gov]. You'll find the "California drain" is real - more people have been moving from California to Texas than the reverse for a while now. But California has been growing at a rate as to make that not matter. As far as their bullshit about taxes, Texas is indeed less tax-heavy on rich people, but taxes poor and middle class people significantly higher, like all southern states. And you might like the idea of their "not zoning" zoning. Unless you buy in Houston, Dallas and San Antonio, in which case I hope you can find flood insurance.

          For my part, I'd encourage MAGAtypes to do their part to convince more California billionaires to move to Texas. We have too many, and they're almost all snotty, whiny, annoying little shits.

        • I'm curious, what is the reality? These companies are moving to Texas and Florida for *some* reason. If not for less regulation, what is it?

          Backroom deals. 100%. Texas is starting some new kind of business court system, with judges hand picked by the governor not elected. It's courting (no pun) these kinds of moves for sure.

          That's why they don't want to talk about it.

          • While it's true that Texas has unelected business court judges, this is not unusual. ALL Federal judges are unelected, and many states have judges who are appointed by the governor or otherwise unelected. This is not unique to Texas. For that matter, I believe that elections are a poor way to select judges for any purpose, since this makes them subject to the political winds of the day.

            There was nothing secret about the creation of the new business court. There is nothing that suggests this court is designe

        • Lower employee wages, weaker employee rights, weaker enforcement of any laws or regulations that could negatively impact corporations...

          • I think you just agreed with me.

            Lower employee wages, weaker employee rights, weaker enforcement of any laws or regulations

            I think that's a nice definition of "less regulation."

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ambrandt12 ( 6486220 )

        And, still... even with $4T GDP, they can't afford to fund anything, do anything about drugs (you can exchange your used needles for clean ones for free, so you can shoot up drugs without reusing one! Maybe make it harder for druggies to get their hands on needles :-) ), fix the homeless issue, maybe spread the wealth to poorer states.

        • I know you'd love to just let people without money die of disease in camps, but until that's not so unpopular programs that significantly reduce the spread of HIV and others are still a win for taxpayers.
        • Well we send billions of dollars every year to the Federal Government which absolutely used to use to fund programs in the poorer states.

    • If that were true then why don't they move to somewhere like India?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hwstar ( 35834 )

        There is no employment-at-will in India. If companies prefer to follow the law in India (Which a lot of them don't) You have to have a specific reason to fire them (Just Cause).

    • They're getting ready for mass firings. California and New Jersey both have rules about how you do that. You can still do it, but it's gonna show up in the press and you can't cheat people out of unemployment insurance or agreed upon severance.

      Also you have to report the mass firings. Texas lets you sweep them under the rug.

      I'm saying don't move. You'll be fired in a year.

      You can't race to the bottom

    • Poverty and lower cost of living has more to do with it. Manufacturers trying to minimize labor costs will go to so-called shithole countries to save money.
      Research, engineering, science based businesses will also go where people can be hired cheaply, but if an insufficient number are available they will go where people with education and experience live.

    • They're moving back after they realize they're going without electricity for a week or two, most years. And their house floods. And they're sitting 3 hours a day in traffic.

      I'm fine with that, we're too full in Houston anyway. We don't have the infrastructure even to support the current population. If more people are desired, that's going to take a lot of expense and a lot of building. We could have started tackling the traffic and flooding problems decades ago, but chose not to.

      There are decades of infrast

    • more like texas gave samsung a billion dollars in incentives to operate there... if any state offered a BILLION in incentives to keep 1,000 employees... they deserve to burn down

      when you don't collect taxes, curious where all that money will be coming from

  • The race to the bottom has begun (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04, 2026 @01:03PM (#66175364)

    Low taxes, low responsibility, low worker protection standards are always welcome by senior management.

    Too bad they leave only scorched earth in their wake.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by evanh ( 627108 )

      More likely Trump made another "offer" that wasn't to be refused.

    • Interestingly, here in Germany Samsung (and many other Korean companies) are located around Frankfurt/Main, a quite expensive location for the most part.

  • Rutgers had an interesting breakdown for the reasons: https://bloustein.rutgers.edu/... [rutgers.edu]

    Higher costs and regulations are certainly a factor, but Samsung already has operations in Texas. It makes sense to consolidate those in these uncertain times.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Then it seems kind of dumb that they built the Jersey place just a year ago. Hindsight is 20/20, and all, but still.
  • Samsung said the move from New Jersey to Texas was about "operational alignment." Translation: after 40 years of trying to get the Turnpike smell out of their $5,000 corpo suits, they figured it’s easier to just wear them where the air doesn’t come pre-seasoned.

  • And (Score:2)

    by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

    Texas gets just a little bit shittier than it already was.

  • Good for business owners, bad for employees. For remote-first companies itâ(TM)s not a problem but for in-person jobs like these in a lot of cases folks will not want to relocate to Texas.

  • Off topic, but relevant to why they do this (Score:5, Informative)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Thursday June 04, 2026 @05:01PM (#66175754) Homepage

    Samsung is run by the most short sited, greedy people. Not surprising they abandoned NJ for an immediate benefit. I love their products, but they are literally destroying South Korea.

    They created an internconnected network ownership system (company A owns 50% of company B that owns 50 of company A) that controls 15-23% of South Korean economy. They do so with a strong company-first culture, where the employees go out with their boss drinking on Friday night. At one point all night sessions were mandatory.

    For some reason, people that go out drinking with their boss every Friday night never get married or have children. (Wow, who could figure that out....)

    While South Korea does have mandatory child leave rules, no one USES them because if you do, you are seen as disloyal to the company and do not get promoted.

    Their population is expected to be cut in half over the next 60 years. This will also mean that they will not have enough working young people to support the older generation, all within a decade.

    Good news is that real estate prices should drop like a stone.

    The main cause appears to be the idea of loyalty to the company and not to the family. Everyone puts their work first to the point that they do not have children.

    (Note, the expense of raising a child does affect this trend as well, but the statistics show the problem is not married people refusing to have kids but instead people NOT getting married).

    Samsung does make good products, but their culture is destroying their country.

    • Re:Off topic, but relevant to why they do this (Score:4, Informative)

      by virusjan ( 220113 ) on Thursday June 04, 2026 @07:03PM (#66175910)

      Former Samsung employee here who has spent a lot of time in both the Seoul and Suwon (aka Digital City) offices and worked with a number of different teams.

      This is mostly inaccurate.
      - Short sighted and greedy depends on the org.
      - Stating that employees go drinking with their bosses on a Friday night is not accurate (aka hoesik). In fact, Samsung implemented the "1-1-9 rule" (one location, one drink, 9pm cutoff) and later "1-1-2 rule" (2 hour dinner limit) to restrict mandatory drinking.
      - Employees uses their parental leave all the time and in fact, pair it with their government provided parental leave to extend their time away. The con is when they return from parental leave, they sometimes have to find another org to work within at Samsung which means starting over.
      - You are correct that despite the surge in birth rates in 2024 - 2025 which is really happened post Covid, that the overall population is still decreasing.
      - Why people do not have children in Korea is mostly because women are forced to choose either career or family, while men must be breadwinners. Obviously there are other reasons why (cost of living, hagwon expenses, women often times have to do most of the childcaring work, etc.).

      • The fact they had to make those rules is proof they USED to do it, and ALSO means the culture that created those rules still exist. Hoesik was/is a SYMPTOM of the problem, not the problem by itself.

        Your description of the women is also true of 90% of western cultures. Women in the US, Europe, Australia are also forced to choose. But these other countries do NOT have anywhere near as bad a problem with population. As such it is incredibly foolish to believe it is the real cause.

        You listed contributory fa

  • Samsung and Exxon fleeing New Jersey (Score:3)

    by dogcar3604 ( 1482103 ) on Thursday June 04, 2026 @05:50PM (#66175824)
    Samsung has has a location in Austin for 30 years. They are moving with their eyes open. Exxon has many locations in Texas. Same, same.
  • Nobody lives there anymore. Itâ(TM)s too crowded.

  • Also why Texas gains people (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Friday June 05, 2026 @06:18PM (#66177446) Homepage

    Texans love to brag about how Californians and others keep moving to their state. They do not seem to understand that it is because their BOSS wants to move to Texas and they are moving for the job, not because they like Texas.

    Then they get upset when the new citizens of Texas are all liberal and vote that way.

Slashdot Top Deals

!07/11 PDP a ni deppart m'I !pleH

Close