Q: Where will the combined company be headquartered?
A: As part of the integration process, the corporate headquarters of the combined companies will eventually relocate to Schwab’s new campus in Westlake, Texas. Both companies have a sizable presence in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. This will allow the firm to take advantage of the central location of Schwab’s new campus as the hub of a network of Schwab branches and operations centers that span the entire U.S., and beyond.
Q: What does the headquarters move mean for the future of Schwab’s presence in San Francisco?
A: Schwab was founded in San Francisco and has maintained a longstanding commitment to the Bay Area, which will continue. A small percentage of roles may move to Westlake over time, either through relocation or attrition. The vast majority of San Francisco-based roles, however, are not anticipated to be impacted by this decision. Schwab expects to continue hiring in San Francisco and retain a sizable corporate footprint in the city. Any additional real estate decisions will be made as part of the integration process, over time.
Also, afaik the merger is still in the prices of regulatory review.
All this being said, the merger likely gives a tactical opportunity to move HQ out of state without triggering a governmental review of some kind by pairing it with the merger event.
This is a solid comment overall, but I really wish this particular widespread canard would die already. It's flatly untrue, the kind of myth that lives on because there are so many people who aren't capable of processing the benefits and costs of corporations and treat them as one-dimensional boogeymen out of a children's bedtime story.
(to be clear, that doesn't appear to be the case for you).
That charter is a binding contract that governs the behavior of the officers of the company and shareholders, when they buy shares of a company, do so with their rights and the obligations of officers encoded in that charter. They are not buying blind -- they are buying into that charter. That is a contract that they expect to be followed.
The idea that a corporation can do whatever it wants and ignore shareholders is a fashionable myth in some lefty circles and has absolutely no basis in reality or corporate law. If you want to found a corporation whose charter is to help the poor, or to provide high paying secure jobs to workers, you can certainly do that, but then it goes in the charter and if a corporate officer were to start turning the company into a for profit venture she could get sued by the shareholders just as an officer turning a for profit company into a non-profit can get sued.
In addition to the legal obligation of abiding by the charter (in the sense that it is a contract and you can get sued for breaching it), most corporate charters are structured in such a way as to allow shareholders certain operational control: to replace board members who they don't believe are acting in their (the shareholder) interest, require shareholder approval for major things like executive pay, issuance of corporate debt, issuance of more stock, etc. This is another way that corporate officers are bound to serve shareholder interests and again these rights are all promised to the shareholder in the charter before they purchase stock, so that a shareholder knows what they are buying and what rights they have.
In addition to the daily operational controls that shareholders exercise, the charter also specifies what is necessary to change it -- usually a shareholder majority of some kind. This means if you displease the shareholders, they will sell your stock, lowering your stock price, allowing a hostile shareholder to buy up the company and throw management out and also rewrite the charter. Maybe even take the company private so they become the sole owner of the entire company. All of that is hanging, like a Damocles sword, over management, forcing management to cater to shareholder preferences.
If you don't like the current shareholder focus -- and there is a case to be made that we are too focused on the shareholder -- then you can go company by company and propose a vote to amend the current charter, assuming you can get the shareholders to agree -- but what you can't do is pretend that the vast majority of corporate charters aren't structured in such a way as to force corporate officers to maximize shareholder value. They are.
“ State laws require the board of directors to act in the best interest of the corporation and its shareholders. Part of that responsibility is managing the affairs of the business according to certain legal standards. Once a director takes a seat on the board, he has various duties as the representative of the shareholders that the law places upon him, such as the duty of care and loyalty, that determine if he's doing his job properly. Even if your small corporation has few shareholders and all of them also sit on the board of directors, the shareholders in their capacity as directors must take action and make decisions that comply with the law and the corporation's governing documents, including the bylaws.”
Rather they tend to include maximally expansive language such as "all business activities legal in the state of XXX". It's a placeholder, delegating responsibility to the directors to the greatest extent permitted by law. This is the standard, for good reason.
Are the charitable donations of the Fortune 500 evidence of widespread violation of fiduciary duties?
This is false.
Corporate law requires that Board members faithfully represent the interest of stakeholders, and the corporate bylaws define who those stakeholders are. Generally they will he creditors, holders of preferred shares followed by holders of common shares. By defining the stakeholders, the corporate charter is defining who owns what and whose interest the board must represent. This is where all the activists who insist that corporations have stakeholders like "the environment" hit a road block -- they aren't going to get shareholder approval to list the environment as a stakeholder.
Corporate bylaws, which must be voted on and approved by shareholders, do spell out voting rights for shareholders, approval of executive pay, approval of debt issuance. This is very common.
People misunderstand how heavily regulated corporations are, because it is a funny ownership structure, where the owners -- the shareholders -- are distributed and don't actually run the company. This creates all sorts of principle agent problems and thus corporate law grants shareholders many rights and imposes many obligations on corporations. Shareholders can audit the books. Shareholders can sue. All the ways that the business does anything from make a decision to issue debt must be spelled out in bylaws that shareholders must approve. Corporations must have a board. The board must be elected by the shareholders. The board has to act in their interest. The board gets to appoint the CEO, etc.
State law also defines the liability shield, that as long as board members are acting faithfully in the interests of shareholders, they can't be sued, but as soon as they are not they can be.
Things like corporate donations are generally justified as helping the bottom line by improving the brand. But you do need to show how they are helping shareholders, otherwise it would be a breach of fiduciary duty and the liability shield would be lost at which point shareholders could sue.
But even apart from this, when the shareholders turn against you they can sell, and if someone buys a majority of the shares the company becomes theirs, they own it, they can take it private, they can throw out management, etc. This ensures that the board be focused on keeping shareholders happy above all other concerns.
Thus shareholders can agree to bring in other stakeholders. They can agree that a certain business should maximize its taxes. They can agree to turn the company into a non-profit. But they have to be the ones to agree to do it, and it needs to be spelled out in the various bylaws that define who the stakeholders are that the Board members must faithfully represent.
It is not up to management. It is not up to employees. Only the shareholders decide this. The broader claims come from the assumption that shareholders generally support their own economic interests exclusively. My own observation of the world is that this is the case. Even if a shareholder cares about the poor, they would rather have the maximum return from their assets and then donate some money to the poor themselves, rather than asking their investments to donate to the poor and lower their return.
So the technicalities are that yes, shareholders can give up these claims if they want to. Admitting this is not, IMO, backing off from my broader claim, but recognizing that shareholder supremacy also empowers shareholders to direct a corporation to include other factors than profits.
What sin taxes are at play here?
Edit: Or just downvote I guess, it was just a question.
And these companies are not just moving to Texas. I live in Oakland, CA and many of these companies are relocating here. I don't care if they leave SF, but if they're cheating on their taxes, that's just not right.
Maybe you can mention the statute relevant to HQs? I'm not aware of any
This measure was pretty well known. It was one of the most controversial local measures in 2018 (even gaining substantial regional coverage: I'm in Oakland not SF and heard a lot about it).
1. SF levies taxes on companies headquartered in SF. The message: “Pay us for the privilege of being in SF”.
2. SF companies move their headquarters but promise not to cut jobs in SF. The message: “We already provide lots of middle-class jobs in your city, providing tax revenues. It is not in your interest for those jobs to go away.”
If you're cool with that, then Texas is a great place for you to live.
While this article is about Louisiana, the same laws (and practices) exist in Texas: https://www.nola.com/news/environment/article_75b4ff32-0d87-...
Then if you own the land, you don't even own the water, oil or whatever else might be under it. Remember abou a decade ago seeing something where a guy was disputing the county in Oregon over water rights, and they even illegally entered his property with no warrants or anythings.
The long time residents of SF don't believe in _change_, and that isn't going to change.
It is just happenstance that the initial San Jose tech explosion happened near SF. ...but maybe other parts of the country are better suited to it going forward...
Those longtime existing homeowners are trying to maintain the current landscape and don’t want new construction obstructing their million dollar views.
Yes many are NIMBYs, but so would most people if they grew up in a place that saw an influx of new people wanting to change the landscape with ugly high-rise all glass condos that blind you when the sun sets or change the feel of what they’re familiar with.
In a way, I don’t blame them. The majority of newer construction in the past 20-30 years in SF particularly is horrid.
Doesn't sound like they are leaving San Francisco, just building a new office in Texas (suburb north of Fort Worth).
Corporate back office operations will move entirely
> Schwab says it plans to retain a “sizeable corporate footprint” in San Francisco, but the brokerage firm has slashed its workforce in the city by 90% since 2000 while expanding branches around the country.
It sounds like this is just a good opportunity to cross another bridge.
Many companies head quartered outside of the bay area create and hold parts of their company in the bay area. Not just companies from other states, but companies from other countries too. They do this, because they know how hard it is to get smart and talented employees doing difficult and cutting edge tech work outside of the Bay Area.
Now if you're an accountant or are in sales, ... yah you're going to TX or finding a new job.
I would also bet that the move will come at the expense of Texas tax payers and to the benefit of Schwabb.
With prop 13, the downside is wiped out. Increasing values are only good; they could increase 10x overnight and this would only make landowners filthy rich, there's no negative effect for them. Ergo, they have every incentive to keep housing supply constrained, to keep voting for politicians and policies that limit housing density.
Another way to think about property taxes is that they're annual nudges to encourage best use of the property.
Without that pressure, as TulliusCicero notes, why would I ever sell before retirement? And furthermore, why would I even try to make money off the property (say, by renting)?
That's probably not in the city's (as in, all the people living there) best interest to have a substantial portion of homeowners so disengaged from the actual market.
PS: Which isn't to say there aren't gentrification and affordable housing debates to be had. Simply that Prop 13 doesn't really help with that -- it just removed risk from those who are already homeowners.
Unfortunately it won’t be changed until the State is at the brink of financial collapse. At that point I can see a “millionaires reassessment” suddenly being very popular.
In Vancouver, my family’s house was paying around $6000/yr in property taxes and the house was worth 1.4M only because the housing market in Vancouver has been crazy for decades.
My friend in Toronto pays $3800 on her $700k single family home.
My house in the Bay Area I bought for $1M and my taxes were $12,000 and in the last few years it has gone up to $15,000.
The idea that Prop 13 is somehow damaging CA is false. Imagine if you were a retiree in the Bay Area and your property taxes were indexed you the house price? It would drive out too many senior citizens and low income families because house prices have double in the last 7 years.
Also before you say that Prop 13 has a negative effect if you look at the actual house purchases, in my area at least half of the houses have turned over in the last 10 years meaning that the taxes being paid were reset drastically. Prop 13 protects homeowners by keeping consistency but doesn’t stop them from selling.
Edit: just to add - I don't know where people get the idea that we need to evict people from their homes over property taxes. Just put a lien on the property for the tax bill. This isn't rocket science.
If house prices go up, the state profits when the house changes hands, or the state owns all of the house and then needs to evict people.
In places like New York, you don’t see mass displacement of old people.
And, since home owners are incentivized to stay in the houses that they bought a long time ago (whether or not it's convenient for them or not), it means there's far less housing turnover, less supply and less opportunities for everyone, and longer commutes which is terrible for the environment. It's a disaster.
Both just pop in every now and then to enjoy the Bay Area for cheap and then let the home sit vacant the other 300+ days of the year.
I also know renters and owners that have been very active in their local communities.
If the metric you care about is "societal productivity" there are better ways to measure and reward that than based on "how long have you owned here."
Welcome to why California has budget problems in recessions!
This is bad for society, because people need land for things, and unlike cars or computers or gold we can't just ship it in from elsewhere if some provider is being obstinate.
Even worse the assessed value of property, for tax reasons and insurance reasons can be abnormally low in CA (vs value). Many people in the fires have learned too late that they were underinsured and are no where close to being able to rebuild the same house on their property with their insurance payouts.
Its not just the supplier who is being “obstinate” the consumer is also refusing to look other places.
While I also think companies should spread out more, the very fact that so many companies are paying the significantly inflated property and labor prices in the SF area shows the tremendous economic value in having access to that labor market.
Anecdotally, I would never move from where I live - Atlanta - to the west coast. There is nothing appealing about the area or the cost of living vs salary. I’m not saying I wouldn’t move to another major metro area if the jobs somehow dried up here.
That limits my salary (not really the COL vs salary is very attractive to me here) except I’ve seen a few local jobs for MS pop up here and jobs at Amazon (AWS) for Solutions Architects, Professional Services, etc. that I may be interested in in a couple of years.
I could also argue that a lot of companies that think they need to hire “rockstar ninja developers” to write their yet another software as a service CRUD app are mistaken and if they had to actually worry about silly things like profits instead of being subsidized by venture capital they could find a way to either relocate to a cheaper area or allow more remote work.
If (metaphorical) you want to raise property taxes to force people to move to make housing more affordable, why go through the circuitous route? Why not just use imminent domain, take the land, bulldoze the house and put up apartments?
That said, I don't think it's enough to just look at one tax. We have to consider taxes and regulations as a whole to understand whether a place is overall regressive or not. This leaves room for different implementations of tax policy which if done correctly will benefit the people.
California’s income taxes are super progressive. They’re only high for high earners.
Short answer: yes, Texas is regressive, with tax rates being lower in California for the bottom 60%.
> I would guess that
That's why I posted data; it works better than guessing.
I'm guilty of being a little snippy, which I'll own. I just get sick of these unmoored "housing sucks in California well no, it is taxes well really is is about..." conversations. The issues are complex, there's real lives and lots of money on the line, and yes, fully two thirds of these conversations involve moving goalposts, whether or not people realize that's what they're doing.
Not building housing increases the value of what I already own, and the tax policy means I don't face the economic pressure to change any of it. The two are deeply linked and going to be nearly impossible to change.
"The poverty rate, when adjusted for the cost of living, is the worst in the nation"
Schwab owns the whole corner there with plenty of room to expand, the Circle T Ranch is around 2500 acres.
Seems like the traditionals haven't been able to survive the second wave of disruption. This is what is prompting the merger i.e. if you can't grow like the fintechs then cut costs using merger cost synergies. A side effect of this is move from extremely high cost locales to lower cost ones. It's PR couched in terms like "Any additional real estate decisions will be made as part of the integration process, over time."
Good for San Fran and the bay area, it seems. Some prime corporate space being vacated should take a little pressure off real-estate prices (I hope).
I don't think Robinhood can even compare to the tools offered by Schwab's brokerage accounts. It's like r/wallstreetbets vs r/investing
I do agree that Robinhood was the first to make trading accessible to the masses and pushed for zero-fee trading.
Schwab is pretty great. If your only frame of reference is Robinhood, you should really look into it.
Pretty much all major American brokerages now offer zero-commission equities trading. It’s been a long time since retail equities traders depended on commissions to butter its bread.
This merger was driven, in part, by the greater fraction of revenues commissions represented ex ante for Ameritrade versus Schwab.
Most brokerages make the lion's share of their profits on carried interest in cash accounts, not trading. Robinhood isn't forcing this merger at all. TDA was ripe for the taking considering its nice overlap with Schwab demos (tons of small retail and some active traders with ThinkOrSwim). TDA fits better with Schwab than Fidelity, Vanguard, etc.
I'm honestly surprised that MS or BofA didn't make a play here. The influx just might save those two dying market players.
Square and Stripe will make profit in payments (they almost are)
Coinbase will make a profit in crypto (it's already break even)
Affirm, Lendup, Sofi etc. will make a profit in lending
Robinhood and the likes of it will make a profit in trading
The reason is simple: The traditional companies that they are displacing had an order of magnitude higher cost structure and weren't able to transform their backend legacy systems quickly enough (yes, they did transform their front-end UI/UX somewhat to match the newer ones, but the core is not scalable to be able to offer newer products). If the older companies were able to make a profit the newer ones will make greater profit. Again, to take Robinhood as an example: Free trading a great lure for users, however most of the money is made on other services e.g. float. Thus giving away a small part of revenue i.e. trading cost and recoup more from other services is huge.
Also, the bay has good jobs, so there's that. I mean that's probably why you moved here?
Everyone in CA knows that property tax money goes straight to the state and is divvied up there. It's collected locally, then sent straight to the state. CA gets first crack at spending it, then it goes down to the local level. The social services are paid for mostly by bond measures, which are immune to real estate prices. Other things are paid for with consumption based taxes (mostly sales).
Completely agree with you on the overdone clickbait!
The start up had about 20 people (maybe 2 of whom were over 30) in what was clearly an apartment at some point in the past, except the "bathroom" was what looked like a makeshift closet to me: a sliding glass shower door with a room divider behind it. For ~20 people. As the interview wraps up, one of the leads decides we should go for a walk so he can break the bad news about the job. We walked around the block about 5 or 6 times, every time passing the homeless man asleep on the sidewalk about 15 feet from their office door. No one there seemed to understand my astonishment/shock/horror about the state of that city.
The uber driver on my ride back to the airport who was native to the area sure understood though. That dude just drives around all day feeling out whether or not someone's going to report him if he speaks honestly about it. That conversation was by far the best part of the trip.
Flew back to ny and interviewed in nyc a few days later, and all I can really say is at no point in NYC did I feel physically unsafe like I did in SF. They're not even comparable in my book. I'm still unsettled by just how bad SF was, and I'm absolutely astonished that I don't hear people talk about this more.
By whom and to what end? Has it occurred to you that some people just don't like living there? Not everyone you disagree with is a paid shill.
Of course someone will bring up the infamous up-and-to-the-right poop maps, but that seems primarily to be a case of response bias as 311 rolled out an app with increasing adoption.
I'm no California booster or anything, mind you. Some people like it here (I'm one of them), and some don't. That's fine. We certainly have our problems that we need to work on, and we have also done a lot of things right. (For example, SF tore down the Embarcadero Freeway permanently when it was damaged in the earthquake. Brilliant move. Wouldn't fly politically for a second in Dallas.)
It sounds like you've experienced more than your fair share of crime since moving to the BA, but calling it high crime is beyond a stretch.
I'm originally from a much rougher part of the US than SF. Walking on the street here at night is still a relative dream (but not at all like in Asia).
(Also, another uniquely SF policy: blatant abuse of opioids, etc. here are not considered to be criminal.)
NOLA is bad because crime is everywhere. There are no good areas and bad areas -- it's everywhere. Even people in old Metairie need to deal with home invasions.
Uptown? Oooooo-lawd! Who was the rich uptown couple that had a home invasion where they tied up the husband and repeatedly raped the wife over several days as they went to the ATM over a long weekend? I honestly can't remember their names because that stuff happens so often (and said family was even friends with my dad).
And now, 11 people shot on Canal Street. This seems to happen every few years in NOLA. It almost never happens in the Bay Area at normal locations.
Also, San Francisco isn't the entire Bay Area.
And then wave it all away as, I guess, it's only really non-violent crime.
If you gave weightings to crime categories (we all do this internally), property crime would probably be the lowest weighted next to white collar crime. Violent crime would get exponentially higher weightings.
It's one thing to have $200 worth of stuff stolen in a car break-in. It's another to be violently mugged for $200 in cash on your person. I've lived in bad areas and the Bay isn't one of them. I'll trade property crime for knowing my family isn't likely to end up the victim of a horrendous violent crime.
Manhattan also has high property crime rates but low violent crime. Even has high real estate costs, but you don't see anyone knocking it as a hell hole.
There are people with some weird agenda/vendetta against the Bay Area, and they're obviously pouncing here.
Also, I'm talking about the entire Bay Area and you keep zeroing in on SF.
Also, seeing that the Bay Area includes Oakland and Palo Alto, I don't think comparing the entire Bay Area to NYC will give you results you have imagined.
Does the reduce capital costs of people, taxes, and buildings outweigh the talent pool in the area? Makes me wonder what the numbers look like.
There are lots of smart, driven people outside the talent hubs. Also as a sweeping broad generalization that I frankly can't back up with data, they are a lot less entitled and don't job hop as frequently.
But that's not what I mean by entitled. Entitled is an attitude of thinking one is special and thus deserving of special treatment.
Disclaimer: Schwab customer
The public transit is terrible in Texas so I expect it will be worse than the Bay in a decade or two if they refuse to build up transit, but for now it's a lot better. Texas has a lot more space so they've addressed traffic issues by building much wider highways and also multiple rings of highways. Obviously that's an unsustainable solution in the long term but for the time being, my Texas friends have way better commutes than what I see my co-workers deal with in the bay.
We shouldn't really be criticizing other states when California is definitely not the model for transit and traffic either. LA is a nightmare and SF is getting close to one as more and more tech companies move away from transit centers and force employees to drive.
The traffic principally affects you if you drive, hence why Texas is often worse even now than SF.
Regardless if you look at commuter data, it's pretty obvious that the Bay Area & LA commuters are significantly higher than Texas metros. We have higher median, average, and extremes in commute times:
Fun trivia tip: the opening scene of "Office Space" with the old person and walker going faster than traffic was filmed in Las Colinas (where I worked at the time).
I'd imagine traffic at the mixmaster and various loops are still terrible.
I had a reverse commute (Lower McKinney to Las Colinas), and I'd see gridlock the entire way there (other direction).
Austin already suffers from horrific traffic and poor infrastructure. City planning here is a joke.
Virtually all city planning is a joke, and even if one can conjure up an example of a currently "well planned" city it may well be a short lived title based on a number of economic and industrial changes in the coming years and decades.
SF is unique in that it is an industrial incubator for the modern tech industry, much as Detroit once was for the auto industry. There's nothing to say that SF couldn't become the next Detroit, save for its significant tourist appeal. In which case it would become more like Venice.
It's not entirely surprising though, and I can say that on intuition alone I've been guilty of just laying the blame at the politicians doorsteps and shaking my fist at the sky while proclaiming "such incompetence!".
The fact is that it's an incredibly difficult thing to get right, is extremely expensive and carries huge risk if one is hoping to get such planning done right in a pro-active manner, than in the reactive manner which we're accustomed to. The potential downsides to getting such an effort wrong are catastrophic.
We also voted in a city council that is majority pro-density/urbanist, and the new code timeline claims it should be voted in early next year: https://www.austintexas.gov/department/land-development-code...
We still have very loud neighborhood NIMBY groups. But the votes are what matters. I'm hopeful.
As for the grandparent, this doesn't mean suburban traffic will improve. I doubt it ever will, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand -- I recommend relocating to walkable/bikeable/busable parts of town, which are expanding (albeit slowly, because of pushback from drivers).
And the highest property tax rate in the nation.
This is a feature, not a bug. It’s very difficult for the wealthy to hide their property. There are also a number of ways to reduce the tax rate on one’s primary residence. Combined effect of this is surprisingly progressive, closer to a wealth tax.
Another effect high property taxes, is that most existing homeowners feel some pain when real estate prices soar and therefore there is a large contingent of voters who want to make sure that supply keeps up with demand so that their taxes don’t go up.
By contrast, where I live (in San Francisco), the existing homeowners make out like bandits when the government policies are punitively exclusionary towards outsiders. Soaring home prices mean nothing but good for homeowners when their taxes are both very low and virtually frozen at the original purchase price by prop 13.
I'm not sure why people in California love our regressive Prop 13 tax rebates that largely benefit the wealthy and are a cause of huge budget deficits. Prop 13 is the most Republican policy we have in our state.
Edit: This is just another example of supposedly progressive rules that create a nice safe wall between upper middles and don't have to works.
Would you also be okay with taxing someone based on how much they had in savings and mutual funds?
This already happens, except as a tax on income rather than wealth. Exercising options in a private company that has increased in value will result in a tax bill. And you can't sell shares to pay that bill (usually) because the company is private.
We stayed here (she still at university as a professor), and I left to co-found a startup. Still pretty cheap real estate, affluent & educated population (of all political leanings), and endless supply of smart folks to hire. And BBQ. I'll take it.
Though I love California too, just returned from a week in Big Sur and then the wine country. It's just must cheaper to visit :)
And it also benefits speculators - makes it cheaper to hold onto property for longer.
The stereotypes are hilarious. I'm a computer scientist and spent 9 months at IBM's TJ Watson facility up in New York outside the city. Every person I contacted to rent a room from made a point to tell me that I'd have to leave my horse at home because they didn't have a stable. They uniformly were shocked in disbelief when I explained I owned no horses, no cowboy hat, no boots. The horror...
As someone who lives in Fort Worth, I feel your pain, some folks do honestly seem to think that Texas is basically one big western still.
The other ruling ethos here seems to be 'good fences, make good neighbors'.
I'm not gay and when I mentioned it to one of my Chicago friends, and he just shrugged his shoulders and said, "Yeah."
tl;dr jerks are everywhere
Look at how they fought gay marriage or how they treat Mexican-American's. There are pockets of safety in that state (Houston/Austin) but as a whole it's not that great.
I lived a number of years in Idaho which has the same problem. I'm "OK" in Boise (even there things can happen) but I'm genuinely concerned for my safety when I have to drive anywhere else in that state.
Yes, it's conservatives who have done and continue to do the following:
- Attacked people in the streets over a hat they've chosen to wear. A hat merely supporting the nation's elected President.
- Deplatformed, or had banned from even attending non-political events, for wearing the same hat at an entirely irrelevant place and time.
- Cornered or essentially kidnapped college professors, and then continuing on to destroy their careers, for expressing views not even contrary to their own but merely in light conflict with it.
- Started trending topics on social media lamenting a desire to kill an entire demographic of people based on their race and gender, or denouncing a race or gender as "trash".
- Held marches in prominent cities calling for cops to be shot.
- Attacked journalists from the "opposite" side for merely being at events to report on them.
Long story short, I would wager that your typical radfem socialist type, adhering to the stereotypical dress attire and appearance choices, would be a magnitude of order more safe and welcomed walking down a street, or attending a university, in a major Texan city than a conservative with a MAGA hat, or similar stereotypical signal, in a liberal city.