Cheaper to live there brings to the fore, desirability of location to attract employees (cheaper to live there not so much, as cheaper to live means it likely sucks, supply and demand you know). So can companies attract better people and at lower costs by providing a better live, work and play environment, not only within their facilities but in the community at large. So locating according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W..., likely makes the most sense if you want to attract and keep the best people. Ain't the bosses that make companies (time to drop the main stream media celebrity illusion), it's the workers (that is the reality).
Note, one huge advantage with locating at the best locations away from major competitors, it makes it much harder for staff (and their families) to leave to go to those competitors especially if those competitors are in cheap ass undesirable locations in the middle of a desert (you'll keep the most long term productive and lose the greediest often medium term destructive).
So pick a city from the lists, check regional language use, check for competitors and, then check costs. Equipment can go anyone, good staff will be much more choosy and where does count a lot for them. Give the staff good quality of life and they are unlikely to leave to go to a competitor at a worse location, you might still lose them to local industry at that location but at least they will not be going to major competitors. Don't forget things like universal health care (means you don't have to pay for it and can discount their wages because they don't have to pay for it either). Climate, beaches, parks, recreation, choice of schools etc. (smaller capital cities will generally work best).