Lots of employment opportunities in Texas? Maybe.Anyone been paying
attention to weather lately?Yes, it may be economically favorable in
Texas, but not if your town and home are repeatedly destroyed or blown away by a
tornado. Then comes the floods where one's property and surroundings float
away.California's natural disasters haven't come close to what
climate change is bringing, more frequently, to Texas and it's surrounding
I really wonder why this would be news to anynone. If you make it harder for me
to run my business, I am going to go somewhere that will make it easier. While
some companies are stuck where they are (the local store has to stay local) ,
plenty of businesses can move. Why would anyone owning a business that can
relocate stay in a state run by politicians who view business as the enemy and
force workers to join unions whether they want to or not? Those on the left
know what is happening and that is why the National Labor Relations Board is
fighting Boeing opening a new facility in So. Carolina. Tax heavy liberal
states cannot compete and they arr trying to use the Federal Governnent to slow
the exodus of profitable companies.Likewise, profitable companies
are leaving the US because we have such a high corporate tax rate. Liberals
want to feed off these companies, but businesses who can are taking their
facilities and jobs to other countries. It is not uncommon to see even snall
comapnies who have some of their workforce overseas. The irony is that some who
do this vote for liberal policies.
Maybe Mr. Obama should read this article.
I have friend who is a long-time accountant in Chicago. If I owned a business
in Illinois, I would be the first to move.
Leading your state to be have the least amount of regulations is NOT a good
thing. Just ask those who live in a certain town in Texas whose lives were
destroyed when a certain fertilizer plant (which had a lonnngggg history of
problems) blew up. Contrary to what this editorial thinks, it's
not a good thing to get rid of so many regulations that even 3rd world countries
are rolling their eyes. The bottom line is, we aren't
recovering because regulation and taxes are too high. The rich "job
creators" are sitting on trillions. The real issue is that the rest of us
are lacking so much wealth and buying power that we cannot force companies to
hire in order to produce more goods.See, the economy grows when the
masses not the minority has the bulk of the wealth. That's the #1 issue
today. The rich have rigged the game and have it dead set against the poor and
middle class. Until we change this progress won't happen.
The things that might cause a business to relocate for non business reasons,
would be outright bribery or government favoritism. In either case, the people
will suffer from the action.
Of course for labor this is a race to the botton, Labor gives and gives and
gives, while capital takes and takes and takes. Eventually there will be a
reckoning with much suffering. American labor increasingly survives under
immigrant conditions, e.g. multiple non-benfit paying jobs, dangerous working
conditions, complete insecurity. Texas is a paradise I'm sure.
"(Texas) also grew by 18 percent in population and increased dramatically in
terms of its share of the nation's total economy."The
population growth MORE THAN ANYTHING, I assert, is the REAL reason for Texas
prospering. And probably much, if not most, of that growth came
"naturally" (via BIRTHS). Immigrants, whether between nations or
sub-divisional states within a nation, certainly can and do have a major impact
on the "growth" of a given region, at least for a period of time.However, the riots by "immigrants" and/or their posterity in
Sweden, a nation that has a very wide "social safety net" of welfare,
shows that the latent, and sometimes not so latent disparity between the
"haves" and the "have much less's" of society shows
"growth" via the womb of another nation or ethnicity has it's
definite drawbacks.Too often, when something good happens, there are
many standing, waiting to take credit for it. However, the cause of that good is
often far different than those who would attempt to suggest a causal effect from
a correlation.However, economies cannot grow with stagnant or
Businesses are like athletes who are free agents. They go where there is the
best deal. Most of us move, changes jobs or locations when it is in our best
interests. The governors of California and Illinois should get the message.
ALEC is a secretative conservative lobbying organization which writes
legislation such as the infamous "Stand Your Ground Laws" passed in
Florida. CA response (in part) response to Rick Perry:I
can understand why Rick Perry is interested in California. We were the national
jobs leader for most of the last year with 257,000 new private sector jobs said
Kish Rajan, director of the Governors Office of Business and Economic
Development. "But business relocations only account for 0.03 percent of
annual job losses in California. At that rate of growth, it would take 20 years
to lose just 1 percent of our businesses to relocation. The reports show that no
state has ever poached their way to long-term prosperity. Real job creation
comes from California's history as a national leader in start-ups and the
expansion of homegrown businesses."
If this article is true then why aren't there more no state income states
on the the list? Also who would really want to live in Texas?
TX and other states are experiencing growth largely from the oil and gas
boom."If you’ve been reading our reporting on Rick
Perry’s record in Texas, you’ll know that a large part of the
state’s economic success can be attributed to its rapid population growth.
Of course, Perry could take credit for that if, as some conservatives suggest,
the population grew because of people flocking to the state’s lax
regulations and low taxes. To do a limited test of this theory, I plotted
each state’s population growth from 2000 to 2009 (encompassing most of
Perry’s tenure) against its fiscal year 2006 tax revenue as a percentage
of gross state product (GSP), the state-level equivalent of GDP. There’s
basically no relationship: The two are negatively correlated, with a 1 percent
increase in the revenue/GSP ratio associated with a 0.7 percent drop in
population growth. But the tax burden only explains 6 percent of variation in
population growth, so it’s hardly a determining factor. " (Dylan
Matthews, The Washington Post 2011)
@ Hemlock"Businesses are like athletes who are free agents. They go
where there is the best deal."This is only true for low value,
less innovative type of business operations. Operations that do not involve a
substantial "skill set" (such as customer service centers) will locate
in low-cost states. But high value businesses, the kind that change the world
like Apple and Google, involving innovation (and paying high salaries) will
naturally locate in places like California where the education system is second
Two things: 1 - Somehow the DesNews opinion folks believe that when
a job moves from one state to another that is recovery/job creation. Did it
occur to them that no job was created in that scenario? That isn't a
recovery, it's just swapping places. When you move your wallet from your
right pocket to your left, did you just create money? Of course not. Texas, et
al are simply engaging in a "race to the bottom" in terms of regulation
and taxes because they cannot compete on actual job creation. Texas et al are
banana republics that export cheap labor. If a job paying $100K in CA is moved
to Texas and now only pays $75k, the $25K flows up to the owners. It's
trickle up economics, folks. 2 - The reason why CA has Facebook,
Twitter, Google, Yahoo, Apple, Cisco, eBay, Adobe, HP, Juniper, Wells Fargo,
Intel, Marvell, Salesforce, SanDisk, Intuit, etc, etc... is because educated
people live in California and California engenders start ups. Texas is known
worldwide for having a poor educational infrastructure; excluding Dell, the
whole of Texas wouldn't have sufficient brainpower to run one of the
companies listed above.
If lower taxes and fewer regulation meant economic growth then we would have
seen a booming economy during the 2000s. So why was it the worst in job creation
since WWII?Repubs? Where are ya? Can't blame Clinton for
Oops!Rick Perry leading ...It's a good thing the
jobs junket out was not the third thing on his list...BTW...Fertilizer plants are moving to Texas?
The number one reason that a business chooses one location over another is to be
close to their customers. Silicon Valley has an advantage because so many other
companies are there. It's easy to sell, do business and make money when so
many of your customers are neighbors. This also give Texas an advantage over
states like Utah.Behind the location of your customers is where you
can hire the best people. You might say California has an advantage because of
it's educational system, but when you go inside many Silicon Valley firms,
you find so many of their employees are from Asian countries. It could be that
California gives itself an advantage by being friendly to immigrants and
allowing those who are from elsewhere to get an education. No having to go very
far to find people to work for you is an advantage no matter what business you
are in.Taxation and regulation are probably third on the list.
Companies will locate where the local government doesn't have their hands
in your pockets. This is where California and New York lose and Texas and Utah
All of us should cheer any company that decides to move to another State to save
money rather than to go off-shore. In today's world of high-tech, any
computer oriented company is as close as the terminal on your desk. I use
"face time" to talk to family and customers wherever they are in the
world. One son regularly shares his experiences in India where he goes several
times a year on business.Texas should be applauded for reaching out
to American companies and offering them a way to stay competitive in a world
where taxes often mean the difference between staying in business in American
and going off-shore.Any State that thinks taxes don't matter
had better sit up and listen - before they lose their tax base entirely.
@Ben HThe decision regarding where to locate depends on many
factors, but the major factors depend upon your type of business. If you were
correct regarding proximity of customers being #1, most manufacturers would be
located in the United States (rather than China) because the United States is
the largest consumer market in the world. It is good to be near your customers
if you are manufacturing large items such as automobiles, but for small items
that can be cheaply transported, proximity to customers is less important than
other considerations. For companies located in Silicon Valley (who mainly
produce intellectual property) the most important factor is securing the best
talent (education and brainpower) they can get, which is why they are located
near Stanford and Berkeley (who along with Cal Tech and MIT produce the
world's best engineers).My son is a EECS (electrical
engineering/computer science) major at UC Berkeley right now. Most of his
classmates in engineering are of Asian descent, but only 13% of engineering
students on campus at Berkeley are international students. The bulk of his
classmates attended California high schools and are Asian Americans.
The Great Recession, or Little Depression, is exposing something very different
than this editorial claims, but it will take more time, apparently, before the
Deseret News can see it. States that consistently give tax breaks to
corporations on the backs of its school children and the poor and disabled will
live to regret their short-sightedness. Even many of Utah's business
leaders can see the damage that is occuring and they are calling on this state
to take better care of its people, especially its children.As for
the report you cite, this is a deeply flawed study, and its authors hardly
command the respect of economists who pay attention to what's actually
Texas's growth is primarily in low paying jobs, that's part of why
they're last in the nation in terms of percentage of people with health
Birth rates have a lot to do with this too, a large part of why Romney in the
low-birth rate Massachusetts was 47th of governors in job creation, if you
don't have many more workers coming in than workers that retire you
don't actually need many new jobs. Huntsman was #1 in job creation,
naturally Utah was at the opposite end of population growth/birth rates.
How to lead a recovery? First don't be a socialist. Second DO be a
Education and mass transit are critical. The frontrunner station in Farmington
is a good example. Retail development is exploding there and still building.
Harmons and numerous other retailers have located there. No doubt taxes are an
important part of the equation. There are some insightful comments on here.
Glad to see not everyone is embracing tea party conservatism and buying into
everything Rush Limbaugh says.
"How to lead a recovery? First don't be a socialist. Second DO be a
capitalist."Totally agree.Which is why I was so
angry when bush and the repubs forced a $900 dollar bailout to Wall Street.
Complete and utter class warfare. Nothing more than reverse Robin Hood! Make us,
the productive members of society bail out the greedy, lazy, and entitled.
It's so upsetting how Wall Street and big banks feel so entitled to our
hard earned money!Other secrets to recovery? Don't give out
unsustainable tax cuts to the rich. They aren't creating jobs but sitting
on trillions of cash. Don't invade a country that didnt attack you. And
don't deregulate the markets. Keep the time tested safety belts in place.
Without them, incompetent bankers will take unnecessary gambles and lose large
amounts of money. To which they will ask for the rest of us to bail them out. Of
which, repubs are more than happy to oblige. NO MORE BAILOUTS! Let
those lazy and entitled businessmen fail, no matter what the GOP says!
re:The Real MaverickCan't argue with your points. Bailouts make
no sense. The billions spent on GM by taxpayers - for example - will never be
repaid. GM - at the end of the day - went through a managed bankruptcy anyway so
the bailout rewarded bad business practices including continuing to support and
work with the business killing UAW.
Maybe the bast way to understand what TO do is to first look at what NOT TO do.
Take New York City. This socialist led city (and state) just jacked up its
taxes...again ... for the wealthy. Get this .. you pay 39% federal and 12%
state. Add to that the various CITY taxes that have been added and continue to
be added and you have a current tax rate over 60% and headed toward 75% if
progressives get their way. Translation - if you are wealthy you get to keep
about 35% of what you make... the rest goes to the government.So WHY stay in NY
City? Where is the incentive business wise? I guess if you want to just work for
the government. Every socialist led city and state is drying up and dying. EVERY
SINGLE ONE!!! People who have money and who COULD invest and grow their
companies are leaving. You don't LEAD an economic recovery if you leave -
only if you stay. Pretty simple. Simple for a common sense person but not for
the progressive mind. Progressives are ANTI-BUSINESS. Always have been and
always will be.
I wouldn't live in Texas for all the Tbones in the world.
"So WHY stay in NY City? Where is the incentive business wise?"You've gotta be kidding. Just the fact that you are asking that question
shows you do not understand business in the least. The economic center of the
world and this guy asks where is the incentive business wise. "I
guess if you want to just work for the government." You mean like
firefighters and cops and soldiers and people that make sure our buildings are
built safely?"Every socialist led city and state is drying up
and dying. EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!"Well I guess it's a good
thing then that there are no socialist cities or states in the US of A.
If California and Illinois are such DREAMY places to live and run a business,
what are all the leftist DN nuts, and these two state governors arguing with
everyone about? What are you getting all worked up about? Gov. Perry's
actions become meaningless, if that is really the scenario! The fact is, Texas
has twice the population Illinois has, and has managed its resources much
better. California is in the same boat as Illinois, but it does have better
weather. Yea, you can pretend like California is getting its budget under
control, and it might happen, but it is based on a whole lot of IF's. As
they promote themselves as the center of the universe in smarts and education,
few places depend more on government spending and support then these tow kinds
of states. Cut government spending in Texas, and it hurts but life goes on. Cut
it in California and Illinois, and everything shuts down!