Brutus_buckeye

Sounds like he is shopping it around and using it as leverage. I would be more concerned with Charleston given his home market. Charlotte has the airport but I am sure the USTA would prefer the current location if it shows to be viable which it is.

When I was in the student rental business at Dayton years back, it was amazing how many students were coming over from China. The universities were courting these students because there was a ton of easy money behind it. From a housing standpoint, they had a pretty decent living expense budget (they were not living large but had a bigger budget than many of the other international students) especially European students who tended to struggle more financially. The Chinese influence went from almost nothing in the early 2000's to a significant international presence at Dayton by 2012-2015 time frame. From what I hear it has greatly pulled back given Covid and other tensions with international relations such that the flow of Chinese students has slowed precipitously. I think it may pick up some but not to the levels of 10 years ago given the current state of international affairs. From my limited immigration legal experience, I remember that India is a challenging country, not necessarily for student Visas but once the student graduates, it is much harder for them to find employment in the US and convert their Visa to an H1-B or other form. This may ultimately depress the number of Indian Students who come because it is much easier to get a work Visa from China or most other countries than it is from India. I don't know though. certainly, I do not know how the international students will shake out. Clearly they will be in demand for many schools to help make up for the decline in American students simply due to the fact that there will be far fewer than them in the future.

@Lazarus agree with this 100%. However, no matter how much data you provide to demonstrate your point, you will continue have people who believe that it is the progressive social policies in cities that are the primary driver of state/city growth and job/corporate growth.

When you are out of college you have vastly different goals than you do when you are 30 and looking to settle down. Will those students return to Ohio? Who knows. However, chances are that the majority of them will not end up in DC, the Bay Area or even Chicago for the long term. I have not seen a formal study yet, but I remember hearing a quote at one time that the average person who moves to the DC area will be there for 3 years before moving to another market. This does not mean they will return to their homes as there are many factors that determine that, but it means that cities like DC, Chicago and San Fran are rather transitory cities. That makes sense if you think about it. Young professionals are transitory and often are looking to find the best opportunity for them in the short term. Anecdotally, many of the people i knew from Ohio that went to those markets immediately after college ended up in other places. The ones on the West Coast always came back to the Midwest (maybe not Ohio, but a nearby Midwest market) the ones in DC often came home after a couple years (politics can be a cutthroat business and they tire of it), and the Chicago ones will either come home or meet their spouse up there and relocate to where their spouse is from.

It depends on the politics. Certainly, as is the case many times (crony politics) plays a role in providing tax or business incentives to draw business expansions and lure businesses or even keep businesses in the area. Politics plays a role in helping to establish the foundation to allow certain businesses to grow (for example, laying the foundation 30+ years ago to help the establish the research triangle and allow it to thrive in NC or incentives to foster a concentration or cluster of potential emerging market businesses). In Cincinnati 3CDC is clearly the beneficiary of politics to allow it to transform OTR and downtown. So yes, politics plays a role when it comes to allowing capitalism to thrive. However, on social issues, politics plays a much smaller role. People may openly claim to value certain positions over others, but when it comes to their "values" over their "paycheck," in the short term at least, they clearly will pick the paycheck.

I disagree 100% with your conclusions. Let's break down the areas that are growing significantly in the so called "red states" Look at Columbus, Ohio and Austin Texas as 2 prime examples. Both cities offer 2 key job drivers: 1) Seat of state government and government offices and 2) Large Research university. These factors have existed long before so called "blue" social policies and the Democrats pretty much controlled all the levers of local politics in those areas. in fact, you could argue that the foundation that led to those areas to thrive was laid by policies put in place by previously run Republican governments. I think the argument about "blue" politics being the reason why these areas are thriving is a misguided one. The areas were set up to thrive because of the factors laid out above that led to the incubation of jobs in 21st century industries that often centered around research and technology. Going around other "red" states and looking at the thriving markets and you see the same similarities: 1) Raleigh Durham - State Government, 2 Large Research universities. 2) Nashville TN - State Government, Strong Research University, also have the confluence of the country music industry to further help things. 3) Atlanta - Many large research universities, head of state government creates a draw for younger educated professionals and companies to relocate there because of the labor pool. People go to places for jobs. companies go to places because of the labor pool in the area. Having a large research university contributes to that labor pool. If people have opportunities they will stay, if not they will leave. It is human nature. The social policies that may exist in that area may be superficially important to people but at the end of the day, they are going where the opportunities are. People and companies are currently flocking to Texas because they have a great income tax structure and provide good opportunities to do business.

It is not a temporary blip. There are going to be far less international students coming because for a while the largest segment was from China and well, those relations are not going as well as they were 10-15 years ago. Also, OSU and most students will need to lower their standards to keep enrollment up (should they choose) because in the next 15-18 years, the amount of high school graduates should drop by around 20-25% from where they were during the 2010-2020 time frame.

It has already been debunked in this thread by numerous posters that people are not moving to a location because of its politics. People move for jobs or quality of life issues. People are not going to those cities because of politics. People are going there because there are jobs and opportunity there. Politics is completely a separate issue. As was pointed out earlier - Illinois and New York are losing a lot of residents to the Sun Belt states, just like Ohio is losing residents there too. People are not moving there or to Austin, Dallas or Houston because of some perceived progressive or MAGA policies in those areas. The assertion that people leave Ohio or not come to Ohio because it is too conservative has been debunked

But college educated Ohioans have been moving to NY, IL and CA for going on 50 years now. Back in the day, I knew a ton of guys who would go to Chicago to work at the Board of Trade on the floor there. It was a place to start when you were young and out of school. Same with NY. There were just a lot of industries in those states that catered to new grads and could hire a bunch of new grads. Over time, some of them stayed in those cities and climbed the corporate ladder, others came back home, others matriculated to other cities. That has been going on for a long time.

It is quite interesting that Stephens won the speakership because he said he was not going to allow the backpack bill to come to the floor. It appears there is a strong push to bring it to the floor. It will be interesting to see what he does (or if he can even stop it) and what the reaction of Russo may be upon his broken promise to her

This is an interesting viewpoint of where BIG alumni end up after graduation. As is probably obvious, most Ohio State grads stay in Columbus with the next most going to Cleveland. Outside of IU and Purdue who send a chunk of grads to the Cincinnati area, no other BIG School really sends a significant portion of students to Ohio. https://frankthetank.org/2018/05/18/oh-the-places-youll-go-where-big-ten-graduates-live-and-conference-realignment/ Could it be that the Ohio schools, OSU, UC, Akron, OU, Miami, Cle State and the others just keep most of their grads in Ohio, or is it more that Ohio employers do not really draw much talent from outside the state (at least BIG Ten alumni)?

The GOP of today has little to do with Ohio losing population over the last 50 years and the same can be said for the Dems in Ohio. It is a faulty assertion to put the issue on the current political parties. Could there have been past decisions that could have been made that could have changed the course of history? Certainly, but in many cases, most people could not have seen those changes coming 50 years ago, and most likely even despite those changes, they probably would not have made much of a difference since ultimately the bulk of the movement has been to the Sun Belt and people were likely moving there for better weather and opportunity, not because of the political leanings of elected officials.

and to add overall cost of living. And I know you did not necessarily make this point, but overall cost of living can also be boiled down to more shorter term political decisions to discourage housing development in certain areas as well as high taxes, significant red tape and large bureaucracy. These political decisions (albeit difficult and somewhat entrenched) can be remedied by politicians much easier than the generational shift in the economy from a manufacturing based economy to a much more research based economy.

^ Not surprisingly, the states where most Ohioans have movedin in the last 40 years have been in the Sunbelt.

I remember back in law school, there was a faction of people who said they were moving to Canada if Bush won. A few of us as jokes made some Canadian Welcome Packets and placed it in their mailboxes. I can't remember anyone actually moving. One girl did move to London and Denmark I guess, but it took her a few years to do so.

I think there is much more of a false narrative going on about Ohio than what is actually true. Yes, Ohio is not a fast growing state, but it is still growing, albeit slowly. What I find ironic is that people rail against the current GOP as chasing people away yet not a peep from them about why Illinois and New York (2 supposed liberal bastions) are actually losing population. @Cleburger If people were running away from Ohio because of the GOP politics, then what are the reasons why they are leaving New York and Illinois?

This is such a false statement and really does not recognize the reality of why people move. Maybe today, there are a few of the chicken little types who move to a state because of some overarching political preference that is a bit dethatched from reality, but for the most part, people are moving to areas where there are jobs in their field and opportunities to start in their career. Chances are, where they start is not where they finish. To @Gramarye's point. Ohio lost more people in the 80s and 90s to other states that they currently are losing now. What are the top reasons why people were leaving Ohio? Certainly, many went for weather and went down to Florida. Many of them older people but there were a good number of graduates who moved South to Florida and Texas to take advantage of the weather. Maybe many of those people tend to be conservative because most of the positions that young graduates move to Florida for tend to be in certain sales industries that cater to more conservative leaning people, but most likely, they are not moving for political considerations, they are moving for lifestyle preference. many of the people in the 80s and 90s who left Ohio were not college grads and they tended to move to the Sun Belt. Looking specifically at the college grads (and you can take HS Grads going to elite colleges), they are going to areas where they have there was a concentration of jobs in the fields where they desired to work. Some people wanted political jobs and to work for a Congressman/Senate or government agency. Those low level entry jobs (and influence) did not exist in Ohio. It is hard to be a top lobbyist and be based in Ohio. I know a few, and they had to cut their chops in larger cities first before returning. Whether they are personally progressive or MAGA Republican, their politics had little to do with their job choice after graduation. For many in the high finance industry, there are not too many investment banking opportunities in Ohio, and where there are some, they typically are not hiring the new grads. You need to go to New York, Chicago, San Fran, or Houston for many of those jobs. Again politics is not the primary reason for those moves rather, it is the concentration of employment there. Same thing with the movie industry or with the technology industry. What hurt Ohio, which was understandable if you think about it, is that many of the early 21st century job center concentrations did not develop in Ohio. Ohio was focused on manufacturing which is what led to their tremendous growth n the 20th century. They wanted to protect that and the Ohio economy was built around that. New York was always a finance capital, LA was the entertainment capital. Boston always had the medical sciences, etc. They were better positioned to take advantage of this going back to the 80s when these trends started to emerge. Politics had almost nothing to do with it (after all, in the 80s and 90s IL was more of a Republican State, New York and a lot of Republicans in leadership and even California trended Republican at that time).

If they want to charge owners of EV's 10%-15% more to build out their infrastructure, then they can have at it. I will not buy anything more than a hybrid at this point until the infrastructure is better in place to justify going all in on electric.

You almost figure that the pilot shortage would be remedied here quicker given the amount of freight pilots that are based here. I know they fly different plane, but a 767 DHL or Amazon plane is not really any different than the Delta version. To your point though, my neighbor is a Pilot trainer for PSA and he mentioned that they are struggling to get people to fly for them too.

18 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said: I am surprised they never announced that in the press that they decided to keep the base open. You would figure they would want to at least brag about saving some of those jobs. Its well known around the cooler that Ed and the board are not big on legacy Delta people or staff, being legacy NW brass. They have begrudgingly given into the demand of the Cincinnati market but are reluctant to bring back many more flights or cities to the airport. Where the airport stands right now we are at focus city status for Delta again since there are still a number of connections that happen each day for Delta. @savadams13 - Figured this was more appropriate in the CVG thread. So - If Delta quietly backtracked on closing the pilot base and FA base and may be slowly growing it, as you say, do you see more flights coming out of CVG as a focus city or do you essentially see American coming in to fill the void? With the new BA flight to London and their affiliation with American, you would think American could start to develop CVG as a focus city too? I personally see it as a good strategic fit for them. Their midwest hub is Chicago but they compete with United there and are really second fiddle behind United out of Chicago. O'Hare is much more congested, more expensive for the carriers to operate and is subject to many more weather delays. You would think it would be strategically beneficial to move a chunk of those flights to CVG or another airport in an easier climate in the midwest and get the same type of connections but with less delays and schedule interruptions due to weather and congestion.

I am surprised they never announced that in the press that they decided to keep the base open. You would figure they would want to at least brag about saving some of those jobs.

I think that really is only true when you have one primary city in a state. It really would not happen in Ohio where you have a diverse state and have many regional teams like the Reds that pull from OH,KY, IN, WV and TN. To be honest, I see it becoming less frequent in the last 20 years than in the 80s and 90s. Even teams that had the state name have changed to the city name. In Baseball you had the Florida Marlins in the 90s and California Angels. Now you have the Miami Marlins and Los-Angeles Angels of Anaheim. in Hockey, the 2 newest NHL teams carry the name of the cities (Las Vegas and Seattle). The last one to take a state name was Minnesota Wild and that is likely to do with the co-equal twin cities in many circumstances. NBA teams to relocate in the last 20 years (Memphis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Charlotte) all carry the city name. MLS Teams - St Louis, Cincinnati, Nashville, Charlotte, Miami - all have city names.

Those numbers are not really apples to apples comparisons. Maybe if you use Hamilton County vs Franklin county, but you still do not get a good representation of the numbers that way. Ohio State has played a bigger role in Columbus success than UC has for Cincinnati. Ohio State was always the flagship state school and drew the top research dollars out of the state universities. UC was much more akin to Cleveland State. Both were city schools and originally not part of the state system. They were there primarily to serve the city and commuting population of their areas and not originally intended as a top research centers. UC has changed and adapted much better than CSU has (mostly because Cleveland already had Case). However, both schools served different missions. Until the early 2000's Ohio State was always an importer of students from the rest of the state whereas UC pretty much served as a commuter school and a solely Cincinnati concentration of students. Yes, students came from everywhere to UC but not as much as they do today. As the economy has changed in the last 40 years, Columbus has been able to leverage the heft of Ohio State to help fuel its growth whereas Cincinnati being a more diverse city relied on a concentration of its large businesses and less on the university for this. UC was later to the game on the innovation front because of the larger business community in the area than in Columbus say in the early 80s and 90s. UC is playing a bigger role today, but Ohio State had a much more outsized influence in Columbus than UC had in Cincinnati.

I thought that CVG closed their Delta pilot base and flight attendant base a few years back when they officially dehubbed the market? Was that not the case? Also, PSA which flies American Eagle has a pilot base at CVG too. My neighbor flies for them based out of CVG.

Some of the shoddier built houses still serve a purpose. If the goal is to create affordable housing, it does that. These houses may not last 30 years and need to be redeveloped. For 30 years that house is an affordable house. After that, it could be redeveloped as a developer may see the value. Sometimes Shoddy housing can provide the affordable housing in the meantime until a higher use comes along.