LincolnKennedy

Here's at least one view on why Texas is outperforming other states: Why is Texas doing so much better economically than the rest of the nation? By Daniel Gross http://www.slate.com/id/2250999 Heavy on the geography and infrastructure with a dash of strong regulation and relaxed zoning.

I assume that the above comment was directed at Scrabble, who, as I continue to repeat, made the statement that drew my response. I'll quote it again- "I don't know why but states with Right to Work and no income tax attract more business investment (ie jobs). Can anyone explain this seemingly unrelated correlation?" I'm not sure why someone would want to take the opinion that creating major additions to the states legal code or major changes to how the state takes in revenue isn't something we would want to understand fully before we do it. Why Texas is far more successful than Mississippi seems like it's worth investigating if we want to test the idea that Right to Work makes a difference. Seems like the responsible thing to do even if it ends up conflicting with someone's simple connect the dots ideology. Yawn. Do you have any hierarchy, or reasonable shorthand way to weigh what is causing what? This argument started out as blanket statement with no evidence, response by me with a series of off the cuff examples, a question by dmerkow about an example, a response from me about that example, and then a statement that I was advocating a position by Gramarye. I never made any argument, I just tried to shit on Scrabble's snarky and undocumented point. So coastline, navigable rivers, greenfield sites and other things of this nature don't count as natural resources to you? The so-called conservative point of view seems to have a pathological disinterest in anything that doesn't conform to their deterministic viewpoint. I simply find it incredibly boring and obnoxious to hear them give the same answers no matter what the question is. I always thought that whole climate/weather theory of economic development that people like Ed Glaeser likes to toss around as being silly. Just because warmer U.S. states had higher growth rates for the past 30 or 50 years doesn't mean that growth happened because of the temperature or climate. It seems to me that the massive infrastructure investments undertaken by the federal government in the 30's through the 60's, which extended modern transportation and energy infrastructure that existed in the rest of the country to the South and West; and the large social investments undertaken by the federal government in the 50's through the 70's that brought the South into line legally with the rest of the country, basically allowed for U.S. manufacturing to shift from the Northeast & Midwest to something akin to a huge third world country that was right next door, under U.S. law, used the dollar and spoke English. After the end of the Cold War, these same industries start moving further South (and West) until they are out of the country almost entirely. This however, allows these same regions to continue to grow because they are physically closer to these new emerging markets and they are primary destinations for immigrants from these same emerging markets. The rise of Houston and Miami for example have a kind of obvious geographical origin. Austin, Raleigh-Chapel Hill-Durham, Nashville and NoVa as well. Places like Charlotte and Atlanta are more interesting because there success seems less obvious.

While I haven't looked at those sites referenced and certainly haven't examined any statistics on the matter whatsoever, I would simply like to, once again, reiterate the statement that started the discussion: "I don't know why but states with Right to Work and no income tax attract more business investment (ie jobs). Can anyone explain this seemingly unrelated correlation?" So the question isn't whether unions proved themselves, it is whether Right to Work and non income tax are factors that can actually be isolated to prove that they are the reasons for the investment (job creation) according to Scrabble's claim. The question of course is whether we can truly isolate Right to Work and no income tax as reasons why business expand, as opposed to other factors for a state's success, the most glaring factors being simple geography or natural resources. Also, we should have to compare why one Right to Work and no income tax state should be able to attract more investment than another Right to Work and no income tax state. So dmerkow's example of Virginia and North Carolina success could also be explained by geograhy (BosWash creep) + historical investments (education at older schools like Wm&Mary, UVa & UNC & Duke as well as simple size as to why they have been more successful than South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas. And I would like to once again remind everyone that Right to Work laws are state laws that exist as a result of a federal law (Taft-Hartley) regulating the labor market and forbidding certain exigencies that result from the inalienable right to free assembly. Not that anyone gives a shit.

^It's pretty simple. The statement presented was that "states with Right to Work and no income tax attract more business investment (ie jobs)". The states I presented certainly have attracted both more jobs and more capital investments, and certainly more immigrants, than any number of, and possibly the vast majority of Right-to-Work states. Since we on UO are conducting simple thought experiments rather than actually trying to persuade in a formal manner, it seems legitimate to say that both Right-to-Work laws and income tax regimes do not in fact influence investment as was described in the statement referenced. Whether or not New York State specifically has lost more jobs than it has gained is not relevant to the discussion, because the position wasn't about why jobs are lost but why people invest (in his terms, create jobs). And where in the State and what kind of jobs also weren't relevant, because, once again, the statement didn't bother with any such distinctions. Again, in summary, the contention that Right-to-Work laws and state income tax regimes are the primary and overriding issue that determines job creation simply isn't borne out when you superficially look at real world examples.

^They are talking about Tom Luken, the father, not Charlie Luken, the son.

Is that why California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachussetts have been getting so little investment? It's interesting that someone who is generally against government regulation is in favor of so-called right-to-work laws, since it is of course more regulation of a market than less.

It seems like there's no possible way to get these things up hills. Maybe we should just move Cincinnati to Dayton. That seems like it would work a lot better. And we all know that standing on buses is different from standing on rail because no one wants to ride buses so those people are you to dealing with inconveniences, but the folks who we are building the streetcar for need free wifi and ice cream sandwiches along with someone to hold their hand to get them up the harrowing 6% grade.

^Thanks. One reads about this stuff, but it's usually in the context of big firms and I was curious how an individual would even go about completing such a trade.

The drive up Quebec from Queen City doesn't strike me as any more steep than Vine Street.

Where can I get some distressed bank debt?

Strickland froze tuition rates, which I think was a great idea. He wants to do 3C rail, which I think is a fantastic idea. All I've heard from Kasich is that he wants to eliminate the state income tax. The argument is always, "Look at how well low tax Florida or Texas has done compared to Ohio in the past 30 years. If we got rid of our income tax, we'd be just as competitive as them." It seems to me that we'd also have to move the state so that it was next to or very near third world countries to provide cheap immigrant labor and proximity to developing markets, and wish away all our old brownfields and hope they turn into greenfields. After we got all that, we'd then have to figure out a way to compete with Florida & Texas in the same exact league when they've had a 30 year head start. And our state's elementary & high school school systems would go to utter shit. As bad as you might think they are, I don't think there as bad as Florida & Texas. Geography plays much more of a determining economic factor than simply tax rates. Why aren't Mississippi and Arkansas places where people want to go? To reiterate the point I made earlier, if you want to cut taxes and services, you have to really narrowly define what role the state government will play in the economy, and then allow others, particularly municipal corporations, at the very least the opportunity to step up.

Forgot to cite source for 19th century municipal law history aside: http://www.amazon.com/City-Making-Building-Communities-without/dp/069100742X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1270003932&sr=8-1-spell For anyone who thinks the Republicans are actually going to do anything that improves the state, I ask, "Then how do you account for 1994-2006, when the GOP controlled every branch of the Ohio government?" I particularly want to know what those guys did to curb spending on public sector unions. I'm willing to give credit if there's any credit due.

Right. The defining of public corporations (meaning municipalities) as administrative subdivisions of the states happened through the courts during the 19th century and is, in my opinion, is a far more insipid usurpation than anything the feds did to the states, but that is another topic. My only point was that one can make a perfectly good argument on conservative grounds that municipal corporations are the governments closest to the people and therefore should have the broadest powers. Currently (I believe) property taxes can only be adjusted within a certain range given by the state and in a certain fashion (land 20% improvements 80% of value, I think). Similar ranges and limitations exist on sales and excise taxes as well. Obviously the state would have an interest to make sure that cities wouldn't raise taxes on certain items to the point that they would be erecting trade barriers (though this would likely be moot because of modern transportation) but even then so they wouldn't necessarily have to exercise it. Ultimately my point is that if people really believe that tax rates are so freaking important (and by that I mean substantially outweigh any other possible factors) to the success or failure of a local economy then lets have a free-for-all and see what happens. I wouldn't have a problem with simple majority of the whole voting + proximity. This is what I believe they had in the late 19th century, and it was what I was assuming when I wrote that point. But I'm not wedded to it- I also wouldn't have a problem with something to the effect of competitive service delivery: waste, water, electricity, or whatever relatively simple, independently and easily observable metric of service delivery you want, couple with some sort of density or non-agricultural zoning requirements. I think there are plenty of ways to apply competitive and (I'll say) market-inspired systems to government at every level. But all we ever hear from the party of self-proclaimed free-market principles is same tired rhetoric of lower taxes and school vouchers. There's plenty of stuff out there to do if they wanted to do it. Since they don't do it, I have to assume they don't want to.

The current problems in Spain & Portugal have completely different origins from those in Greece, though the rigidity of the Euro isn't helping any of those countries. Anyone who thinks that demographic decline isn't serious is kidding themselves. To use the words of one of the worst Defense Secretaries we've ever had, the effects of demographic decline is a "known unknown".

I'll tell you how Kasich could attract me as a voter and and still remain a conservative: 1) Abolish all local school districts and have no local funding of schools, only statewide funding, based only on property taxes. This is conservative because it eliminates duplicative services and would put the state in compliance with the DeRolph decisions by making every school funded equally. Cost-saving and law-abiding, popular opinion and established constituencies be damned. 2) Abolish all aid to local governments. Eliminate the taxes that currently provide for this aid. Anti-welfare. 3) Abolish all laws that constrict municipalities from annexing. Deregulation. 4) Abolish all laws that restrict all municipal owned water, waste treatment, and waste management facilities from competing with privately owned companies for contracts with counties or other municipalities. Deregulation. 5) Immediate halt on all new road construction for the next ten years, with all the money going to maintenance on roads we've already got. Anti-welfare. 6) Creation of a new power company a majority of which is owned by the state, to take advantage of Lake Erie wind and to put us in line for new nuclear plants. Infrastructure investment, revenues in lieu of new taxes. 7) Totally revise all drug laws and incarceration policy with the intention of reducing the amount of people in state prisons and local jails. Libertarianism, expenditure reduction. 8) Simplify the tax code. Pro-entrepreneurial. 9) Don't actively oppose 3C rail even if you aren't for it. Pro-instructure, pro-Ohio versus other states. Most of those policies probably wouldn't be considered "conservative" though I think there are plenty of reasons to argue that they are in fact so. If conservative = use of state power to enforce lower taxes and lower services then I think that shows more of a corruption of the word 'conservative' than a practical worldview.

So which chute do barges use to pass the Falls? The Kentucky Chute?

Great job.

"Downtown Cincinnati at Lunken Airport" is like saying "Downtown Manhattan at Bedford-Stuyvesant". Just thought it was funny.

^A big problem re: population decline is the nature of the welfare state. My understanding is that things like Social Security and those types of things rely on immediate transfer payments from those who are working to those who are retired. A lot of pension funds were designed to operate this way as well.

I wouldn't buy there. It's going to take a real long time for that area to clean up, in my opinion. It seems like it would be tough to get rid of in a pinch.

That would be true if you didn't have to spend your day in Cleveland.

^And just before Ghostbusters 3 starts filming. What a shame.

Or 3C rail can also be seen as the democratic process in action- the people exerting their will on their representatives to set spending priorities. The only thing that is different is that the priorities have changed.

People move to the suburbs for many reasons not related to transportation. I would argue that people move to the suburbs only for reasons related to transportation. If it wasn't for the current transportation regime, the suburbs as they are would not exist.

I agree. There's not much south of Harrison, but I feel that there would be some strong opposition to HSR through Lower Price Hill and Northside, particularly with at grade crossings. I don't think we're are actually in disagreement. The point is that everyone can get why you'd want to take a train that goes 150 MPH, whereas if we know the train is going around 70 or 80 MPH, it's going to take a little more convincing or word of mouth. My point was that making it easier to get to the station by having more of them might actually increase potential ridership at little to possibly no actual increase in waiting times at stations. Even if more stations would slow the train down it still might be worth it.