jbcmh81

Yeah, I guess Columbus could've had hundreds of new buildings with tens of thousands of new residents, all within the last few years during the Great Recession. Unfortunately, just like light rail, we voted against it. :roll: If only we were forward thinking and added more enclosed pedestrian bridges like other cities, eh Keith?

I laugh at your analysis of my analysis. The whole point of my argument is that "bringing jobs to Ohio" is a stupid economic strategy. I want Ohio to build on the economy we have, not try to take away somebody else's economy. Handing out giveaways to existing Ohio companies to move across town (Bob Evans, American Greetings, Diebold) is not economic development; it's squeezing the balloon. And it creates few jobs and does nothing to keep intelligent young Ohioans in the state. Kasich's strategy is taking us to the past. Strickland at least was trying to build on our strengths. Once again, the economy went NOWHERE under Strickland. He didn't have the slightest of clues of how to work with businesses and to make the business climate more attractive. Governor Kasich, just like other bright Governors across Ohio, are fighting to increase jobs in our own state. If they want out of Illinois, then there are thousands looking for jobs in this state that would love to work for that business. Incentives are bound to be part of every deal. Often times a portion of the incentives will be required to be paid back in due time or have many strings attached. That should be nothing different in this case. I am amazed so many of you guys are attacking him for TRYING to bring jobs to Ohio. The previous Governor lost supporters like myself because he failed to do just that. Keep fighting the good fight Governor Kasich. The naysayers want you to fail. However, most Ohioans want more jobs in Ohio and support your efforts to bring them here! Did you even read the post that you are disagreeing with? Again, the whole point of mine is that Ohio should be nurturing home-gown jobs, not putting together complex benefits packages to bring somebody else's jobs from some other place. Strickland was doing that. Kasich stopped doing that on agricultural issues. There are innovative ag-related businesses that are creating jobs, but the Kasich administration is ignoring them and the assistance they need. And as for your comment about the strings attached to the incentives, did you read the earlier posts about how often those efforts fail to work out or create jobs? And as for the Kasich's ability to create jobs, the record shows he has done notably worse in his first 11 months than Strickland did last year. Why can't a state both attract businesses from elsewhere *AND* promote home-grown job creation? I don't get why it has to be either/or.

Your first and second paragraphs seem to contradict each other. If you agree that the $400 million will likely come with stipulations and that the state will end up coming out ahead, any other companies willing to look into moving to Ohio for the same kind of deal will also tend to likely be good for the state. And I really don't see why this same principle (stipulations related to Ohio's eventual benefit) can't be included in all incentives packages, whether companies are moving in or already here but thinking about moving. There's a ton of doom and gloom with this and I see very few legitimate reasons for it that aren't related to assumptions about the company's health or the deal itself, of which details haven't even been released. That so many people have chosen to believe in every negative possibility is telling.

In a global economy, or a national economy, it creates zero jobs. Some people would move here from Illinois, but in other cases, the jobs would move to Ohio while the former holders of those jobs stay in Illinois. No new jobs are created. For every Ohioan hired, there would be an Illinoisan out of work. Zero impact on the national economy -- except for the unemployment and vacant buildings left in Hoffman Estates, and the added traffic, road widening and farmland loss in Ohio, which will fall on current taxpayers because Sears would be getting regular tax breaks. Wait, so now you don't like a company moving here because it may not create enough jobs on a national scale? I've seen it all now.

If it's a global economy, why the hell would Ohio work up a $400 million deal that creates ZERO jobs -- it only moves them from one state to another, which makes the nation less competitive in the global economy? Globalization has been the trend for decades in an era of cheap oil. That's going to change. Nor has globalization been a big improvement for people -- only for multinational corporations and certain state economies. I think localism in every country is the wave of the future. Obviously, some goods will continue to be global, but everybody can be better off with a greater percentage of their goods produced locally and the profits kept circulating locally. My point about the Sears deal is that it makes no sense in a global economy and no sense in a local economy. How do you figure it creates zero jobs? First, I'm sure the incentives package has stipulations on job creation. Second, It's hard to imagine that all the employees are going to uproot and move to a new state, leaving openings. Third, support businesses will pretty obviously have at least some related growth. I think it would be almost impossible to see no job gains from a move like this. And why would a Sears move make the nation less competitive?

This is not only a national economy, it's a global one. I'm willing to bet that 99.99% of the products in your home have nothing to do with Ohio or its businesses. Supporting only local businesses is fine in theory, but there are thousands of products that Ohio either doesn't or can't produce on a mass scale to make it cost-efficient to local consumers. Isn't this what capitalism's about?

First, wasn't there something announced recently about a $100 million program for small businesses? Second, what guarantees do we have that any small business we invest in will succeed equal to or exceeding the investment vs $400 million for a company that does $25+ billion in revenue already? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm not really seeing a big difference.

It seems that most people want a guarantee that the $400 million will ultimately be a profitable investment with Sears, but since there isn't a guarantee, the money is considered a waste. So how many small businesses fail each year, even with assistance? There is no more sure thing with small businesses than with a large corporation. In fact, I would think the worst bet would be on small business that has no history of success.

Agreed. We're still talking about a company that had revenue of almost $23 billion in 2010. No small change.

By this logic, we shouldn't care one bit about the perceived health of a company, for that could reverse completely randomly at any time. I'm guessing you are not an investment advisor? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that business, like anything else, offers no guarantees. If we are too afraid of failure to even attempt to bring in jobs, we might as well accept that we are heading into a future of our own choosing, and it's not pretty. Sears is a company we are all familiar with, and the consensus seems to be that we feel it's falling apart. That should be taken into account when deciding whether to offer incentives, particularly large ones, to lure the company to Ohio. You seem to be arguing that we should not factor this in, whereas it's probably the main criterion which should be used when deciding to make an investment or not. It's not a matter of being afraid of failure in the abstract, it is the result of a very rational assessment of the company in question. No, I think health of a company is an important factor, but it should not be the ONLY one, which seems to be in this debate. I can't remember the last time a major company was looking to move to Ohio, and now that one may be, the overwhelming response is that it's not good enough because it's not the dominating force it once was. IMO, a company does not have to be at the top of the heap to be successful. All retail companies go through periods of decline. I know, because I've been in retail most of my life and worked for companies that were once strong and went out of business and others that started weak but steadily improved. Sears is not a dead brand and still carries weight to it. Who knows, perhaps the stifling Illinois tax structure has not allowed the company to do what it needs to to become successful again. There are many unknown factors, and I personally don't like to stick my nose in the air at potentially thousands of jobs because of an unknown. I guess I don't understand why so many others will.

I would think that a few thousand more residents paying property taxes would help. The city has a 3% property tax rate, so for every $100,000 home, it would get $3,000 a year. Let's say 50% of the people with Sears moved to Dublin (not all of them will), so that would be 3,100 representing 3,100 homes. That would be $9.3 million a year in taxes provided the homes were all worth $100,000. However, the average price of a home in Dublin is much higher than that, so it would be even more. BTW, Dublin grew 33% in the last 10 years alone, so it's used to exceptional growth.

Do you know of any other large companies looking at a move to Ohio?

By this logic, we shouldn't care one bit about the perceived health of a company, for that could reverse completely randomly at any time. I'm guessing you are not an investment advisor? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that business, like anything else, offers no guarantees. If we are too afraid of failure to even attempt to bring in jobs, we might as well accept that we are heading into a future of our own choosing, and it's not pretty.

I suspect that if Microsoft was thinking about moving to Ohio, some would say that Apple was the real future and Microsoft was not what it used to be. I do think that many Ohioans are just in this mode that positive news can only bring about something bad in the end, and that's why we're reluctant to be aggressive. We as a state have been screwed over by many a corporation and industry over the years and our leadership has simply allowed it to happen. I truly dislike Kasich, but in this case I think he's right. We need to be aggressive and play the game or we will continue to fall further behind.

I would think any metro can make an offer, and from my understanding, Sears looked at locations in all 3-Cs. If you are referring to Columbus the city/metro is NOT making this offer, but state government. I'm still not sure where they liked best, but even so, it would probably not be an urban location.

Wouldn't the state be collecting taxes on personal income, sales taxes, taxes on related businesses that spring up in support, etc? This is not just a situation where money would be leaving the state and nothing would be coming back in return. Ohio is spending $1.6 billion on a few miles of highway through Columbus, a project that will never pay for itself and will continue to cost money in maintenance in the years to come. No one complains about that. I saw mention of the rail project, but there are no guarantees that would've paid for itself either (even though I supported it), and would've required state subsidies and maintenance costs as well. We do things all the time that cost money that we never get back. This investment at least has the chance to put us ahead and raise our profile as a business-friendly state.

I agree. The two arguments I'm seeing is that it's too much money and that the company is guaranteed to be dissolved in the near future. The money spent in incentives will, as you say, likely be spread over time and so the total amount looks large, but any given year will see a much reduced figure. As far as the company's future, it could go either way, but that could be said about any company. We could bring in a company that looks perfect on paper but goes into bankruptcy the next year. That could be said with companies that are already here, yet I doubt anyone would say that Ohio doesn't want them. There are no guarantees, but even if Sears lasted only 5-10 years more, that's 5-10 years of high-paying jobs in an economy that continues to struggle. 5-10 years from now, perhaps the impact won't be as significant. Right now, it is.

I wonder if one if the main reasons Ohio continues to lose corporations and people is because too many of its residents take the automatic approach that keeping or attracting business is just too expensive and it won't matter anyway. I kinda doubt that any of the states or cities seeing exceptional growth think that way. It seems to me that our state has been floundering for decades, and while a Sears or any other single company move won't necessarily change that, what we've been doing the last 50 or 60 years really hasn't been working either. Ohio is a great state. We have a history of being at the forefront of innovation and prosperity. We have an educated populace, the infrastructure, and a low cost of living in comparison to the majority of other states out there. We seem to have everything but the motivation.

It makes one wonder what other states are offering if Ohio felt the need to put forth 4x what Illinois is offering for them to stay. If money talks, and it usually does, and if I were Sears, that would be a pretty big carrot to turn away from, so this certainly ups the chances of a move. As long as the money comes with provisions to for jobs created, investment, and a return, I'd be okay with it despite the large amount. I do think Ohio needs to be aggressive on getting companies here.

What facts are in dispute? All of Ohio's metros have strengths and weaknesses when it comes to employment numbers. Cleveland has a great metro rate, but individual cities, like Cleveland itself, are not doing as well overall. With Columbus, the city is doing okay, but the metro has some rough spots, like Pickaway County, which still has a rate over 9%, and other counties that did not see a drop in October at all. Ohio has two metros, though, that are well below the national average and some of the best rates for metros nationally. This is mostly positive news, but everyone can and hopefully will be doing better as time goes on.

Again, you are incorrect. Cleveland's (city) unemployment rate is lower than Cincinnati's (9.2%), Dayton's (10.6), and Toledo's (10.1). I think it is safe to assume Cleveland's rate is also lower than the rates in Canton, Mansfield, Lima, Springfield, and Youngstown. However, those cities don't have numbers out for October yet, so I'm only going off the numbers and trends from September. In sum, out of Ohio cities, Cleveland is doing pretty well. As far as Cleveland vs. the nation, Cleveland's is 0.1% higher than the national average, so yes, it is "slightly higher." The Columbus Dispatch has a link to unemployment rates, and they are all out of October. And I meant bottom as in lower than those largest cities mentioned, not bottom as in worst. However, if you include all main cities in the state, from Findlay to Springfield to Portsmouth, etc, it's more towards the top. It just depends on what you want to compare it to. I was joking about it being the majority of the metro's area, I guess I should have made that clearer. However, my point was that the area that Columbus covers is vastly larger than the area covered by Cleveland (Columbus' 217 sq mi vs. Cleveland's 77.6 sq mi) and with that in mind, things can be, as you pointed out, positively or negatively skewed. The above is why I think that it is better to compare the 3Cs by metro numbers, as that gives a fairer representation of the economies of those areas. You can compare city, county and metro rates and all get very different results. The metro rate seems the most general to me, but there are many places in a metro that vary significantly, so if someone is looking at a metro to find a good place for jobs, they may get a different picture than looking at an individual city. After all, Ashtabula could have a rate of 12%, but Lorain 5%, yet they're in the same metro. If you just looked at the metro rate and moved to Ashtabula to find a job, you'd have a much harder time.

That's not true. Yes, the city of Cleveland has a higher rate of unemployment (9.1%), but it is not one of "the highest unemployment rates of any city in the state." I guess it depends on what you want to judge it against. Judging it against Dayton, Youngstown, Columbus, Toledo, Cincinnati, Akron and Canton (the cities most often compared), it's towards the bottom. Against every city in general in the state, it's toward the top. Out of the 3-Cs, it's 2nd. Nationally, it's slightly above the average. Also, if Cleveland's city limits were as large as those of Columbus, do you think that the unemployment rate in Cleveland might be lower? I mean, the city of Columbus is almost the entire Columbus metro, which explains the small[er] difference in the two unemployment figures (city vs. metro). So, couldn't that be a possibility? Columbus is 217 square miles in a metro that's well over 3,000, so saying it encompasses almost the entire metro is completely false and a little silly. As for what Cleveland's rate would be if it were Columbus' size, who knows. I don't have that answer and neither do you, but I'm not sure how city size would necessarily change things automatically. You would have to assume that the square miles that Columbus includes and what Cleveland doesn't have much lower unemployment rates, but it could be just the opposite, where what Cleveland doesn't include and Columbus does is much worse.

Morrow County is part of Columbus' metro. I know it looks strange how it sticks out like that, but is is part of the official designation.

Cleveland itself is not really doing it, as it still has one of the highest unemployment rates of any city in the state. It's the surrounding counties that have been bringing down the rate. The opposite is true for the Columbus metro, where Columbus has one of the lowest rates in its metro and some of its surrounding counties are holding it higher overall. Whether or not this is a long-term trend remains to be seen, but recent history would indicate that Cleveland has a long way to go to maintain this for longer than a month or two.

The decision actually hasn't been made. Kasich was stating what many of us already thought, that they would probably stay where they are, but no official statement on staying or moving has been made yet. I'm also of the opinion that, even if Sears is not at the top of its game right now, it would still be good for Ohio. A large corporation moving here may give others pause and take a second look at our state. We have been largely ignored or on the reverse side of this process for a long time now.