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. 

 

Didn't Omnicare (which is No. 371 on the F500 list) just announce it was moving across the river to Ohio from Kentucky last month?

People tend to focus on their own retail experiences with Sears and Kmart locations more than Sears as a company overall. Many larger retailers these days are financial firms more than they are stores. Sears makes a ton of money off of the Sears card and extended warranties. People still buy a lot of tools, home/garden equipment, appliances and electronics from them and they are making rental income off of those dentist's offices, eye doctors and whatnot. They also have those auto centers that seem quite profitable and all those home improvement/maintenance services. Sears is also very popular with Latinos. And, I bet they still own a lot of real estate.

 

So, even if you prefer buying clothing or cologne somewhere else and your suburban friends can find stuff cheaper at Wal-Mart, don't write off Sears just yet. Ever notice how they are one of the last ones to close in a dead mall? Wal-Mart might shut down before they do since Wal-Mart's success is largely based on low fuel costs paired with fancy computer systems rather than services and financial products.

 

Even GameStop has moved in a financial direction. Pre-orders? Financial instruments. Disc scratch insurance? Financial instrument. Extended warranties? Financial instruments. Notice how they're always trying to get you to subscribe to Game Informer when you're in there? They're making sure that their publishing arm continues to make money.

 

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

For $400 million in incentives couldn't Ohio just focus on growing or starting businesses in-state?

 

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.

I am opposed to this because it shows the stupidity of Kasich's economic strategy. Listen to just about anything he's said over the past year in relation to employment. He almost always uses the phrase "bring jobs to Ohio." That is NOT creating jobs. It is NOT economic development. I don't want Sears in Ohio. I want investment in Ohio entrepreneurs and Ohio-based companies that want to grow. I don't want anybody to "bring jobs to Ohio." I want a state government that creates opportunities for Ohioans to start enterprises that generate local economic activity.

I am opposed to this because it shows the stupidity of Kasich's economic strategy. Listen to just about anything he's said over the past year in relation to employment. He almost always uses the phrase "bring jobs to Ohio." That is NOT creating jobs. It is NOT economic development. I don't want Sears in Ohio. I want investment in Ohio entrepreneurs and Ohio-based companies that want to grow. I don't want anybody to "bring jobs to Ohio." I want a state government that creates opportunities for Ohioans to start enterprises that generate local economic activity.

Sounds like you want the failed policies of the last Governor.

The last governor was looking to the future. Kasich is looking to the past. Everything Kasich does is catered to big business and the status quo. But the world is changing rapidly and a smart new generation is looking for entrepreneurial opportunities. A lot of those are in food and alternative energy.

 

Ohioans spend $30 BILLION a year on food in grocery stores and restaurants (that does not include institutional meals at hospitals, schools, colleges). A tiny fraction -- estimates range from 3 percent to 10 percent -- stays with Ohio farms and communities. That means in the best-case scenario, Ohioans send $27 Billion every year out of state. What percentage of that do we want to keep in Ohio, creating processing and distribution jobs here? The Strickland administration created the Ohio Food Policy Advisory Council to find ways to boost Ohio's local-food production and infrastructure and pushed the Ohio Department of Agriculture in that direction. But the Kasich administration killed the council, eliminated two of the Ag Dept's three local-food-related positions, and slashed spending by 75 percent for the last remaining local-food program -- which already was underfunded to the point that it was less than half of what Kentucky spent on local-food promotion.

 

Instead, Kasich's ag policy is to try to bring in out of state businesses that serve the already large, federally subsidized grain farmers who don't employ people.

 

Personally I want our state to go after some companies to help build our business reputation.  I am having trouble reconciling Kasich's pitiful offer for Chiquita compared to this excessive offer for Sears.  The per job disparity is ridiculous.  He does not really seem to have a comprehensive plan, and I think envisions himself as a modern day gunslinger - probably not a good quality for a governor.

I am opposed to this because it shows the stupidity of Kasich's economic strategy. Listen to just about anything he's said over the past year in relation to employment. He almost always uses the phrase "bring jobs to Ohio." That is NOT creating jobs. It is NOT economic development. I don't want Sears in Ohio. I want investment in Ohio entrepreneurs and Ohio-based companies that want to grow. I don't want anybody to "bring jobs to Ohio." I want a state government that creates opportunities for Ohioans to start enterprises that generate local economic activity.

 

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.

The last governor was looking to the future. Kasich is looking to the past. Everything Kasich does is catered to big business and the status quo. But the world is changing rapidly and a smart new generation is looking for entrepreneurial opportunities. A lot of those are in food and alternative energy.

 

Ohioans spend $30 BILLION a year on food in grocery stores and restaurants (that does not include institutional meals at hospitals, schools, colleges). A tiny fraction -- estimates range from 3 percent to 10 percent -- stays with Ohio farms and communities. That means in the best-case scenario, Ohioans send $27 Billion every year out of state. What percentage of that do we want to keep in Ohio, creating processing and distribution jobs here? The Strickland administration created the Ohio Food Policy Advisory Council to find ways to boost Ohio's local-food production and infrastructure and pushed the Ohio Department of Agriculture in that direction. But the Kasich administration killed the council, eliminated two of the Ag Dept's three local-food-related positions, and slashed spending by 75 percent for the last remaining local-food program -- which already was underfunded to the point that it was less than half of what Kentucky spent on local-food promotion.

 

Instead, Kasich's ag policy is to try to bring in out of state businesses that serve the already large, federally subsidized grain farmers who don't employ people.

 

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?   

 

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?   

 

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.

You have to wonder why Sears haven't accepted it yet. 6000 is alot of people to move. Has that many ever happen before ever? They might have been better off giving that incentive to Ford to build another volt plant here.

 

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?   

 

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?

You have to wonder why Sears haven't accepted it yet. 6000 is alot of people to move. Has that many ever happen before ever? They might have been better off giving that incentive to Ford to build another volt plant here.

 

Maybe Kasich knows they won't accept it, and he wants other companies to salivate and fight for such a deal.

 

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?

 

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.

And be honest - how many of you would change your minds if Sears said they'd build/renovate a skyscraper in a 3C city? ;)

 

Actually, this might be a deal-changer for me. If one of the conditions of the state aid were for Sears to locate in the downtown of a major Ohio city and renovate existing buildings and use existing infrastructure, Ohio would get something out of it. Nationally, there would be no net increase in permanent jobs, but it would revitalize some city in need of investment, without adding to the burden of current taxpayers.

Sears Tower II!

 

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?

 

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. 

 

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?

 

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. 

 

I didn't hear national, but global. His point is there's no net increase in jobs, period, regardless of location.

Actually, this might be a deal-changer for me. If one of the conditions of the state aid were for Sears to locate in the downtown of a major Ohio city and renovate existing buildings and use existing infrastructure, Ohio would get something out of it. Nationally, there would be no net increase in permanent jobs, but it would revitalize some city in need of investment, without adding to the burden of current taxpayers.

 

I highly doubt this gubernatorial administration would go out of it wait to help the state's largest center cities. It might go out of its way to hurt them. But help them? Not likely.

 

Sears and Kasich may be of like mind -- build it on a far-flung suburban or even rural campus where pure, pale-skinned, hard-working, God-fearing, Stepford-like people choose to live.

Actually, this might be a deal-changer for me. If one of the conditions of the state aid were for Sears to locate in the downtown of a major Ohio city and renovate existing buildings and use existing infrastructure, Ohio would get something out of it. Nationally, there would be no net increase in permanent jobs, but it would revitalize some city in need of investment, without adding to the burden of current taxpayers.

 

 

I highly doubt this gubernatorial administration would go out of it wait to help the state's largest center cities. It might go out of its way to hurt them. But help them? Not likely.

 

Sears and Kasich may be of like mind -- build it on a far-flung suburban or even rural campus where pure, pale-skinned, hard-working, God-fearing, Stepford-like people choose to live.

 

Let's be honest. If they do come here, it will be in a cheap suburban office park Dublin/Westerville/Gahanna kind of way. And if jobs and tax revenue matter to you most, than this should suffice just fine, right?

 

If it was the only the alternative, then so be it. But it would hardly suffice just fine. It would be exclusionary to a large portion of the labor market that is isolated in the urban core by state transportation spend policies which put less than 1 percent of funding into public transit. More than 8.5 percent of Ohio households have no car, and in cities like Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton and Youngstown, 18-25 percent of households have no car. This does not include households where there is just one car but multiple wage earners reside.

 

So, no, it would not suffice just fine.

That's right. And in a new, sprawling location, the new taxes might not be enough to support all the additional services required (even without the tax breaks).

 

Here's my take on this: http://bwilli910.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/dont-be-a-sears-sucker/

 

That's right. And in a new, sprawling location, the new taxes might not be enough to support all the additional services required (even without the tax breaks).

 

Here's my take on this: http://bwilli910.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/dont-be-a-sears-sucker/

 

I laugh at your analysis. Our new Governor has been more aggressive at bringing jobs into this state in less than 1 year than Strickland did in 4 years.

 

Strickland, someone I supported in 2006 for Governor because Blackwell was an awful alternative, did not do enough in my eyes for this state. I did not start to criticize him until midway through year 3 and he lost a supporter in myself.

 

I commend Governor Kasich for doing all he can to bring business to this state. With the oil boom in Northeast Ohio, I anticipate a rejuvenated Ohio economy in 2-3 years!

I'm kind of laughing too. You are making many assumptions based on no facts. While I tend to feel the same as you, you should not state these things as facts. It is likely the $400 mil includes any possible infrastructure work - if it is even needed. We do not know for sure where they would locate in the Columbus region.

 

I do, however, completely agree with the no new jobs created statement.

I agree with you guys that it's not a spending of $400 million and anything else people are worried about with that figure.  Economic incentives usually have stipulations that ensure the state will not lose out (and hopefully come out ahead) due to the deal.

 

That said, there is really only one aspect that worries me about this deal.  Any economic incentive sets a precedent.  Other companies will see this and get the "me too" syndrome.  That's always a given and nothing can be done about it.  However, this means that you need to be very picky about who you give incentives out to and how much.  Basically, a cost-benefit analysis.  Breaking even monetarily with the $400 million isn't good enough because of the detrimental effects of the precedent you have set.  You need to ensure the state actually comes out ahead (and preferably way ahead).  There are two ways to do this.  Either lower the incentive or ensure the company you're bringing in will also bring in benefits well beyond the incentive.  I'm not sure this deal meets either of those conditions.

 

The rest of the talk about the $400 million as a reason not to do the deal is all just throwing out big numbers as a fear tactic (which is ironic because it's pretty much what Kasich did in reverse to scare people away from the 3C train), and the talk of suburbanization is just pure conjecture at this point since we have no idea where Sears would move.

^I'm not saying you're wrong, but there's nothing new about this kind of behavior. And until we get some massive, unrealistic federal regulations pertaining to this sort of corporate blackmail, I don't see much else we, Ohio, can do but behave like everyone else.

 

I laugh at your analysis. Our new Governor has been more aggressive at bringing jobs into this state in less than 1 year than Strickland did in 4 years.

 

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.

^Numerous posters stated this during the past few months discussion...I was always amazed how many posters ignored this and jumped on the bang wagon stating Ohio should make an effort to go after this company which may very well not exist in ten years.

 

Bingo.  The traditional retail model is changing rapidly.  There may not be room for a place like Sears in the future.

Sears has plenty of money and management power to re-invent itself as a competitor to kohls, home depot, target.  It's America's department store, and will not be leaving our sprawl malls anytime in th near future.  30 years from now, I could see kohls or target gone before Sears.

 

 

Had to respond to this one--been bugging me for a couple of days.  You mention Target and Kohl's.  The first Target store opened in 1962, and Kohl's was founded that same year.  Sears dates its history back to the 1890s.  Yet now Kohl's has revenue approaching that of the Sears brand (exclusive of KMart); Sears 2010 revenue was 23 billion, while Kohl's was 18.4 billion.  Meanwhile Target had revenue of $67 billion, which is over 20 billion more than all of Sears Holdings combined brands.  And based on recent financials, both are more profitable than Sears Holding too.  The decades-long trends are pretty clear that Sears is headed in the opposite direction from Target and Kohl's.

 

I think Sears (and probably JCPenney's) is in the toughest retail spot, and its exacerbated by the fact  that Sears Holdings is a combination of Sears and KMart.  There just doesn't seem to be a lot of room for the middle of the market department store.  If you want the name brands and don't care about price, you go to Macy's and above (Sak's, Nordstrom, etc.).  If you want lower price, you don't go to Sears, you go to Wal-Mart (for the lowest price) or Target (for the discount price but relatively more cache).  Sears has a tough task to compete with that from the department store model.  It has to be "we're higher quality than Target/Wal-Mart, etc. but we're cheaper than Macy's on up," but I don't know how far that gets you today.  Add in the fact that they have direct competitor's in that same niche--JCP, Kohl's, etc.--and it seems like a tough spot to be in.

 

That doesn't even mention KMart, which is the other big piece of Sears Holdings.  That brand was already very clearly passed in the discount world by Wal-Mart and Target, leading to its early 2000s bankruptcy. 

 

I guess one thing Sears might have going for it is the hardware/appliance/electronics piece of the business, but there again, they get a whole new level of competition from brands like Home Depot, Lowe's, Best Buy, etc. 

^Many posters in this thread (including myself I am embarrased to say) have simply stated that Sears is a dying brand without elaborating or giving facts, just implying this is true based on perception.  Your excellent post spells out why this is the case and makes total sense.

I agree with you guys that it's not a spending of $400 million and anything else people are worried about with that figure.  Economic incentives usually have stipulations that ensure the state will not lose out (and hopefully come out ahead) due to the deal.

 

That said, there is really only one aspect that worries me about this deal.  Any economic incentive sets a precedent.  Other companies will see this and get the "me too" syndrome.  That's always a given and nothing can be done about it.  However, this means that you need to be very picky about who you give incentives out to and how much.  Basically, a cost-benefit analysis.  Breaking even monetarily with the $400 million isn't good enough because of the detrimental effects of the precedent you have set.  You need to ensure the state actually comes out ahead (and preferably way ahead).  There are two ways to do this.  Either lower the incentive or ensure the company you're bringing in will also bring in benefits well beyond the incentive.  I'm not sure this deal meets either of those conditions.

 

The rest of the talk about the $400 million as a reason not to do the deal is all just throwing out big numbers as a fear tactic (which is ironic because it's pretty much what Kasich did in reverse to scare people away from the 3C train), and the talk of suburbanization is just pure conjecture at this point since we have no idea where Sears would move.

 

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. 

Well Ohio has had a decades worth of incentives that didn't do any good for the state.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jdLLK1me5zOXU4hKgsSDuJBf-NeQ?docId=6827c1113568424ebb7225e7400c6b79

Lessons for the Chaquita and Sears relocations.......

 

Job creation tax credits falling short in states

December 01, 2011|David A. Lieb, Associated Press

 

For residents in the rural Midwest, the governor’s announcement was golden: A global company with Chinese ownership planned to hire 612 people at a new factory making artificial sweetener.

 

But a little over a year later, the deal has turned sour. The half-built facility sits idle, as quiet as the cemetery across the street. The city plans to default on $39 million of bonds issued on behalf of Mamtek U.S. Inc. And many of the thousands of people who picked up applications for jobs there still are looking for work.

 

“They said they were going to bring in all these jobs, they had all this stuff lined up,’’ said Patrick Thieman, a 40-year-old laid off call-center employee who had applied for an office job at Mamtek. “They didn’t fulfill.’’

 

The failure highlights an uncomfortable reality for candidates in a 2012 campaign season focused on the economy. President Barack Obama and his Republican challengers, along with many contenders for state offices, can promote their plans for creating jobs, but carrying them out is lot easier said than done. Government efforts in a number of states are coming up short this year. And in one state that has been especially ambitious, Ohio, decades worth of data show the deals often fail to produce the jobs promised.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://articles.boston.com/2011-12-01/business/30463770_1_job-creation-tax-credits-business-incentives-state-aid

Sears and Kasich may be of like mind -- build it on a far-flung suburban or even rural campus where pure, pale-skinned, hard-working, God-fearing, Stepford-like people choose to live.

 

You have a problem with the company going to find a nice quite place to die?

That's why I term moves by companies like Eaton as "going out to pasture." Has a nice double meaning don't ya think? :)

A lot of analysts think they will be merged into K mart within the next year.

 

I laugh at your analysis. Our new Governor has been more aggressive at bringing jobs into this state in less than 1 year than Strickland did in 4 years.

 

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!

^You are 100% right...there is nothing that business wants that Kasich won't give them...my God the chamber of commerce and other corporate groups don't even have to waste money lobbying him (in my day that was called being in the pocket of...)  I guess you think this is good on all fronts...I guess I will have to respectfully disagree.

 

By the way, exactly how many governors does Ohio have (bright or otherwise)?

^You are 100% right...there is nothing that business wants that Kasich won't give them...my God the chamber of commerce and other corporate groups don't even have to waste money lobbying him (in my day that was called being in the pocket of...)  I guess you think this is good on all fronts...I guess I will have to respectfully disagree.

 

By the way, exactly how many governors does Ohio have (bright or otherwise)?

Last two were pitiful.

^ I think that last question was just poking fun at what you said here:

 

Governor Kasich, just like other bright Governors across Ohio, are fighting to increase jobs in our own state.

^ I think that last question was just poking fun at what you said here:

 

Governor Kasich, just like other bright Governors across Ohio, are fighting to increase jobs in our own state.

Dur Dur Durrr... I meant the United States.

 

Jokes on me!

Considering what was happening in the global economy during Strickland's administration, it's silly to blame him for not bringing jobs. Every state was bleeding jobs during that time.

The Illinois senate voted down a $325 million dollar package. Ohio don't need to vote on such things?

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-1204-cme-sears-20111204,0,918517.story

 

I laugh at your analysis. Our new Governor has been more aggressive at bringing jobs into this state in less than 1 year than Strickland did in 4 years.

 

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.

 

 

I laugh at your analysis. Our new Governor has been more aggressive at bringing jobs into this state in less than 1 year than Strickland did in 4 years.

 

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. 

just think if they gave that kind of money/incentives to dredgers union and other small local start-ups to expand.

 

i guess les wexner & that weird abercrombie guy would probably put the kabosh on that, sears is no threat to their market.

 

 

just think if they gave that kind of money/incentives to dredgers union and other small local start-ups to expand.

 

i guess les wexner & that weird abercrombie guy would probably put the kabosh on that, sears is no threat to their market.

 

 

Probably. Good thing we live in a free country....

Does it really make sense for the State of Ohio to promote Columbus as a potential headquarters location when the State of Ohio has identified Cincinnati as a 'Consumer Marketing Innovation Hub'? Wouldn't there be economies of scale to be gained by locating Sears in the same city as other consumer giants like Macy's, Kroger, Procter & Gamble and all of the associated branding/marketing firms that service these industry giants?

 

I thought that was the whole point of designating industry hubs throughout Ohio (Cleveland = Healthcare; Columbus = Energy; Dayton = Aviation). Here is an interesting story on the whole topic from the Cincinnati Business Courier: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/print-edition/2011/12/09/in-sears-pitch-ohio-hubs-take.html.

You have a point.  But I think Kasich's plan is to 1) boost Cbus as Ohio's first city, and 2) make Cbus more reliably republican in the process.  Sears would bring a lot of high income transplants from the Illinois exurbs.

I think Kasich's plan is to ... make Cbus more reliably republican in the process.

 

You seem to be under the impression that Columbus is currently a Republican stronghold.  It is anything but.  The current Democratic mayor was just re-elected to his fourth consecutive four-year term.  All seven City Council members are Democratic and have been since 2004. 

 

When you broaden out from Columbus to Franklin County, there's some Republican office holders, but not alot.  Most Franklin County elected offices are Democratic-held.  Two of the three Franklin County Commissioners are Democratic.  It is only when you go into the adjoining counties to Franklin that you find solid Republican control of elected offices.  Such as Delaware County, where Kasich lives.

Based on what I've read and been told by certain people who are pretty reputable, Columbus was the only ohio city that sears said they were interested in relocating to. Supposively, all 3c's were pitched but sears showed the most interest in Columbus because of the limited,abercrombie etc.., ohio state, and columbus's reputation as a growing city. I mean it sort of does make sense if you look at austin being the other competitor. They clearly are going for a young workforce.