I got to reading about what some countries pay for gas. Venezuela  heavily subsidize their gas. To the toon of $0.19 cents a gallon.

 

Can Ohio subsidize gas to about $1- $2 a gallon to draw in more businesses and people. Of course there will be some fail safe checks to make sure people from another state is not buying the cheaper gas from us.

 

How viable would that be? The less people drive the less Ohio will have to subsidize it.

So that Ohio can be more like Venezuela? Sounds more like a threat than an opportunity.

What. I don't even...

Better than keep on giving companies incentives to stay. Here it will help every company.

Especially oil companies and highway builders. Would make more sense to subsidize natural gas, since that is extracted here. Still a bad idea, though!

I believe the phrase kids are using now is "SMDH"?

I believe the phrase kids are using now is "SMDH"?

 

ROTFLMAO FML LOL SMH HBIC

I got to reading about what some countries pay for gas. Venezuela  heavily subsidize their gas. To the toon of $0.19 cents a gallon.

 

Can Ohio subsidize gas to about $1- $2 a gallon to draw in more businesses and people. Of course there will be some fail safe checks to make sure people from another state is not buying the cheaper gas from us.

 

How viable would that be? The less people drive the less Ohio will have to subsidize it.

 

A better idea would be to just subsidize whatever you're smoking. Then Ohio can really be more like Venezuela.  :drunk:

 

This thread will be fun.

Figure out a way to permanently lock in the artic oscillation from the winter of 2011-12

What about free instate college tuition for resident students? Some cities do that. I understand it all costs money but in the long run it may pan out. Beats giving Sears $400 million.

First, consolidate the metros.  That'll save a ton of money and reduce local red tape for business. 

 

Then tell the cops to focus on crime instead of traffic.  Exit Highway Patrol, enter State Police.  I know suburbs need cops but they don't need all of them.  Warren has 3 cops on patrol some days for the whole city.  That's not enough.  Areas in rural counties like Ashtabula and Perry often have no cops at all.

 

Next, clean the place up.  Things need painted.  Rebuild with better materials... brick never needs painted.  Make road construction a 3-shift affair, including weekends.  Get it done.  We shouldn't have all our roads torn up whenever the weather's nice.  In short, the environment here needs to be welcoming and hospitable.  We seem to be going for creepy and tough to navigate.

 

Focus policy decisions on how they might affect young people.  Turn left on social issues like pot and gay marriage.  Reroute money from suburbs to cities, while containing sprawl and encouraging density.  Growth necessarily means youth.  I don't think there's any getting around that.

First, consolidate the metros.  That'll save a ton of money and reduce local red tape for business. 

 

Then tell the cops to focus on crime instead of traffic.  Exit Highway Patrol, enter State Police.  I know suburbs need cops but they don't need all of them.  Warren has 3 cops on patrol some days for the whole city.  That's not enough.  Areas in rural counties like Ashtabula and Perry often have no cops at all.

 

Next, clean the place up.  Things need painted.  Rebuild with better materials... brick never needs painted.  Make road construction a 3-shift affair, including weekends.  Get it done.  We shouldn't have all our roads torn up whenever the weather's nice.  In short, the environment here needs to be welcoming and hospitable.  We seem to be going for creepy and tough to navigate.

 

Focus policy decisions on how they might affect young people.  Turn left on social issues like pot and gay marriage.  Reroute money from suburbs to cities, while containing sprawl and encouraging density.  Growth necessarily means youth.  I don't think there's any getting around that.

 

Pretty much agree with everything said here, and will add changing the State's perception nationally and Worldwide. I can't stand it when people from Georgia say "Ohio!? Don't you all live on farms?" We have a reputation of being a sleepy midwestern farm state. Not too say our cities are the most lively, but certainly not Mayberry.

 

Build a reputation as a place where you can go to have fun and live comfortably. Clean up the beaches, build resorts and MARKET it all effectively!

Oh dear.

 

 

People across the country are opting out of traditional burial. Currently in Ohio your only non burial option is cremation in a cremation chamber with 9,000 rules & regulations. Other options could be open air cremation, liquefaction & there's some new process that's kinda like freeze drying.

If Ohio would ease up on some of these ridiculous restrictions on the funeral industry we could charge people admission.

Similarly Ohio's liquor industry is insanely regulated & stifles entrepreneurship.

Maybe if we could elect politicians who believe in smaller, less intrusive government instead of ignorant religionist neo-cons, we could get this poop done.

First, consolidate the metros.  That'll save a ton of money and reduce local red tape for business. 

 

Then tell the cops to focus on crime instead of traffic.  Exit Highway Patrol, enter State Police.  I know suburbs need cops but they don't need all of them.  Warren has 3 cops on patrol some days for the whole city.  That's not enough.  Areas in rural counties like Ashtabula and Perry often have no cops at all.

 

Next, clean the place up.  Things need painted.  Rebuild with better materials... brick never needs painted.  Make road construction a 3-shift affair, including weekends.  Get it done.  We shouldn't have all our roads torn up whenever the weather's nice.  In short, the environment here needs to be welcoming and hospitable.  We seem to be going for creepy and tough to navigate.

 

Focus policy decisions on how they might affect young people.  Turn left on social issues like pot and gay marriage.  Reroute money from suburbs to cities, while containing sprawl and encouraging density.  Growth necessarily means youth.  I don't think there's any getting around that.

 

There you go, posting tons of really good ideas. Now do you really think this is the appropriate time and place for that? That just won't cut it if we're wanting to be Venezuela.

 

I would love me some pot and gay marriage. That might get me to move to Venezuela.  :mrgreen:

I'm sure you could have all the pot you want for very cheap in Venezuela. Not to mention coke.

So, if I'm understanding the OP correctly the problem is that Ohio isn't car-friendly enough. Someone's in dire need of leaving Ohio borders for a moment and visiting a well-rounded, vibrant city. Invest in neighborhood revitalization so that there's a lot more shit to do. Put bikes and pedestrians at least near the same level as cars, get real mass transit, etc. Basically, Ohio's cities need to be competitive with popular liberal cities elsewhere, mainly on the coasts. They're not being named in the same breath as Portland, Mpls, etc, when it comes to walkability, bikeability, and everyday urban amenities which are the basics of a great city.  One thing holding back such improvements is too much boosterism, because there's a huge difference between being proud with what you have and at the same time striving for more vs. just settling for what you've got and stalling progress. Baby steps won't ever get you far, let alone noticed.

I'm sure you could have all the pot you want for very cheap in Venezuela. Not to mention coke.

 

Creo que me gusto!

 

Just kidding, kids drugs are bad, mmk.

Nothing we do now is anything more than a short-term fix.  For this reason I agree with all the posts up-thread about college tuition and focusing on retaining our young population.  Chicago is attractive for young people despite it's climate.  It is home to several major universities and lots of fortune 500 jobs.

 

And now to my side project to build downtown Cleveland:  Division I football at Cleveland State!!!!

 

 

You can do all the nice things like painting buildings and not having orange barrels everywhere and helping tuition... That'll never put mountains in the state or really nice beaches or a mega-city (5+ million) or nice weather.  The population trends the last 20-30 years seem to point to people going to those places.  West coast for the mountains and water and beaches.  East coast for the mega cities. South for the weather and beaches/water.

 

The only way Ohio comes back, imo, is when we do something to stand out in a way, obviously, that makes people want to be a part of it.  We don't have anything mentioned above (lake erie could be an incentive), so what do we do??

 

There are several ideas, but few would get by the mentality that has kept us where we are... that killed the trains... that keep cars #1, that would rather see more suburbs etc...  Maybe encouraging immigration and trying to build a large population base off of diversity could help - other than that, it seems hard to think Ohio's current population would, en masse, go for something that would really be a game changer.

Some states have been working to loosen licensing requirements dictated by industry organizations.

They claim it unfairly protects established workers from competition.

Florida, Michigan & Minnesota are looking at reforming regulations. California, Louisiana & Arizona are the strictest while Kentucky, Vermont & Wyoming are the loosest.

This deals with cosmetologists, auctioneers, locksmiths, etc.

The best way is to have a good, growing economy and low cost of living.  Ohio is working on both, as it's already relatively low cost, despite popular belief, and the economy continues to improve, having the 2nd fastest job growth of any state in May. 

They're not being named in the same breath as Portland, Mpls, etc, when it comes to walkability, bikeability, and everyday urban amenities

 

umm are you saying Minneapolis is on the same level as Portalnd? or was that a typo

The best way is to have a good, growing economy and low cost of living.  Ohio is working on both, as it's already relatively low cost, despite popular belief, and the economy continues to improve, having the 2nd fastest job growth of any state in May.

 

This is actually untrue. I was born and raised in the south, and for years old-school deep south (aka backwards) states like Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, etc. have been trying to figure out how to have the economic growth that exists in other states like North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, etc. Obviously there's a different recipe for each success story, but low costs was only a marginal factor in TN and virtually negligible in NC and especially TX. Cost of living is actually very high in Dallas, for example, whereas Dallas (Houston being "Oil Capital of the World") is clearly the business capital of Texas, in a diversified sense. I know many of you yankee urbanists like to snicker at the big projects in Dallas, but the reality is that you could be dropped in Dallas and honestly swear you were in Chicago and be confused why so many TX license plates everywhere. Dallas has grown up, and it's become an completely enclosed, gentrified (or ghettofied) city.

 

The secret has and always will be young people - education, and then retaining those graduates produced by the education system. TX reinvested a lot of its oil profits in the 70s into making UT and A&M world-class research institutions. NC just did it without a massive cash influx to begin with, by prioritizing UNC and NCST over anything else. TN's main growth driver is the Nashville area, which is a mecca for research, with Vandy, medical schools, national research center in one of the southern suburbs, etc. Outside of Nashville, TN has benefited from low costs and especially a lack of union workers, as companies like Nissan and Toyota have demonstrated a strong preference to avoid union regions in establishing new manufacturing centers. Unfortunately.

 

Education is always the most important factor, and having a highly-qualified (and public health is also a factor, being healthy) workforce. It's all about human capital that sets states apart, very little has anything to do with costs. Having low costs will attract non-union manufacturing (which is still good), call centers, Indian casinos, and low-skill service jobs - this is absolutely not a basis for economic growth. No Fortune 500 companies, R&D companies, innovative tech startups, or anything that can add skilled labor opportunities to your economy, are looking for cheap. They are looking for quality places to locate over cheap places. States trumpeting their low costs over their education and quality of life are actively repelling good jobs, as a matter of fact. That's all my home state does and they will never figure out why it doesn't work and why the economy is still 100% tied to oil despite other states like Texas successfully diversifying.

 

Then it comes down to an absolute truism when it comes to economic development. Conservatives craft nothing but dangerous, regressive, backward policies and trumpet them as business-friendly. There is a reason that the most economically prosperous places are usually the most progressive (different from "liberal") in their region - NC and VA are a perfect example of how a state that turned progressive left its Dixie neighbors behind in the dust. If you compare the economic benefits of MS to MN, you'll see a very high-cost yet progressive state up against a very low-cost yet regressive state. If you are an R&D company that employs 200 people, but has a major ripple effect in the economy due to your innovations (in other words YOU are the ED cash cow every state is dreaming about), which state are you going to locate in - MS or MN?

The best way is to have a good, growing economy and low cost of living.  Ohio is working on both, as it's already relatively low cost, despite popular belief, and the economy continues to improve, having the 2nd fastest job growth of any state in May.

 

This is actually untrue. I was born and raised in the south, and for years old-school deep south (aka backwards) states like Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, etc. have been trying to figure out how to have the economic growth that exists in other states like North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, etc. Obviously there's a different recipe for each success story, but low costs was only a marginal factor in TN and virtually negligible in NC and especially TX. Cost of living is actually very high in Dallas, for example, whereas Dallas (Houston being "Oil Capital of the World") is clearly the business capital of Texas, in a diversified sense. I know many of you yankee urbanists like to snicker at the big projects in Dallas, but the reality is that you could be dropped in Dallas and honestly swear you were in Chicago and be confused why so many TX license plates everywhere. Dallas has grown up, and it's become an completely enclosed, gentrified (or ghettofied) city.

 

The secret has and always will be young people - education, and then retaining those graduates produced by the education system. TX reinvested a lot of its oil profits in the 70s into making UT and A&M world-class research institutions. NC just did it without a massive cash influx to begin with, by prioritizing UNC and NCST over anything else. TN's main growth driver is the Nashville area, which is a mecca for research, with Vandy, medical schools, national research center in one of the southern suburbs, etc. Outside of Nashville, TN has benefited from low costs and especially a lack of union workers, as companies like Nissan and Toyota have demonstrated a strong preference to avoid union regions in establishing new manufacturing centers. Unfortunately.

 

Education is always the most important factor, and having a highly-qualified (and public health is also a factor, being healthy) workforce. It's all about human capital that sets states apart, very little has anything to do with costs. Having low costs will attract non-union manufacturing (which is still good), call centers, Indian casinos, and low-skill service jobs - this is absolutely not a basis for economic growth. No Fortune 500 companies, R&D companies, innovative tech startups, or anything that can add skilled labor opportunities to your economy, are looking for cheap. They are looking for quality places to locate over cheap places. States trumpeting their low costs over their education and quality of life are actively repelling good jobs, as a matter of fact. That's all my home state does and they will never figure out why it doesn't work and why the economy is still 100% tied to oil despite other states like Texas successfully diversifying.

 

Then it comes down to an absolute truism when it comes to economic development. Conservatives craft nothing but dangerous, regressive, backward policies and trumpet them as business-friendly. There is a reason that the most economically prosperous places are usually the most progressive (different from "liberal") in their region - NC and VA are a perfect example of how a state that turned progressive left its Dixie neighbors behind in the dust. If you compare the economic benefits of MS to MN, you'll see a very high-cost yet progressive state up against a very low-cost yet regressive state. If you are an R&D company that employs 200 people, but has a major ripple effect in the economy due to your innovations (in other words YOU are the ED cash cow every state is dreaming about), which state are you going to locate in - MS or MN?

I have to agree. Let me just say that I also feel that the amount of infighting that occurs between cities and regions in ohio does nothing but hurt the states perception and creates a stagnant(at best) and regressive environment(at worst).There needs to be a much more unified front if ohio wants to really see growth. Perception is huge especially when you are attempting to retain and attract new people and businesses.

The best way is to have a good, growing economy and low cost of living.  Ohio is working on both, as it's already relatively low cost, despite popular belief, and the economy continues to improve, having the 2nd fastest job growth of any state in May.

 

This is actually untrue. I was born and raised in the south, and for years old-school deep south (aka backwards) states like Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, etc. have been trying to figure out how to have the economic growth that exists in other states like North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, etc. Obviously there's a different recipe for each success story, but low costs was only a marginal factor in TN and virtually negligible in NC and especially TX. Cost of living is actually very high in Dallas, for example, whereas Dallas (Houston being "Oil Capital of the World") is clearly the business capital of Texas, in a diversified sense. I know many of you yankee urbanists like to snicker at the big projects in Dallas, but the reality is that you could be dropped in Dallas and honestly swear you were in Chicago and be confused why so many TX license plates everywhere. Dallas has grown up, and it's become an completely enclosed, gentrified (or ghettofied) city.

 

Economics are, by far, the biggest reason people move.  Either for a job, retirement, etc.  This simply cannot be overstated.  The perception has long been that the South offered a low cost of living, but also a low cost to do business.  Attract people, you attract jobs and vice versa.  And every cost of living assessment I've seen has states like Texas and NC toward the bottom of costs.  Ohio tends to be in the middle on most of these, but if you do a direct comparison, Ohio is on par with most things, and much cheaper on others, like real estate.

 

The secret has and always will be young people - education, and then retaining those graduates produced by the education system. TX reinvested a lot of its oil profits in the 70s into making UT and A&M world-class research institutions. NC just did it without a massive cash influx to begin with, by prioritizing UNC and NCST over anything else. TN's main growth driver is the Nashville area, which is a mecca for research, with Vandy, medical schools, national research center in one of the southern suburbs, etc. Outside of Nashville, TN has benefited from low costs and especially a lack of union workers, as companies like Nissan and Toyota have demonstrated a strong preference to avoid union regions in establishing new manufacturing centers. Unfortunately.

 

Young people are key, I agree, but you still need cost and jobs to attract them.  I think you are overstating to some degree what singular institutions really accomplish in terms of long-term growth trends in a state.  I'm sure places like Austin are helped by this, in the same way that Columbus is, but on a statewide scale, I don't think it matters nearly as much as being able to provide good-paying jobs for the graduates, no matter where they graduate from.  Also, I disagree that unions are necessarily holding back Ohio vs other states.  The state residents recently rejected legislation meant to curb union power, and since then Ohio's unemployment rate has dropped 10 straight months and has had the first or second most jobs gained by any state for a couple months already this year alone, including in May.  A significant part of these gains was in manufacturing, particularly related to the auto industry.  The unemployment rate is also almost a percentage point below the national average, one of the largest spreads in decades.  The state is recovering well economically.  Certainly moreso than places like NC, which continue to struggle with jobs and too many people moving there expecting the good times to come back at any moment.   

 

Education is always the most important factor, and having a highly-qualified (and public health is also a factor, being healthy) workforce. It's all about human capital that sets states apart, very little has anything to do with costs. Having low costs will attract non-union manufacturing (which is still good), call centers, Indian casinos, and low-skill service jobs - this is absolutely not a basis for economic growth. No Fortune 500 companies, R&D companies, innovative tech startups, or anything that can add skilled labor opportunities to your economy, are looking for cheap. They are looking for quality places to locate over cheap places. States trumpeting their low costs over their education and quality of life are actively repelling good jobs, as a matter of fact. That's all my home state does and they will never figure out why it doesn't work and why the economy is still 100% tied to oil despite other states like Texas successfully diversifying.

 

Again, retaining graduates is important, but the only way to do that is to have jobs available in their fields.  An educated workforce doesn't do any good if you have no companies to work for.  And Ohio's not exactly at the bottom of the education heap, either, so I don't think the problem is that Ohio doesn't have enough college grads.  And what's most interesting is that the South, including Texas and NC, have some of the lowest rates of job mobility in the nation, meaning that it's much harder to move up the ladder and gain success in these states vs Ohio.  Most people seem to have no idea about that. 

 

Then it comes down to an absolute truism when it comes to economic development. Conservatives craft nothing but dangerous, regressive, backward policies and trumpet them as business-friendly. There is a reason that the most economically prosperous places are usually the most progressive (different from "liberal") in their region - NC and VA are a perfect example of how a state that turned progressive left its Dixie neighbors behind in the dust. If you compare the economic benefits of MS to MN, you'll see a very high-cost yet progressive state up against a very low-cost yet regressive state. If you are an R&D company that employs 200 people, but has a major ripple effect in the economy due to your innovations (in other words YOU are the ED cash cow every state is dreaming about), which state are you going to locate in - MS or MN?

 

I would argue that Ohio is far more progressive politically than any of the Southern states.  The largest private research foundation in the entire world is in Columbus, and Cleveland has nationally recognized innovative health facilities.  It's not like Ohio lacks in the creative.  It's just been that the state has seen 30 years of decline because of too much emphasis on too few industries, not to mention being at the butt end of the suburbia movement.  Those things are no longer reality, so it remains to be seen if Ohio can continue its momentum and become a state people associate with success instead of burning rivers and industrial rot.

Figure out a way to permanently lock in the artic oscillation from the winter of 2011-12

 

I have to agree. In Cincinnati, at least, it totally changed the entire feel of the city. People walking down the street on their lunch break in sunny suburban office parks...in February.

Figure out a way to permanently lock in the artic oscillation from the winter of 2011-12

That's not a good thing for man kind. Too much methane is locked in the polar ice. If that is released due to global warming we are all in trouble.

 

Ohio needs to rethink it's strategy what ever it is.

You can do all the nice things like painting buildings and not having orange barrels everywhere and helping tuition... That'll never put mountains in the state or really nice beaches or a mega-city (5+ million) or nice weather. 

 

Agree with most of what you said. However, we actually did have really nice beaches once. And we could have them again!  Sure it would be quite an investment to reverse the years of bad policy, but it would be a worthwhile one imho. Ohio is the most reluctant coastal state in America. You want to change opinions of our state, start at the shoreline.

 

 

I just don't buy the weather problem.  Yes, there will always be those people that choose to live in Florida because of weather (where you are a prisoner from May-September).  But people will live where the jobs are.  Once upon a time Cleveland, Buffalo and Detroit had those.  Weather was a non issue.  Today Edmonton is having an oil boom--and the people are coming.  If you've ever been there in January, Cleveland is downright balmy!

MS has beaches and warm weather and it hasn't helped them much.

jobs jobs jobs, it's all about jobs.  Minneapolis/St Paul has a much worse climate but kicks Ohio's ass in terms of economic development.  Ditto for Toronto & so many other cities.  Ann Arbor is becoming a huge draw for its eds & meds, has same weather as Cleveland, worse weather than rest of Ohio.

 

Attracting major (and minor) employers is really a simple formula: tax rate, infrastructure, proximity to customers/markets, and available skilled labor.  Every state & city in America knows this though and it's a constant battle as businesses are constantly looking for the lowest overall cost to locate.

I just don't buy the weather problem.  Yes, there will always be those people that choose to live in Florida because of weather (where you are a prisoner from May-September).  But people will live where the jobs are.  Once upon a time Cleveland, Buffalo and Detroit had those.  Weather was a non issue.  Today Edmonton is having an oil boom--and the people are coming.  If you've ever been there in January, Cleveland is downright balmy!

 

North Dakota is another example.  3% unemployment and a population that recently surpassed its all-time high.  I wouldn't call the winters there awesome, and the summers can get as hot as any place in the South. 

MS has beaches and warm weather and it hasn't helped them much.

 

Ya know, I don't remember ever seeing a commercial or even any written publication touting MS beaches.

 

If they are nice, perhaps they're a good candidate for the "Pure Michigan" tourism route.

 

The weather problem is rather serious, but consider how much cost and effort it takes to make the southwest habitable.  Their weather problem is serious too and the nation spares no expense in fighting it.  Imagine if we had a federal driveway-shoveling program!

jobs jobs jobs, it's all about jobs.  Minneapolis/St Paul has a much worse climate but kicks Ohio's ass in terms of economic development.  Ditto for Toronto & so many other cities.  Ann Arbor is becoming a huge draw for its eds & meds, has same weather as Cleveland, worse weather than rest of Ohio.

 

Attracting major (and minor) employers is really a simple formula: tax rate, infrastructure, proximity to customers/markets, and available skilled labor.  Every state & city in America knows this though and it's a constant battle as businesses are constantly looking for the lowest overall cost to locate.

 

You're comparing cities to an entire state.  Ohio actually beats most states in economic development.  Ohio is #8 for GDP, while Michigan is #13 and Minnesota is #17.  It also is regularly at the top of the list for states having the most business expansions, including last year when it was #1.  And Ann Arbor pales in comparison to any of the 3-Cs when it comes to education and health jobs and growth.  The growth for ed/health jobs in Ann Arbor has been just 6.6% the last five years, while Cleveland was 10.6%, Columbus was 25.8% and Cincinnati was 6.8%.  Even Ohio's smaller cities are doing better, with Dayton growing at 7.9%.  Minneapolis, btw, had a 13.9% growth in this area.  Columbus, Ohio's largest city, was almost double that.  But yes, it's all about jobs.  Ohio needs to maintain this momentum.

Minneapolis/St Paul has a much worse climate but kicks Ohio's ass in terms of economic development. 

 

I wouldn't say much worse.  They certainly beat the hell out of us on sunny days.  Also, you are talking about a one-trick pony state.  There is no competing MSA, so the growth can be concentrated there.  Also, it is much more homogeneous, which sadly helps attract people there.

^and they have basically written the book on regionalism and shared services (which keeps overall tax rate lower), and same level taxes across the MSA which allows both businesses & governing bodies to focus on the best overall location, rather than shop door to door for the best tax incentive....thus minimizing sprawl

minnesota also has a gazillion BIG mosquitoes.

I don't think tax rates (within reason) are as big an issue for businesses as red tape & endless bureaucracy. They want a responsive government so they can get on with what they want to do.

interesting point.  THere's only about a thousand books on economic development that indicate otherwise

^and they have basically written the book on regionalism and shared services (which keeps overall tax rate lower), and same level taxes across the MSA which allows both businesses & governing bodies to focus on the best overall location, rather than shop door to door for the best tax incentive....thus minimizing sprawl

 

On this I agree.  Ohio is so blind to regionalism it's just killing us.  And yes, taxes do matter.

Minneapolis/St Paul has a much worse climate but kicks Ohio's ass in terms of economic development. 

 

I wouldn't say much worse.  They certainly beat the hell out of us on sunny days.  Also, you are talking about a one-trick pony state.  There is no competing MSA, so the growth can be concentrated there.  Also, it is much more homogeneous, which sadly helps attract people there.

 

I'd argue that their winters are actually "better" than ours. The snow is more reliable way up there, lending itself to a true and more active winter culture.

First, I'll point out the obvious, since no one else has yet: the best way for Ohio to become a high-growth state is for America to return to being a high-growth country.  If that doesn't happen, all of Ohio's efforts will face headwinds, regardless of the strength of our vision or execution.

 

Second, as for the points above about urban amenities and available jobs as drivers of the migration of young, value-producing professionals, I phrase it this way: A given city needs to be at least cool enough that top career candidates offered jobs in that city will not routinely refuse the offer because of the location.  Bluntly, not all job-seekers are created equal.  A company that constantly has to settle for its third and fourth choice for every position despite paying competitive market compensation because its preferred candidates simply don't want to move to Lake Wobegon may well end up leaving Lake Wobegon--or may ultimately end up getting bought out by a more competitive firm that managed to land all the best people.  (Another thing that can happen is that the firm will open a "satellite" office in the more desirable location, and will then suddenly find that more and more people want to move to that office, so that office grows, and the home office and its home city bear the opportunity cost of that.)

 

As for taxes and regulations: Small businesses are the ones that often feel the biggest bite from regulations.  Many startups are not profitable for the first year (or two, or several), so our current tax code (tax on net income, not gross, with deductions for many expenses that are high at startup) isn't necessarily as big a concern.  Ohio's commercial activities tax is different, though, so that one may be more of a concern.  Regulations, meanwhile, can really ambush a small business and cost precious time and significant legal fees.  Large businesses can afford compliance departments (and also can exert much greater influence over the regulatory process itself, and often do so to deliberately make it harder for new competitors to enter the market, so they can make the regulatory system work for them) and are probably going to be more inclined to look at tax burdens.

I'll add this point - keep up the rust-belt chic movement.  Like it or not, Ohio is not a "cool" place to live according to most outsiders and many natives.  And it's not so much the cities as it is how the state itself is view as a hole.  Everyone hears it when they say where they are from....... "oh, Ohio?"  The coastal snobs view our state probably the same way we view Nebraska.

 

I think it is in the interest of all of the rust belt states to band together in some form or another because we are all hurting in one way or another.  Maybe that can happen with the Chicago-hub plan to a certain extent.  There's no reason why the north coast can't create a network mimicking the east coast.

 

And FWIW, I would be happy with just steady growth.  I think any "high-growth" goals are unrealistic at this point.

Anywhere that is having an oil boom is probably not a long-term model for sustainable economic growth.

Anywhere that is having an oil boom is probably not a long-term model for sustainable economic growth.

Unless you are having a natural gas boom, which is Kasich's modus operandi.

The weather problem is rather serious, but consider how much cost and effort it takes to make the southwest habitable.  Their weather problem is serious too and the nation spares no expense in fighting it.  Imagine if we had a federal driveway-shoveling program!

 

We used to have one.  It was called teenagers earning a few bucks.  Now they can't be bothered. 

 

Maybe this should be a state-run program for minimum security offenders--shovel all of our driveways for free!

Anywhere that is having an oil boom is probably not a long-term model for sustainable economic growth.

Unless you are having a natural gas boom, which is Kasich's modus operandi.

 

Depends.  If we really have as much as they think we do, it'll cover 2 or 3 generations of people.  That should help us get back on our feet, whichever way we end up going.

A friend of mine grew up near Chicago and specifically moved to Cincinnati for school and employment because he wanted to be close to...

 

...Red River Gorge in Kentucky!

 

So I guess the point is that not everyone likes beaches, or mountains. Anyway, Ohio can't change her geography, or her weather, so why worry about it?

 

 

 

 

Anywhere that is having an oil boom is probably not a long-term model for sustainable economic growth.

Unless you are having a natural gas boom, which is Kasich's modus operandi.

 

Depends.  If we really have as much as they think we do, it'll cover 2 or 3 generations of people.  That should help us get back on our feet, whichever way we end up going.

 

How so? Nat gas is worthless, and the price is showing no signs of making a comeback. Look at the Chesapeake fiasco..