11 hours ago, Pugu said:

 

I don't have data or the time to dig for some, but I will say this: politics and quality of life are interconnected. Texas (outside of Austin) and all of the south is pretty hellish to me---backwards, close-minded, racist, etc. So though I have moved around in my life for jobs, I have never ever applied to any jobs in the south---no matter how tantalizing--because there's no way in hell I'd want to live in the south. So, in a way, MY MOVES were directly affected by politics. And I can be certain I am not the only person in the US who thinks this way. There's probably no data source for people who didn't apply to jobs. Decent people are attracted to good places and stay away from bad places. If we want more non-hateful, non-racist, non-backwards people in Ohio, we need better policies (and politics) in the state that will make decent people WANT to be here and apply for jobs here instead of staying away like I do with the south. My company has jobs to fill and can't get people, because so many people don't want to come here. For some, it may be they don't want to move to Cleveland as we have a bad rep as a city (though that is fading), for others, they don''t see "Cleveland" they see "Ohio" and don't want to be in a backwards, trump-supporting state (and that sentiment is increasing).

 

Yea anecdotally I know several people who have left Ohio because of the politics and I know several others who are from the Northeast and would never entertain the thought of living in Ohio because of the politics. I think when you look at economic outcomes in places like California, Maryland, New York, and Massachusetts vs deep red places like Mississippi, Alabama, and West Virginia it becomes very clear that there are people with means making choices not to live in the red places. Even economically powerful red states like Texas are seeing their growth in the liberal metro areas (and the state as a whole is trending left).

11 hours ago, Pugu said:

 

I don't have data or the time to dig for some, but I will say this: politics and quality of life are interconnected. Texas (outside of Austin) and all of the south is pretty hellish to me---backwards, close-minded, racist, etc. So though I have moved around in my life for jobs, I have never ever applied to any jobs in the south---no matter how tantalizing--because there's no way in hell I'd want to live in the south. So, in a way, MY MOVES were directly affected by politics. And I can be certain I am not the only person in the US who thinks this way. There's probably no data source for people who didn't apply to jobs. Decent people are attracted to good places and stay away from bad places. If we want more non-hateful, non-racist, non-backwards people in Ohio, we need better policies (and politics) in the state that will make decent people WANT to be here and apply for jobs here instead of staying away like I do with the south. My company has jobs to fill and can't get people, because so many people don't want to come here. For some, it may be they don't want to move to Cleveland as we have a bad rep as a city (though that is fading), for others, they don''t see "Cleveland" they see "Ohio" and don't want to be in a backwards, trump-supporting state (and that sentiment is increasing).

So, your entire argument is based on anecdotal experience and appeal to intuition.  Got it.

3 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Yea anecdotally I know several people who have left Ohio because of the politics and I know several others who are from the Northeast and would never entertain the thought of living in Ohio because of the politics. I think when you look at economic outcomes in places like California, Maryland, New York, and Massachusetts vs deep red places like Mississippi, Alabama, and West Virginia it becomes very clear that there are people with means making choices not to live in the red places. Even economically powerful red states like Texas are seeing their growth in the liberal metro areas (and the state as a whole is trending left).

 

That's a good point--our backwards increasingly conservative posture is turning away the wealthiest people which could pay a lot in taxes or, as many don't pay a lot of taxes, at least spend lots of money around town in restaurants, cars, stores, etc.

25 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

So, your entire argument is based on anecdotal experience and appeal to intuition.  Got it.

 

You're using city-ranking articles which UO is very critical of because their methodologies are almost universally terrible.

10 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

You're using city-ranking articles

What?  Where?  I'm discussing that census data has shown massive migration to many red states for decades.  I'm talking about interstate migration.  I'm not even talking about cities.  Other people brought up cities.  Pugu mentioned Austin and I replied, but almost immediately redacted my comment because that is irrelevant to my discussion on interstate migration.  Let's make it clear that I'm not even making the argument that people seek out red states.  I'm actually saying I don't think the vast majority of people care about state politics when they move from one state to another.

Edited August 6, 20213 yr by TH3BUDDHA

40 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

anecdotally

This is the important part.

 

40 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

I know several others who are from the Northeast

The northeast continues to lose mass amounts of people.

 

41 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

are seeing their growth in the liberal metro areas

But, this is irrelevant to this discussion because we're talking about interstate migration.  Most of those people are going from urban areas in one state to urban areas in another state, so, that is a wash.  Pugu was making the claim that state politics prevent people from moving from one state to another, which isn't really supported by any data.  I'm not even making the argument that people are seeking red states out.  I'm saying that people don't really care about state politics all that much and probably do it for other factors.  How many New Yorkers have looked past Texas state politics to move to areas like Austin?

 

2 hours ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

 

The northeast continues to lose mass amounts of people.

 

 

This is conventional wisdom but it isn't really true. It is true that California and the Northeastern states are seeing significant outmigration, but not "mass amounts" and not because people want to leave. It's been discussed here before a lot, but among high earning folks places like California, Washington, New York, and Massachusetts are seeing the largest gains. There's a significant net in-migration among households making $100k or more per year. And in absolute numbers, California has seen the 3rd most population growth this decade. New York state has seen the 7th most. Being densely populated to begin with, the percentage increases are not as big as some other states.

 

And yet, enough people are leaving those places that they are seeing net negative overall migration. But it is mostly people who are low income or retiring. They are leaving to escape high housing costs, which are a thing because so many people with the means to do so want to live in those places. On the other hand, Florida and Texas attract a lot of people who are retiring (Florida) or looking for lower housing costs (Texas). The states that people are truly leaving en masse are places like Mississippi and West Virginia.

Edited August 6, 20213 yr by DEPACincy

3 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 But it is mostly people who are low income or retiring. They are leaving to escape high housing costs, which are a thing because so many people with the means to do so want to live in those places. 

 

I constantly see the Baby Boomers left out of these current discussions.   That is a huge swath of our demographic who are all currently between 57-75 years old and retiring in droves.  Many have owned houses in California for 30+ years so why not cash out and move some place quiet with extra money in your account.  

An enormous amount of Boomers retire(d) during the virus. This is why Millennials' and young Xers' underemployment issues are dissipating quickly.

57 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

I constantly see the Baby Boomers left out of these current discussions.   That is a huge swath of our demographic who are all currently between 57-75 years old and retiring in droves.  Many have owned houses in California for 30+ years so why not cash out and move some place quiet with extra money in your account.  

 

Exactly. 

 

Also, my neighbors are Gen Xers who owned a home in California and recently sold it to move to Cincinnati. They didn't want to leave California. They loved it there. But being closer to some family in the Midwest and being able to get a bigger house for half the cost of what they sold their Cali house for enticed them enough. They didn't "flee" California though, like some people are trying to characterize it. All else equal they would've stayed.

Some people's houses went up on the coasts so much that the choices are stay and be average or move and be rich.

For what it's worth l turned down a job offer in Nashville in the 90's because l'm biased against the South. I guess l have my own brand of ignorance because while much of the South doesn't like Northerners (they actually do call us Yankees) l'm just as bad because l don't like Southern culture.

13 minutes ago, cadmen said:

For what it's worth l turned down a job offer in Nashville in the 90's because l'm biased against the South. I guess l have my own brand of ignorance because while much of the South doesn't like Northerners (they actually do call us Yankees) l'm just as bad because l don't like Southern culture.

 

I'm pretty much the same. I can't say that I would never move to the South. But it would take a lot of money. There are lots of people in Cincinnati who won't even consider moving directly across the river because of politics/culture.

3 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

This is conventional wisdom but it isn't really true. It is true that California and the Northeastern states are seeing significant outmigration, but not "mass amounts" and not because people want to leave. It's been discussed here before a lot, but among high earning folks places like California, Washington, New York, and Massachusetts are seeing the largest gains. There's a significant net in-migration among households making $100k or more per year. And in absolute numbers, California has seen the 3rd most population growth this decade. New York state has seen the 7th most. Being densely populated to begin with, the percentage increases are not as big as some other states.

 

And yet, enough people are leaving those places that they are seeing net negative overall migration. But it is mostly people who are low income or retiring. They are leaving to escape high housing costs, which are a thing because so many people with the means to do so want to live in those places. On the other hand, Florida and Texas attract a lot of people who are retiring (Florida) or looking for lower housing costs (Texas). The states that people are truly leaving en masse are places like Mississippi and West Virginia.

So, it seems that you agree that we see higher levels of outmigration and you're just giving reasons that we see that outmigration.  None of the reasons you gave have anything to do with state politics.  So, it seems your comment just confirmed my original point, that state politics probably aren't the main factor in the majority of interstate moves, contrary to many opinions here.  There are a lot of factors that play into decisions to move and state level politics seems to be low on the list for the vast majority.  People are moving, not because they want to, but because they have to, so state politics is irrelevant.  IF we want to make the assumption that state politics is the MAIN factor, as Pugu and others suggested, then, we bring ourselves back to the migration data showing outmigration from blue to red.  That line of discussion brings us back to what you said, showing that people didn't really move for state politics, they moved because they had to.  And around we go.  I think the argument back and forth that people move to either color state is dumb.  The average person doesn't really care and they just go to wherever has the best job/weather/cost of living for them.

 

Edited August 6, 20213 yr by TH3BUDDHA

13 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

IF we want to make the assumption that state politics is the MAIN factor, as Pugu and others suggested, then, we bring ourselves back to the migration data showing outmigration from blue to red.  

 

I never said people move because of state politics (though some might). I said was when people DO have to make a move for whatever reason--if they have a choice (e.g., not moving because they need to take care of an elderly parent who is already in a given place)--they move to places they agree with. That's why I'd never move to the south and why some backwards racist anti-abortion ultra-Christian might look fondly upon Ohio, but would not look at Massachusetts. Unless that's the kind of people we want to attract, we need to improve our policies and politics. But given the trend, it will only get worse unless we have sudden change of realization of values or an influx of new, blue-leaning people.

4 hours ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

So, it seems that you agree that we see higher levels of outmigration and you're just giving reasons that we see that outmigration.  None of the reasons you gave have anything to do with state politics.  So, it seems your comment just confirmed my original point, that state politics probably aren't the main factor in the majority of interstate moves, contrary to many opinions here.  There are a lot of factors that play into decisions to move and state level politics seems to be low on the list for the vast majority.  People are moving, not because they want to, but because they have to, so state politics is irrelevant.  IF we want to make the assumption that state politics is the MAIN factor, as Pugu and others suggested, then, we bring ourselves back to the migration data showing outmigration from blue to red.  That line of discussion brings us back to what you said, showing that people didn't really move for state politics, they moved because they had to.  And around we go.  I think the argument back and forth that people move to either color state is dumb.  The average person doesn't really care and they just go to wherever has the best job/weather/cost of living for them.

 

 

It seems pretty silly on its face to argue that people who have a choice don't move to places that reflect their values. My gay cousin moved to Massachusetts and my racist aunt moved to South Carolina. I don't know if either of them explicitly did so because of politics but they definitely chose places they feel comfortable. And therein lies the rub, politics leads to policy. And policy makes a place attractive to certain people. Massachusetts leads the country in quality of life, life expectancy, household income, and educational attainment. That is attractive to people who are discerning.

I live in Lakewood. I live here because of the dense land use, the restaurants, the diversity of people, the walkability and transit, and yes, the politics. Lakewood is more liberal than most other Cuyahoga County suburbs and certainly counties beyond Cuyahoga. I would never move to the Ohio outside of an urban area and especially outside of Cuyahoga (although I might consider Franklin County if they ever got rail transit) and ways to better celebrate their good and increasing diversity. Living in a liberal county helps protect me somewhat from state politics, although I'd be lying to you if I told you I didn't check the real estate listings in more liberal states whenever the state government does something I don't like. But I'd rather try to recruit more liberal voters to Ohio and change the state government first.

 

EDIT: BTW, what does this have to do with Ohio general business except perhaps boosting the state's population and thus its consumer base?

21 minutes ago, KJP said:

EDIT: BTW, what does this have to do with Ohio general business except perhaps boosting the state's population and thus its consumer base?

 

Many companies in Ohio---at least in Cleveland--have a tough time filling jobs here because people--or at least qualified and decent people--do not want to move to Ohio with its red state backwards reputation.  The discussion started here:    

 

 

Not a single person here has given anything other than anecdotal experience to counter my points.  "My gay cousin" and "I live here because.." are not legitimate counter arguments to decades of census data that I'm talking about(and haven't linked because I would imagine most here know where the major growth in this country has been, recently).  If anybody can point to concrete data that shows that in order for a state to experience positive population and job growth, it HAS to be blue, I would love to see it.  If not, your arguments aren't really relevant to actual debate.  There is no evidence to suggest that Ohio will just magically experience mass population growth simply for switching to some democratic leaders.

Edited August 7, 20213 yr by TH3BUDDHA

Maybe red states are better about banging out kids

I redirected the discussion to a new, more appropriate thread. I think it's a fascinating topic with data available for both sides to use. But ultimatelywe have our own experiences which are more powerful to us than data...

 

 

15 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Maybe red states are better about banging out kids

Reminds me of Idiocracy in a way. lol.

8 hours ago, Pugu said:

 

Many companies in Ohio---at least in Cleveland--have a tough time filling jobs here because people--or at least qualified and decent people--do not want to move to Ohio with its red state backwards reputation.  The discussion started here:    

 

 

The problem with this discussion is that unless hard facts and data can be posted that directly links(causation not correlation, etc)things between a particular culture or politics to business and economic growth or stagnation everything just degenerates into political bickering. 

 

Quote

We're getting redder and redder and thus increasingly more backwards and will have a lower and lower quality of life. 

Even if I agree with this, where is the data to back it up? It is just an opinion? Redder and redder leading to being backwards is just an opinion(even if I agree with it). It derails the thread and is not Business or economic news.

47 minutes ago, KJP said:

I redirected the discussion to a new, more appropriate thread. I think it's a fascinating topic with data available for both sides to use. But ultimatelywe have our own experiences which are more powerful to us than data...

 

 

Unfortunately, not all of us have permission to comment in the current events section of this forum.  I just wanted to point that out so that you didn't think I intentionally ignored your new thread.

Maybe that thread, which already has its first comment, can be moved to the Ohio politics section?

I saw this on Facebook today.  Sort of sad but true for rural Ohio exits.  

 

 

Steelmaker Nucor puts Ohio on its list of possible sites for a $2.7 billion sheet mill

Scott Suttell - Crain's Cleveland Business - Sep. 20, 2021

 

 

"The Charlotte, North Carolina-based company on Monday, Sept. 20, announced in a news release that its board of directors has approved the construction of a 3-million-ton sheet mill. Nucor said it's 'evaluating locations in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia' for the mill, which 'will be geographically situated to serve customers in the Midwest and Northeast markets and will have a significantly lower carbon footprint than nearby competitors.' ... The company said in that presentation that the potential Ohio, Pennsylvania or West Virginia location is 'positioned in the largest market where a freight advantage, significantly improved capabilities and superior quality will provide a competitive advantage.'"

 

 

VC investment passes $2B in Ohio for the first time – and 66% is in Columbus

https://www-nbc4i-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.nbc4i.com/news/columbus-business-first/vc-investment-passes-2b-in-ohio-for-the-first-time-and-66-is-in-columbus/amp/

On 8/5/2021 at 9:55 PM, Pugu said:

 

I don't have data or the time to dig for some, but I will say this: politics and quality of life are interconnected. Texas (outside of Austin) and all of the south is pretty hellish to me---backwards, close-minded, racist, etc. So though I have moved around in my life for jobs, I have never ever applied to any jobs in the south---no matter how tantalizing--because there's no way in hell I'd want to live in the south. So, in a way, MY MOVES were directly affected by politics. And I can be certain I am not the only person in the US who thinks this way. There's probably no data source for people who didn't apply to jobs. Decent people are attracted to good places and stay away from bad places. If we want more non-hateful, non-racist, non-backwards people in Ohio, we need better policies (and politics) in the state that will make decent people WANT to be here and apply for jobs here instead of staying away like I do with the south. My company has jobs to fill and can't get people, because so many people don't want to come here. For some, it may be they don't want to move to Cleveland as we have a bad rep as a city (though that is fading), for others, they don''t see "Cleveland" they see "Ohio" and don't want to be in a backwards, trump-supporting state (and that sentiment is increasing).

You think a city like Houston, one of the most diverse city in the US, is full of backwards, close-minded, racist? 
 

The amount of ignorance in your comment is astounding. 

Edited October 18, 20213 yr by HoustonBuckeye

Meanwhile...

 

Regardless of whether the money is currently going to Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, or Peebles, I'm glad to see the money going into Ohio. Considering the high concentration into Silicon Valley, Ohio seems to be pulling above our weight now - 7th largest population, yet 6th in funding now.

And for those who say Ohio isn't backwards, just look at the company we share, with the exception of New Hampshire:

 

 

"....More than half of these United States have filed suit against Joe Biden’s administration over its mandate that private companies with more than 100 employees implement either a coronavirus vaccine mandate or regular testing protocols. Attorneys general for 26 states joined multiple lawsuits challenging the mandate from the Department of Labor, which holds that private companies must comply by Jan. 4. Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming filed suit together. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia also sued, either individually or jointly...."

 

yep, we fit right in. Move your business or open a plant in a state like Ohio or South Carolina or Alabama where many workers may be out sick for a long periods of time and raise your health insurance premiums or move to a smarter state like New York or Massachusetts. 

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/26-states-file-suit-against-biden-administration-to-block-coronavirus-vaccine-mandates 

 

4 hours ago, KJP said:

 

 

Dream on, Faith.  You will NEVER move a major agency, like the NIH or FAA out of Washington.  If you try, all the good employees will bail and you will end up with the sort of people who give government employees a bad name in your new location.  The only serious way to do it is to establish a new branch in a distant town and let it grow.  That's why I would like to see the Clinic find a federal charter for their new biorepository; it could become a national center for physical specimen and data storage.

 

AP: Proposed bill aimed at recruiting, retaining Ohio students

 

“Graduates of any Ohio college, public or private, who take a full-time job in the state would be exempt from state income tax for up to three years, under legislation proposed Monday by a Republican lawmaker with an aim of recruiting and retaining Ohio college students.

 

Businesses that offer paid college internships would receive a tax break, the state would offer up to 100 merit-based scholarships of $25,000 to out-of-state students, and more money would be added to Ohio’s college grant fund for students with associate degrees pursuing a bachelor’s, according to the plan from Rep. Jon Cross of Kenton.

 

Students would have to be in the top 5% of their graduating class and pursuing degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math to receive the out-of-state scholarships.

 

The goal “is to incentivize Ohio’s younger population to live, learn, work and prosper in Ohio vs. leaving the state after graduation,” said Cross, chairperson of the House Finance Subcommittee on Higher Education.”

 

https://apnews.com/article/business-education-ohio-scholarships-b459c33fbb6f595c805aa21f36c266d7?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axioslocal_columbus&stream=top
 

It’s definitely not going to get Ohio back its 24 House seats, but it doesn’t sound like a bad idea either.  I think right now leaders in the state will need to get fairly creative with attracting more talent. 

1 hour ago, amped91 said:

AP: Proposed bill aimed at recruiting, retaining Ohio students

 

“Graduates of any Ohio college, public or private, who take a full-time job in the state would be exempt from state income tax for up to three years, under legislation proposed Monday by a Republican lawmaker with an aim of recruiting and retaining Ohio college students.

 

I get the idea, but I don't think that's going to be a deciding factor for many people. Someone who's making $100k will get about $1k back from state income taxes. It isn't exactly a game changer. Young people want to move for the amenities a city provides and the jobs available in the region. This doesn't really provide either. It's just throwing more money at people who likely don't need it.

That's the "Ohio Fix". Throw a 1% state income tax break at the problem.

 

The U.S. tries to fix everything with some after-the-fact tax break.

2 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

That's the "Ohio Fix". Throw a 1% state income tax break at the problem.

 

The U.S. tries to fix everything with some after-the-fact tax break.

It would be so much better if the state just increased its support of state universities, rather than a gimmick to retain Ohioans in Ohio. More Ohioans need to move to other places, see the world, and Ohio needs to be more attractive to newcomers. It's a policy for population constipation. 

Edited December 8, 20213 yr by westerninterloper

10 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

That's the "Ohio Fix". Throw a 1% state income tax break at the problem.

 

The U.S. tries to fix everything with some after-the-fact tax break.

The GOP fix for every problem is cut taxes.  

8 hours ago, westerninterloper said:

It would be so much better if the state just increased its support of state universities, rather than a gimmick to retain Ohioans in Ohio. More Ohioans need to move to other places, see the world, and Ohio needs to be more attractive to newcomers. It's a policy for population constipation. 

Yea, the best way to attract and retain students would be to invest in our institutions. What's the best way to get a young professional to move to Cincinnati or Columbus from out of state? Get them to go to UC or OSU and fall in love with the city. What's the best way to retain talent in Appalachia? Invest in OU, so more students in the region can go to college in the region and be more likely to stick around. Or maybe a student from WV or Pittsburgh will come to OU and get an internship in Columbus and move to Columbus after graduation. So on and so forth.

In Appalachia degrees are punished outside of public sector, hospital and NGOs.

I don't think Republicans are truly interested in growing the college educated  population within the state.  Higher education is negatively corelated with voting Republican these days as shown here.    I think the sales tax waiver allows them to pretend to do something without doing anything meaningful.  

that's ridiculous

4 hours ago, OH_Really said:

I don't think Republicans are truly interested in growing the college educated  population within the state.  Higher education is negatively corelated with voting Republican these days as shown here.    I think the sales tax waiver allows them to pretend to do something without doing anything meaningful. 

 

1 hour ago, Whipjacka said:

that's ridiculous

 

I've had elected Republicans tell me this straight up. "We don't need more college-educated liberals moving here from the east coast. We need hard-working Americans to work in our factories and distribution centers."

4 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

In Appalachia degrees are punished outside of public sector, hospital and NGOs.

 

This is largely true. Though, there have been multiple tech and biomedical start ups spun out of OU research efforts. If we invested more in OU, we might see growth in research/development/tech private sector jobs in and around Athens.

5 hours ago, OH_Really said:

I don't think Republicans are truly interested in growing the college educated  population within the state.  Higher education is negatively corelated with voting Republican these days as shown here.    I think the sales tax waiver allows them to pretend to do something without doing anything meaningful.  

 

The blue-collar tinge of the GOP is a comparatively new phenomenon and may well not be a long-term trend.  It was not the case for much of the last generation.  Note from the post from @amped91 that started this discussion in this thread, the proposed bill was introduced by a Republican.

 

Republicans draw much of their financial strength from the college-educated even if the raw votes of the college-educated lean Democratic (in substantial part because of the votes of the college-educated who go into sectors that don't generally pay the kind of money it takes to become major campaign contributors).

 

That said, while I think I'd support the proposal here, it's fairly small potatoes for most college graduates.  The top marginal Ohio income tax rate is 3.99%, which kicks in at taxable income above $110k (though it's pretty flat once you get above $44,250).  A recent graduate, now a young professional, making $50k right out of school would get maybe $1500 in relief.  Not peanuts, but probably not enough to swing a major life decision.

 

By far the more important structural issues for white collar graduates into many fields will be the potential for remote work, including reliable high-speed Internet access, enabling graduates to live in Ohio while snagging the best possible paychecks available nationwide.  One of the primary reasons for the high income in my household is that my wife is able to work remotely for a company based in Dallas, servicing oil refineries in Tulsa and Toronto, which enables me (and, thus, the family) to stay in Akron and keep a job that cannot necessarily be so remotely, at least not full-time.  The difference between her old Ohio-based job that she left, and the new remote-Dallas-based job that she has now, is now just over double her old salary.  But for the ability to work remotely, we'd have faced an excruciating decision re: whether to move to Tulsa and have me abandon my job here and take my chances down there.

 

One of the higher-income families at my kids' private school is so because the husband works at Square in San Francisco.  The paycheck is the same, but a house budget of $1M buys you a wee bit more in Akron than in Atherton.  He went to Hoban, so this was a return home for him, but he flatly would not have moved back here if he couldn't work remotely.

 

I could go on, but I've already done so long enough.  The critical point is that for every individual and every family that has this opportunity, the difference can be, and often will be, at least one order of magnitude greater than a measly $1000-$2000 tax break.  In my household, while we can't know how life would have been on the road not taken, we might well be talking two orders of magnitude greater than that.

This was supposed to be done in September. Better late than never. This will be a huge boom due to the state's economy....

 

 

JobsOhio Announces Official 10-Year Results

https://www.jobsohio.com/media-relations/posts/jobsohio-announces-official-10-year-results/

 

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2022/01/ohio-in-the-running-to-land-major-semi-conductor-factory.html

This sounds like maybe the most significant development in the entire U.S. Anyone have any insight?

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2022/01/ohio-in-the-running-to-land-major-semi-conductor-factory.html

This sounds like maybe the most significant development in the entire U.S. Anyone have any insight?

 

Pablo just posted this in the New Albany development thread at https://forum.urbanohio.com/topic/664-new-albany-developments-and-news/page/4/#comment-1045463

 

Greater Columbus believed to be in running for massive computer chip factory:

https://www.dispatch.com/story/business/2022/01/10/possible-semiconductor-factory-could-biggest-investment-ohio/9164479002/