Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Holding Atlanta back from what? I don't think getting bigger for the sake of getting bigger is a good idea. Essentially the story just says that we want to attract more companies. I suppose that in turn attracts more people which will require we attract (or grow) more companies.
Might help if we decide just what exactly Atlanta wants and then figure out how to get there. Seems like the nature of cities is that they must grow to support the economic model and to decrease in population spells trouble as government institutions resist downsizing. You'd think some eventual state of equilibrium is the best idea. Atlanta metro has passed 5 million while New York metro is approaching 20 million. So, we won't worry about that now since we've got a long way yet to go?
What bothered me was this
Quote:
The good news is this is going to tell people exactly how the money is going to be spent. It is nothing like give the money to the government and trust them. This will certify the ballot says this is where the money will go and it is only for 10 years," said Sam Williams of the Metro Atlanta Chamber.
Yeah, yeah. Just like the promise made about the Georgia 400 toll. When the time comes, they'll be singing a different tune. After 10 years, they'll hope people will either forget about or even have gotten used to it. Undoubtedly, there'll be new projects that need funding and many here will want to extend the tax.
Although, if this is totally state funded or even better regionally funded rather than federal, that would be a good thing.
"Time is money and constant traffic jams across Atlanta have been bad for business. It is a major reason why companies that have looked to move here have rejected Atlanta and as a result the city has lost out on jobs, according to public officials."
You mean there's more to attracting companies than low taxes?
Might help if we decide just what exactly Atlanta wants and then figure out how to get there. Seems like the nature of cities is that they must grow to support the economic model and to decrease in population spells trouble as government institutions resist downsizing. You'd think some eventual state of equilibrium is the best idea. Atlanta metro has passed 5 million while New York metro is approaching 20 million. So, we won't worry about that now since we've got a long way yet to go?
I don't think there is any confusion as to what Atlanta wants. For a start, we want employers that offer a live-able or better wage. The population in Atlanta is growing on its own due to the cost of living, weather, immigration (legal or not) etc. We have already discussed in other threads that people keep moving here without a job even though we have a higher than average unemployment rate.
You can't ignore that the population is growing but what you don't want it so all those new residents to then rely on public funds for survival. If this becomes a big enough burden the rest of us will run away to another city and Atlanta will die some horrible death (think of many rust belt cities), then no one wins.
So yes, we do want to attract employers and not just minimum wage jobs.
Holding Atlanta back from what? I don't think getting bigger for the sake of getting bigger is a good idea. Essentially the story just says that we want to attract more companies. I suppose that in turn attracts more people which will require we attract (or grow) more companies.
Might help if we decide just what exactly Atlanta wants and then figure out how to get there. Seems like the nature of cities is that they must grow to support the economic model and to decrease in population spells trouble as government institutions resist downsizing. You'd think some eventual state of equilibrium is the best idea. Atlanta metro has passed 5 million while New York metro is approaching 20 million. So, we won't worry about that now since we've got a long way yet to go?
What bothered me was this
Yeah, yeah. Just like the promise made about the Georgia 400 toll. When the time comes, they'll be singing a different tune. After 10 years, they'll hope people will either forget about or even have gotten used to it. Undoubtedly, there'll be new projects that need funding and many here will want to extend the tax.
Although, if this is totally state funded or even better regionally funded rather than federal, that would be a good thing.
We have over 10% unemployment rate, hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost here, and the housing market is in the toilet... so this isn't about getting bigger just for the hell of it. I mean, do you want to live in a place that is barely growing or declining? Growth can be a good thing if you know to manage it. Unfortunately this is Georgia, and managing growth has proven to be a challenge in this state and metro area, which is why the economy in Atlanta/Georgia isn't getting any better. If we made continuous infrastructure investments for the last 11 years and into the future like Dallas and Houston I bet our local economy would be a lot better than it is now.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 14,997,570 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike7586
We have over 10% unemployment rate, hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost here, and the housing market is in the toilet... so this isn't about getting bigger just for the hell of it. I mean, do you want to live in a place that is barely growing or declining? Growth can be a good thing if you know to manage it. Unfortunately this is Georgia, and managing growth has proven to be a challenge in this state and metro area, which is why the economy in Atlanta/Georgia isn't getting any better. If we made continuous infrastructure investments for the last 11 years and into the future like Dallas and Houston I bet our local economy would be a lot better than it is now.
Well for one, the economy isn't doing that much better in Dallas or Houston. They both have high unemployment too. Plus, they have oil so that makes things easier. However, it turns though that the "Texas Miracle" was just a bunch of hooey:
So what you need to know is that the Texas miracle is a myth, and more broadly that Texan experience offers no useful lessons on how to restore national full employment.
It’s true that Texas entered recession a bit later than the rest of America, mainly because the state’s still energy-heavy economy was buoyed by high oil prices through the first half of 2008. Also, Texas was spared the worst of the housing crisis, partly because it turns out to have surprisingly strict regulation of mortgage lending.
Despite all that, however, from mid-2008 onward unemployment soared in Texas, just as it did almost everywhere else.
...
In June 2011, the Texas unemployment rate was 8.2 percent. That was less than unemployment in collapsed-bubble states like California and Florida, but it was slightly higher than the unemployment rate in New York, and significantly higher than the rate in Massachusetts
At the same time, the rapid growth in the Texas work force keeps wages low — nearly 10 percent of hourly Texan workers earn the minimum wage or less, well above the national average — and these low wages give corporations an incentive to move production to the Lone Star State.
So Texas tends, in good years and bad, to have higher job growth than the rest of America. But it needs lots of new jobs just to keep up with its rising population — and as those unemployment comparisons show, recent employment growth has fallen well short of what’s needed.
If this picture doesn’t look very much like the glowing portrait Texas boosters like to paint, there’s a reason: the glowing portrait is false.
Well for one, the economy isn't doing that much better in Dallas or Houston. They both have high unemployment too. Plus, they have oil so that makes things easier. However, it turns though that the "Texas Miracle" was just a bunch of hooey:
8.2% is better than 10.4%... that was my point. When Texas adds 269,000 jobs in one year and Georgia loses 24,900 jobs in the same year, you do the math...
I don't think there is any confusion as to what Atlanta wants. For a start, we want employers that offer a live-able or better wage. The population in Atlanta is growing on its own due to the cost of living, weather, immigration (legal or not) etc. We have already discussed in other threads that people keep moving here without a job even though we have a higher than average unemployment rate.
You can't ignore that the population is growing but what you don't want it so all those new residents to then rely on public funds for survival. If this becomes a big enough burden the rest of us will run away to another city and Atlanta will die some horrible death (think of many rust belt cities), then no one wins.
So yes, we do want to attract employers and not just minimum wage jobs.
That plan just seems to say "We want to attract good paying jobs because we want to be comfortable and we need to bring in more jobs because our population is out of control" which makes Atlanta seem like a purposeless runaway train. The question is...when does the track run out?
I guess one lesson we learned from the Rust Belt is a metro's jobs need to change as economics change. Jobs grew their population despite the weather.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 14,997,570 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike7586
8.2% is better than 10.4%... that was my point.
Uh...
Georgia has 9,687,653 residents and of that number there are 4,704,500 people of working age. So, the 10.4% unemployment rate means that there are 474,600 people without a job in Georgia.
Texas has 25,145,561 residents and of that number there are 12,241,500 people of working age. So, the 8.2% unemployment rate means that there are 1,023,500 people without a job in Texas.
So no, in this case 8.2% is not better than 10.4% because of the difference in population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike7586
that was my point. When Texas adds 269,000 jobs in one year and Georgia loses 24,900 jobs in the same year, you do the math...
Also, if you go back to my previous post you will note that of the people that do have job in Texas, 10% of them make minimum wage or 1,224,150 people. Though he did not quote the number, the amount jobs that are low wage is also higher than in many states. The point that Paul Krugman made is simple: Texas on the surface appears to have do certain things to avoid the worst of the recession on the surface, but when you peel it back it was due to a large growth in low wage jobs and the kind of jobs that almost certainly mean people will be drawing public benefits. In other words, it's not really a Miracle but just a big magic act.
Oh, btw, Texas currently has a budget deficit of $27 billion. Georgia has had a rough time with this recession, but at least we don't have that particular problem.
It's really the politicians & the older than 55 crowd who keep the race stuff up. Eveyone else who don't fit those aforementioned categories for the most part tend to get along.
At least that's my observation, anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caltovegas
The biggest issue for Atlanta is the racial divide. If anything fix that first.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
