[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by bobtn

Probably. An employee is dependent on employers to provide jobs. Adding jobs helps employees far, far , far more than employers. I still recall the late 90s; I came to Nashville metro which had 2.8% unemployment. Backfilling positions was a employer nightmare, which inevitably resulted in paying above the budgeted salaries for the position.

Nationally, we have 3 available potential employees per opening. US peaked around 5-1. I do not know the # for Ct or Tn, but my region (Nashville MTSA) is down to about 2, and employers are noticing the change.

So to answer your question-yes, it is better for Texas employees if Perry succeeds. Businesses already there are not likely to agree-unless they get more business from reloed corps. They will see themselves paying more for the same employees.

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Most people aren't business owners.

"Chased away business" is just another proxy for high taxes. Texas loses out to India, the Philippines and Pakistan. Soon it will be Africa. Keep playing this game and we all lose.

I think quality of life, education, scenic beauty, location, etc, gives us plenty to tout. Obviously others agree-- I don't see empty neighborhoods or real estate prices falling. Why do you supposed that is?

Bob, while it's true if you have no employers you have no employees, what good is job growth if it is almost completely producing jobs one can barely if at all live on? I think mlassoff's "middle ground" argument puts it best; yes you can have so much regulation that you drive jobs away and there's certainly somewhat of an argument to that in CT, NY, NJ, etc., but I don't consider say Wal-Mart's job growth to be a "success" when 90% of those jobs created require people to still be on Food Stamps and Medicaid (and to top it off, in states like Texas they want to limit those programs even further, if not do away with them if they could). Would it really be a "success" to have 'full employment' if the only way to achieve that is through borderline 'expolitation'? Yes, I'm exaggerating that point a bit in terms of the current situation, but Texas taken to the extreme or even to the logical end of their policies basically means that. I'm sure if "minimum wage" laws were completely left to the states they'd have none and you'd see people working for $1/hour out in the Lone Star state.

Yes, when there's a "shortage" salaries go up, but only some jobs/industries are like that, certainly not a majority of them.

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by Andy

No, statism/socialism breeds crony capitalism, not laissez faire. Big crony corporations with money in association with powerful govt. enact regulation to keep down smaller competition.

Rush Limbuagh tell you that?

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I noticed this lazy lifestyle in Hartford as well, particularly those who work for the big [cheapo] insurance companies. It's a far cry from Fairfield County and NYC.

Doesn't Hartford have one of the highest productivity rates in the country??? You can't have that and be considered lazy. I think you mistake a slower less stressful lifestyle for laziness. Jay

[Andy]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Most people aren't business owners.

"Chased away business" is just another proxy for high taxes. Texas loses out to India, the Philippines and Pakistan. Soon it will be Africa. Keep playing this game and we all lose.

High taxes chase away govt. revenue (and incentivise black markets, tax cheating, etc). There is a happy medium between govt. services and the money and freedom govt. may confiscate. Texas is far closer to this healthy medium than Connecticut is.

Texas has better schools (break it down by demographics and socioeconomic level, then compare apples vs. apples), better public universities, is building miles upon miles of freeways, and opening another public medical school. Where are your high taxes going? CT would raise more govt. revenue by cutting taxes. It would be easy to recruit away NY, NJ, MA, & RI business.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by Andy

High taxes chase away govt. revenue. There is a happy medium between govt. services and the money and freedom govt. may confiscate. Texas is far closer to this healthy medium than Connecticut is.

Texas has better schools (break it down by demographics and socioeconomic level, then compare apples vs. apples), better public universities, is building miles upon miles of freeways, and opening another public medical school. Where are your high taxes going? CT would raise more govt. revenue by cutting taxes. It would be easy to recruit away NY, NJ, MA, & RI business.

I don't think you have a completely accurate picture of Texas.

The schools are not better. There are some excellent schools, but the high school in an average Texas town is not better than here. On almost every measure.

I'd like someone to explain the "freedom" argument. How is your "freedom" limited in Connecticut? Care to explain? Sounds like just another proxy for taxes.

The argument that lower tax rates == more revenue has been disproven again and again and again.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by MikefromCT

Rush Limbuagh tell you that?

Did MSNBC give you that pathetic talking point?

[SyraBrian]

The major problem that Texas will face is a surprising number of local municipalities are running up massive amounts of debt. The locals like to build gigantic high school football stadiums.

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I noticed this lazy lifestyle in Hartford as well, particularly those who work for the big [cheapo] insurance companies. It's a far cry from Fairfield County and NYC.

I work for one of those insurance companies. Granted, I don't take my work home with me, and I'm not as heavily compensated as the well-to-do in lower Fairfield County, but I wouldn't call myself a slacker. I have a long list of flaws, but laziness isn't one of them.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

I don't think you have a completely accurate picture of Texas.

The schools are not better. There are some excellent schools, but the high school in an average Texas town is not better than here. On almost every measure.

Break them down by demographic and socioeconomic level, then compare. Sure lilly white, old money CT can beat the test scores of those poor Rio Grande Valley Latinos.

The argument that lower tax rates == more revenue has been disproven again and again and again.

False. EVERY SINGLE TIME the federal govt. has lowered taxes, GOVT. REVENUES HAVE INCREASED. EVERY TIME = 100% success rate. High taxes chase away business, encourages cronyism, encourages black markets, encourages off shoring, and encourages tax cheating.

People vote with their feet and wallets.

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by Andy

Did MSNBC give you that pathetic talking point?

No, but thank you for the anecdote. Not a fan of MSNBC. Nice try, though.