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.
Does Silicon Valley, for example, not have public universities or public infrastructure (roads, water, sewer)? Do the companies there not have any imported talent, for example Indians and ethnic Chinese here on H1B visas? Why is this different?
Well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanmyth
Research and Development involves public funding...space programs, pharmaceuticals, energy exploration, computer science...at some point, public funding went into it and public dollars are needed to distribute products and protect markets.
Again, how does this differ in the South from anywhere else? Well? Is R-and-D not a worthy activity with value beyond the production of junk food (you seem to suggest not) just because it occurs in the South? Is a tiny bit of State-level public funding bad, even when it's an astonishing success, even when the seeds where planted more than sixty years ago? Do people in the rest of the country not benefit in any way from discoveries and products that come out of RTP labs?
What do you hope to show or to communicate here beyond a raw, patronizing anti-Southern attitude?
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 09-10-2013 at 04:38 AM..
If northern states stopped charging such outlandish business taxes, and controlled their utility costs, they would lose far fewer jobs. But that would require them not to create oversized governments with huge legacy costs.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'd be surprised if the South doesn't follow in the North's shoes. As large cities start to age, they have to deal with replacing/maintaining infrastructure. They provide more services, as the socio-economic climate has ebbs and flows. They end up celebrating their seemingly endless growth by paying strong wages and benefits to their public leaders and workers. Once a recession comes along (especially one that hits the city's core employment sector), taxes have to go up to cover all this stuff alongside a decreasing tax base. I'm just not sure it's a northern thing.
One thing that may have been unique was the suburbanization of America, which had a major impact amongst the large northern cities (and others).
It has occurred to us recently that the South's economic strategy can be summarized in one word: "poaching". The South isn't creating new jobs as much as it is poaching them for other places. The South, with the help/ investment of the government isn't creating anything but fast food entrees, snack cakes and sugary soft drinks. Can anyone name anything that's come out of the South that hasn't been a byproduct of public investment or isn't associated with a food product that tastes good but is dismal or your health?
As. Southerner, I don't see how the South has made it without handouts from taxpayers, poaching jobs from other places or creating food products that are hazardous to our health.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
Well, given that the South's per capita and household incomes have closed the gap with the rest of the country over the past 60 years, it's really hard to argue with the strategy. For example, Alabama's per capita income was roughly 41% of Michigan's in 1940. Today, Alabama's per capita income is 95% that of Michigan. In fact, when you look at the Census Bureau's adjusted income after cost of living has been factored in, those in southern states actually enjoy more disposable income than many of their northern counterparts. So I'm thinking the steady and coordinated efforts by Southern states to attract industry over the years has paid enormous dividends for its citizens.
What's more, I am fascinated by the term 'poaching' because it really reveals a good deal about its writer. Let's see: Southern states offer corporations a more cooperative set of business laws, cheaper power, and right to work laws. That's not poaching. That's being competitive. On the other hand, Jennifer Granholm, the most boneheaded governor in Michigan history, decided to jack up corporate taxes in the middle of a five-alarm economic downturn. So part of it has been the South courting industries and part of it has been the Rust Belt steadily driving industry away.
I've been involved peripherally in economic development for the past 15 years, and I can tell you that incentives are far from the only factor when it comes to relocation. Let's try lower cost of power from utilities not shackled by an excessive number of regulations. Or Right To Work legislation that mean a worker is not forced to join a union. Or excellent infrastructure. Or a huge array of junior colleges and technical schools that have been steadily training workers for the past four decades or so. And the list goes on and on. So can you blame manufacturers for looking south? Or would you rather have those same manufacturing jobs go overseas? Because those are your two alternatives.
In fact the supreme irony of your post is that you originally hail from Connecticut but you're now working in Virginia where economic opportunity resides. You should really learn more about economics before making these kinds of posts. And stop believing the stereotypes. Those were so 1965.
Your point is not unclear. Are you speaking of living horses residing on Kentucky's thoroughbred horse farms (to which I referred previously), or to horse meat? The first causes no environmental harm as long as local waterways are fenced to prevent contamination by eCol and stables are kept cleani, whereas the other is not considered culturally acceptable by most people in the United States, both in the north and south (and east and west).
Most Americans would just as soon eat dogs and cats, as eat horses. As for Kentucky's thoroughbreds, to which my previous post referred, sending them to the slaughterhouse for meat would be an extremely costly way of obtaining protein, considering their value (I am aware of the sad plight of many former race horses, and am also aware of many who are working to address this problem - see Old Friends farm in Woodford County, Ky.).
So given the cost of producing horsemeat from thoroughbred horses valued at five to six figures, yes, that contributes to environmental harm, as cattle, chickens, hogs, etc. are all far less costly sources of protein, regardless of sentimental/cultural concerns.
My point was that the thoroughbred horse industry has been established in Kentucky for over 200 years, and has contributed heavily to our economy, yet it does not fit the very limited parameters you provided in your original challenge.
Hardly. I can drive across New England and never see the level of poverty, illiteracy, poor health I see driving from southern Virginia to the The Research Triangle region of NC.
Haven't been to the state of Maine much then, or parts of New Hampshire that definitely rival the poverty I've seen in the South. But I agree about the illiteracy and obesity being worse in the South.
Your point is not unclear. Are you speaking of living horses residing on Kentucky's thoroughbred horse farms (to which I referred previously), or to horse meat? The first causes no environmental harm as long as local waterways are fenced to prevent contamination by eCol and stables are kept cleani, whereas the other is not considered culturally acceptable by most people in the United States, both in the north and south (and east and west).
Most Americans would just as soon eat dogs and cats, as eat horses. As for Kentucky's thoroughbreds, to which my previous post referred, sending them to the slaughterhouse for meat would be an extremely costly way of obtaining protein, considering their value (I am aware of the sad plight of many former race horses, and am also aware of many who are working to address this problem - see Old Friends farm in Woodford County, Ky.).
So given the cost of producing horsemeat from thoroughbred horses valued at five to six figures, yes, that contributes to environmental harm, as cattle, chickens, hogs, etc. are all far less costly sources of protein, regardless of sentimental/cultural concerns.
My point was that the thoroughbred horse industry has been established in Kentucky for over 200 years, and has contributed heavily to our economy, yet it does not fit the very limited parameters you provided in your original challenge.
I'm not sure what you mean by my original challenge. I don't recall proposing a challenge.
I'm fairly certain we could overcome the cost barrier of eating horses. We don't need to eat fancy horses. Horses can be bread to give us optimal meat which would likely be different than how Kentucky thoroughbred horses are bred. The same can apply to dogs and cats.
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.
If northern states stopped charging such outlandish business taxes, and controlled their utility costs, they would lose far fewer jobs. But that would require them not to create oversized governments with huge legacy costs.
