U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 05-13-2016, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
8,721 posts, read 7,673,512 times
Reputation: 7624

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
You're so weirdly hyper-focused on only those that might benefit certain places, yet strangely ignore the multitude of others that may benefit others. Government dollars go to a huge number of things that can be argued "prop up" economies. Manufacturing receives public dollars all the time. The multi-billion-dollar auto bailout propped up how many failing companies and their jobs in manufacturing cities in the Midwest? Or how about how public dollars go into all manner of public services EVERYWHERE, including massive subsidies on roads, public infrastructure like parks, schools, libraries, hospitals, airports, water ports, etc. How about police and fire? Waste management? Public utilities like water and electric? Public money, whether federal, state or local, creates a huge number of direct and indirect jobs. You can sit there and do what you always do and try to nitpick and create artificial and dishonest distinctions about which cities benefit more, but it is a complete waste of time and it is based on little more than emotionally-driven agendas. You want publicly-funded subsidies to cease? Then stop being a total hypocrite and begin calling it out EVERYWHERE and in all cases, because this is not an OSU issue or a Columbus issue or an Ohio issue. It is completely ingrained into the economic base of every single place in America. What's fascinating is the question of whether or not you actually understand this.
You have literally zero ability to follow any kind of argument. I do call it out everywhere, you're just too dense to follow it. Good lord.

It's a measure of scale. Columbus is much more dependent on state money than other cities. That doesn't mean that other cities are fine. But I'd rather take my chances on places that are less tied to the state funding. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about my stance. Look, Boston is unfairly supported by tax payers from the rest of Massachusetts. You in your homerism, would not see anything wrong with that if you were from here. I say it's wrong. Boston doesn't need to take money from Springfield or Worchester. Cleveland, my hometown, gets subsidies and a lot of people over there are constantly looking for way to get federal money. This is wrong. Cleveland would do better to divorce itself from easy money. That's kind of a big reason why it collapsed in the 60s 70s 80s. Columbus is dependent on state funding. Columbus produces very little. I ask you, enlightened one, what will happen to Columbus when the easy money disappears? I am the only one who actually cares about Columbus, much more than you do at least. Your blind civic boosting, while it might make you feel tingly on the inside, doesn't actually help. Was this argument too complex for you? Or are you just going to insult me because of things you don't understand some more? Level of dialog is completely up to you.

This is not hard to understand. I'm sick of your blatant misrepresentations here and your ignorance. You have not once ever actually understood a single post I've made. But you always comment on it like I'm an idiot. I don't wonder about whether or not you understand this because I already know that you don't.

Show some respect too, by the way. I'm so sick of this. I wish I could have an intelligent conversation with you, but it's just impossible.

Last edited by bjimmy24; 05-13-2016 at 08:10 AM..
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-13-2016, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
8,721 posts, read 7,673,512 times
Reputation: 7624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewcifer View Post
Agricultural subsidies have little impact on food processing because demand is roughly the same regardless of price. People have to eat and in North America (which is the market MSP serves) price is not a barrier to consumption.


As for manufacturing jobs in general, your numbers are garbage. Check out the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers on this link:


Tables Created by BLS


What you want to look at is "2015 Annual Average Tables - Employees on nonfarm payrolls in states and selected areas by major industry". It is the fourth line from the bottom. It has manufacturing employment for metro areas. Here are 1,000,000+ MSAs ranked by manufacturing jobs:


Los Angeles 521,600
Chicago 414,100
New York 368,100
Dallas 263,000
Houston 246,900
Detroit 229,200
Minneapolis 194,200
Boston 191,900
Seattle 188,000
Philadelphia 181,300
San Jose 161,600
Atlanta 157,700
San Francisco 126,400
Cleveland 124,700
Portland 121,800
Milwaukee 121,000
Phoenix 119,000
St Louis 114,000
Cincinnati 113,300
San Diego 105,300
Charlotte 104,100
Grand Rapids 103,300
Riverside 95,600
Indianapolis 90,300
Pittsburgh 87,600
Miami 84,200
Nashville 79,100
Kansas City 74,200
Columbus 71,500
Denver 68,100
Tampa 61,900
Austin 57,600
Hartford 55,600
Salt Lake City 55,100
Baltimore 54,100
Virginia Beach - Norfolk 53,500
Washington DC 52,800
Buffalo 52,000
Providence 51,800
San Antonio 46,900
Memphis 45,200
Orlando 41,300
Oklahoma City 37,600
Sacramento 36,300
Raleigh 33,900
Richmond 30,800
New Orleans 30,600
Las Vegas 21,600
Subsidies don't impact price? Lol ok. I don't even know where to begin with this.

Also, my link said explicitly city limits, which was not a great metric, which I didn't realize when I saw it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2016, 09:02 AM
 
11,172 posts, read 22,366,973 times
Reputation: 10919
Quote:
Originally Posted by 601halfdozen0theother View Post
Both the financial and insurance industries in Des Moines are completely tied to the regional agricultural economy. A huge amount of money is in play here. The market value of agricultural products in Iowa is the 2nd highest of all of the states in the United States. Source: USDA NASS 2015.

It is irrelevant what % of people are actually farming. What is relevant is how much revenue agriculture is bringing into the state/region. And Des Moines is the financial center of the region.

If you want to argue about the various controversies surrounding Big Ag, that's a completely different conversation.

No one is saying that people are farming within the urban area of Des Moines.
I'm from Iowa and have family in the Des Moines area, I've been tied to the place for 37 years, my family for over 100 years and I know the city and its economy very well. I'm not against agriculture or farming in any way, I respect it greatly.

All I was doing is pointing out that specifically Des Moines' economy and the reason it's booming right now has very little to do with agriculture. The main industries are insurance, finance, healthcare and publishing. The insurance industry in Des Moines is nationally focused. It's not insuring crops or farming activities in any greater degree just because it's based near farms. They're not tied together.

Agriculture brings revenue into areas of the state and into the farming communities and smaller towns. It doesn't all flow up into Des Moines' economy aside from maybe taxes, but that's spread across the state, Des Moines doesn't snatch all that.

Of course people aren't farming in the Des Moines urban area, why would you even think that??
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2016, 02:19 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,097 posts, read 13,480,618 times
Reputation: 5771
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjimmy24 View Post
You have literally zero ability to follow any kind of argument. I do call it out everywhere, you're just too dense to follow it. Good lord.

It's a measure of scale. Columbus is much more dependent on state money than other cities. That doesn't mean that other cities are fine. But I'd rather take my chances on places that are less tied to the state funding. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about my stance. Look, Boston is unfairly supported by tax payers from the rest of Massachusetts. You in your homerism, would not see anything wrong with that if you were from here. I say it's wrong. Boston doesn't need to take money from Springfield or Worchester. Cleveland, my hometown, gets subsidies and a lot of people over there are constantly looking for way to get federal money. This is wrong. Cleveland would do better to divorce itself from easy money. That's kind of a big reason why it collapsed in the 60s 70s 80s. Columbus is dependent on state funding. Columbus produces very little. I ask you, enlightened one, what will happen to Columbus when the easy money disappears? I am the only one who actually cares about Columbus, much more than you do at least. Your blind civic boosting, while it might make you feel tingly on the inside, doesn't actually help. Was this argument too complex for you? Or are you just going to insult me because of things you don't understand some more? Level of dialog is completely up to you.

This is not hard to understand. I'm sick of your blatant misrepresentations here and your ignorance. You have not once ever actually understood a single post I've made. But you always comment on it like I'm an idiot. I don't wonder about whether or not you understand this because I already know that you don't.

Show some respect too, by the way. I'm so sick of this. I wish I could have an intelligent conversation with you, but it's just impossible.
You absolutely do not call it out everywhere. You specifically treat your chosen whipping boy Columbus as the epitome of government excess and a city that would practically be a backwater economically without public dollars, yet you consistently make that argument seemingly from a reality in which every American city does not rely at least in part on public dollars. This has nothing to do with me defending my hometown, it's about how you seem to direct almost all of your focus dishonestly. The only time you mention anywhere else is when I call you out on this, and then you give a halfhearted "they do it too a little, sometimes and it's a problem" response. Meaning you don't rail against subsidies so much as one particular city that you think uses too many of them.

Cleveland did not collapse because it relied on public money specifically. It instead relied too heavily on industry that could too easily be outsourced to cheaper labor, and the government seemed all too happy to allow businesses to do so. I'd actually be interested to know if Cleveland's manufacturing jobs get MORE per-capita subsidies per job now than they did in the 1960s and 1970s, because there is a lot more cheaper competition now than there was then. You say Columbus doesn't produce anything (72K manufacturing jobs are apparently worthless), but if it had more manufacturing, wouldn't that likely mean it would be receiving even more public dollars to keep those jobs going? How can you be critical of this, but then also be critical of the subsidies necessary for a city to "create something" in today's manufacturing reality?

You have also never proven whatsoever that Columbus is more economically dependent on public dollars than Cleveland or Chicago or Pittsburgh or anywhere else. You BELIEVE it does, and you seem to think that saying it enough times makes it true. Frankly, I have never seen a study done on this, and I have looked for years. Perhaps you can link me to one? In any case, in the last 10 years or so, government money has dried up quite a bit. The state alone has cut tons of funding to cities in order to fill budget gaps and pay for tax breaks. That is part of the reason that Columbus voters voted for the income tax increase in 2009, to keep things going. Today it has a fairly high income tax rate compared to the national average. You never mention this though, apparently in the belief that Columbus residents pay for zero of its own services and infrastructure.

What will happen to Columbus if all public funding disappeared? Nothing good, probably, but the exact same statement applies to literally every other city. It's a non-starter because it's a dumb question. Yes, Columbus relies in part on public funding. So does everywhere else. Does it rely more on public funding than other places? Maybe, maybe not, but if this is going to continue to be your argument, then sooner or later you need to actually provide proof of it.

And really, I don't think my response was unreasonable or insulting to you, though I do think you have a dishonest position in terms of what you can and can't prove. I doubt we're ever going to agree on this, and that's fine. You are free to engage me or not. Your choice.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2016, 06:32 PM
 
3,573 posts, read 1,519,707 times
Reputation: 3015
Minneapolis for sure. Omaha as well.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2016, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
2,331 posts, read 3,053,426 times
Reputation: 3925
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjimmy24 View Post
Subsidies don't impact price? Lol ok. I don't even know where to begin with this.
If you reread what I said you will see that I wasn't saying that subsidies don't impact price. I was saying that price doesn't impact consumption. Food is cheap enough in the US (as a percentage of what people make) that they will eat the same amount regardless of whether agriculture is subsidized or not. Our food prices could double and most people would still eat three meals a day. That food will be processed in Minneapolis either way.


Because of transportation costs, it will always be cheaper for Americans to eat breakfast cereal, frozen pizza and the like from the Midwest than imported from China.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2016, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati (Norwood)
3,507 posts, read 3,958,908 times
Reputation: 1850
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post

You have also never proven whatsoever that Columbus is more economically dependent on public dollars than Cleveland or Chicago or Pittsburgh or anywhere else. You BELIEVE it does, and you seem to think that saying it enough times makes it true. Frankly, I have never seen a study done on this, and I have looked for years. Perhaps you can link me to one? In any case, in the last 10 years or so, government money has dried up quite a bit. The state alone has cut tons of funding to cities in order to fill budget gaps and pay for tax breaks.............
Here's your link (provided a month ago by WRnative in the Cbus forum thread: "Skyscrapers in Columbus's Future?", post #49)...

State jobs shift to central Ohio | The Columbus Dispatch

Truly, just how did a link of this magnitude simply disappear so quickly in that particular conversation? Had its findings been accepted as fact back then, it just might have curtailed all this obfuscation going on right now.

Bill Lafayette (probably Central Ohio's most quoted economist) laid it all right out there concerning how crucial consolidation of economic power is to his entire region (paragraph 7). However, Lafayette's professional observations about the region's economy were only the "short form" of a much larger study presented to the Columbus Chamber of Commerce. Why not obtain the "long form" of this document, even if it involves personal expense?

Regionomics | About


Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2016, 04:15 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati (Norwood)
3,507 posts, read 3,958,908 times
Reputation: 1850
^ CORRECTION - the link referred to in "Skyscrapers in Columbus's Future?" is in post #47, not post #49.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2016, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,097 posts, read 13,480,618 times
Reputation: 5771
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorman View Post
Here's your link (provided a month ago by WRnative in the Cbus forum thread: "Skyscrapers in Columbus's Future?", post #49)...

State jobs shift to central Ohio | The Columbus Dispatch

Truly, just how did a link of this magnitude simply disappear so quickly in that particular conversation? Had its findings been accepted as fact back then, it just might have curtailed all this obfuscation going on right now.

Bill Lafayette (probably Central Ohio's most quoted economist) laid it all right out there concerning how crucial consolidation of economic power is to his entire region (paragraph 7). However, Lafayette's professional observations about the region's economy were only the "short form" of a much larger study presented to the Columbus Chamber of Commerce. Why not obtain the "long form" of this document, even if it involves personal expense?

Regionomics | About

There are some obvious questions and problems with the conclusion that people are making.
State-level government jobs are not the only type of publicly-funded job. The article states clearly that all publicly-funded jobs in the Columbus metro, from local to federal, make up about 17% of the total jobs there. This is actually a number I have provided before in other threads on this topic. The link goes on to give the example of Cincinnati having about 12% publicly-funded jobs. So the total for both on private jobs would be 83% and 88%, respectively, not a massive difference, even if Columbus has the largest individual share of metro state-level government jobs (no surprise given it is a capital, and even then, it doesn't even hold the majority of state government jobs). If there was ever some kind of economic downturn that specifically targeted those types of jobs, it would not just affect Columbus, but also Cincinnati and any metro with any significant numbers of publicly-funded employment. The numbers don't support the assertion that it is particularly vulnerable, or particularly dependent, compared to other cities. Even if it was, you would have to depend on a series of very unlikely events to create a perfect storm against it. Basically, the link isn't the end-all, crushing argument you seem to think it is.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2016, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati (Norwood)
3,507 posts, read 3,958,908 times
Reputation: 1850
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
There are some obvious questions and problems with the conclusion that people are making... ...Basically, the link isn't the end-all, crushing argument you seem to think it is.
Your own reaction to this report comes as no surprise and it's understandable why you dismiss it so quickly.

The strength of the report? First, rather than being some outdated study from decades past, it's a major economic statement about metro Columbus made less than two years ago; next, rather than being compiled by sources elsewhere in Ohio with disgruntled agendas of their own, it emanates from within the environs of the Columbus Chamber of Commerce itself; and last, rather than being some gobbledygook treatise spinning all forms of mathematical legerdemain, best deciphered by economists or translators, it's a succinct, cogent presentation, readily understandable by the public at large or forum-members here.

The importance of the research? First, its reliability - it was compiled by central Ohio's chief economic consulting firm who tailored it specifically for the benefit of Columbus politicos and boardroom regulars, and its findings match those of the Columbus Dispatch, stemming from their own investigations of central Ohio's economy. Next - while it doesn't in any way belittle central Ohio's remarkable economic growth, it does categorically confirm how a significant fraction that growth was obtained and why it's so out of proportion.

As for myself, I was elated to discover this report from sources within the throne rooms of the capital city itself. No longer now need I grapple with the obfuscations of fanatical Cbus homers in challenge to their worst misconceptions. Instead, I can merely refer them, along with their magical thinking, to this particular report and maintain my own sanity.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top