U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-11-2016, 10:00 AM
 
189 posts, read 70,645 times
Reputation: 423

Advertisements

Just to clarify and break up the confusion: The University of Kansas Hospital broke away some time ago from the University of Kansas. The University of Kansas Hospital is a hospital on it's own merits similar to Saint Lukes or other healthcare systems. This isn't Kansas University advertising or sponsoring Royals Baseball.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2016, 10:23 AM
 
172 posts, read 98,680 times
Reputation: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
I'd urge people to look at the article I posted in post #25.

It really details the national issue and I agree that poaching is not a good thing with the states getting played against one another.

However, the article doesn't walk in with any us vs. them bias and just lays out the facts pretty impartially.

That's been the only reason that we have arguments about the topic, heck look at the initial premise of the thread? It basically makes it sound like it's a one-sided affair when in reality the states are all after $$$ from each other and in many more ways than just corporate tax incentives.
Agree 100%. The article exposes, in a factual way, how toxic it is for any state (KS, MO, NC, SC...) to poach jobs from other states, especially when it involves border cities like KC. Inter-state poaching drives huge costs that provide relatively tiny benefits, and it's not just KS/MO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 11:14 AM
 
9,360 posts, read 8,749,848 times
Reputation: 14421
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
If YOU'D been on this section of the forum for any time at all you would have realized that the feeling is pretty darn mutual. Both sides do it consistently.
I would tend to agree with you except for the fact that it is very unbalanced. . . the MO side is still living in the mindset of the Hatfields and the McCoys.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 11:37 AM
 
172 posts, read 98,680 times
Reputation: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
I'd urge people to look at the article I posted in post #25.

It really details the national issue and I agree that poaching is not a good thing with the states getting played against one another.

However, the article doesn't walk in with any us vs. them bias and just lays out the facts pretty impartially.

That's been the only reason that we have arguments about the topic, heck look at the initial premise of the thread? It basically makes it sound like it's a one-sided affair when in reality the states are all after $$$ from each other and in many more ways than just corporate tax incentives.
The solutions laid out in the article are reasonable. Don't call poached jobs "new job creation." Stop recruiting interstate jobs. Get the federal government involved.

If anything, forum frequenters should at least read the section about KC, which is only 2-3 pages long. It shines the light on both sides of KC, and both KS and MO are guilty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 12:17 PM
 
1,298 posts, read 985,135 times
Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC_Sleuth View Post
In regards to the poaching, I don't see it as disastrous because for the most part, the people follow the jobs as long as they stay in the metro. Nobody is directly being put out of work if a corporate office moves from the core to Leawood/OP or vice-versa. Sure, the tax revenue destination changes...the city E-tax base may change a bit for the workers already living in Kansas, but there have been a bunch of companies moving the other way as well. I would bet that most of it is wasted effort...I would think it's mostly been a wash up until this point, and probably should stop.
I'm sorry, but this is a very short-sighted point of view. There are direct and dire consequence to the poaching:

1. Kansas taxpayers are making huge investments in attracting businesses which will pay almost no taxes back for years and years, if ever.

2. Out-of-work Kansans do not benefit because, as you said, the moves generally do not result in new hires.

3. The moves also tend not to result in relocations from Missouri to Kansas, just different commutes. So Kansas cannot expect to grow in population as a result.

4. However, there are at least some instances of workers whose commutes become intolerable as a result of relocation. If you accept a job in downtown Kansas City, you may buy a house in Liberty, because you think a 20-minute commute is just fine. But if your job then moves to Corporate Woods, Village West or (God forbid) Edgerton, you're screwed.

5. Missouri is left with vacant office space, and lost tax revenue (both e-tax and business taxes), not to mention the collateral economic revenue of having businesses operate (nearby restaurants and services)

These are primary consequences I see of poaching. It's absolutely wrong and narrow-minded to suggest that it's a "victimless crime".

Lastly, you're correct that it's gone the other way as well, but only because Missouri eventually had to start hitting back. They had no idea whether Kansas was going to run out of money before doing massive damage to KCMO's tax base.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 12:20 PM
 
48,966 posts, read 39,428,364 times
Reputation: 30617
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycrite View Post
The solutions laid out in the article are reasonable. Don't call poached jobs "new job creation." Stop recruiting interstate jobs. Get the federal government involved.

If anything, forum frequenters should at least read the section about KC, which is only 2-3 pages long. It shines the light on both sides of KC, and both KS and MO are guilty.
Yep. Pages 21-23.

I think if you consider the big picture the worst damage isn't from the companies that move for incentives....it's the companies that use the threat of moving to STAY and get huge incentives like Cerner (and many KS companies) has done.

Also, I find it a little weird that the OP is trying to tie this somehow to Brownback coming to power. PEAK went into effect October 2006...Brownback came to office January 2011.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 12:22 PM
 
1,298 posts, read 985,135 times
Reputation: 658
There is absolutely no support for claiming that both sides are equally guilty. Missouri did strike back, yes. But they brought a knife to a gun fight. Anecdotally, anyone can make it look like tit-for-tat, but if you add up the numbers, it's clear that Kansas not only completely overwhelmed Missouri in the poaching game, they looked like they were trying to make the Guinness Book in the process.*

*In terms of incentives paid per employee moved. There have been some humongous poaching deals in other states, but they're for companies like Nissan, Sears Roebuck and Citigroup. Not stinking Applebees or Freightquote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 12:44 PM
 
48,966 posts, read 39,428,364 times
Reputation: 30617
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
There is absolutely no support for claiming that both sides are equally guilty. Missouri did strike back, yes. But they brought a knife to a gun fight. Anecdotally, anyone can make it look like tit-for-tat, but if you add up the numbers, it's clear that Kansas not only completely overwhelmed Missouri in the poaching game, they looked like they were trying to make the Guinness Book in the process.
The MO law that is most used was actually passed before PEAK. Might be more of a one person drew their gun slower....or more likely couldn't get their own state gov. to support their attempts because the money was going to the St. Louis area.

Also, to be clear we are only talking about the last 10 years or so....but the two states signed an anti-poaching accord years before that must have been prompted by *something*?

It also might have been easier to attract businesses due to a host of other factors. All else being equal, getting out from the 1% wage tax would generally make it easier for KS to poach given they both had equal initiative.

On top of that, as previously noted there are other ways to try to boost a state economically at the expense of another. Low taxes on consumer goods, gas etc. is a form of poaching as is heavy investment in tourism etc.

It's a pretty complicated topic.

If you want to talk poaching and how MO is the innocent victim then here's an article that might help you.

All Smiles in Branson! | How Money Walks | How $2 Trillion Moved between the States - A Book By Travis H. Brown

One big fat regional poach over the last 30+ years via massive state incentives and investment with this recent addition....

Quote:
The cityís status as a heaven for retirement has been aided by the 2012 repeal of the Missouri state income tax on social security and other pensions. As a result, retirees now make up over 20% of Bransonís residents.
If you want, let's agree that KS was quicker to the draw on corporate poaching while MO was occupied with poaching in other areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 07:24 AM
 
1,298 posts, read 985,135 times
Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
The MO law that is most used was actually passed before PEAK. Might be more of a one person drew their gun slower....or more likely couldn't get their own state gov. to support their attempts because the money was going to the St. Louis area.

Also, to be clear we are only talking about the last 10 years or so....but the two states signed an anti-poaching accord years before that must have been prompted by *something*?

It also might have been easier to attract businesses due to a host of other factors. All else being equal, getting out from the 1% wage tax would generally make it easier for KS to poach given they both had equal initiative.

On top of that, as previously noted there are other ways to try to boost a state economically at the expense of another. Low taxes on consumer goods, gas etc. is a form of poaching as is heavy investment in tourism etc.

It's a pretty complicated topic.

If you want to talk poaching and how MO is the innocent victim then here's an article that might help you.

All Smiles in Branson! | How Money Walks | How $2 Trillion Moved between the States - A Book By Travis H. Brown

One big fat regional poach over the last 30+ years via massive state incentives and investment with this recent addition....

If you want, let's agree that KS was quicker to the draw on corporate poaching while MO was occupied with poaching in other areas.
Look, I'm not necessarily going to defend any of these corporate relocation subsidies. But it's an entirely different conversation when you're talking about rewarding companies for moving across the state line within the same metro area. There is virtually no net employment or population gain for the "winning" state. And Missouri did not really do this at all, until they felt the need to defend themselves from Kansas.

But what makes Kansas the guilty party in my mind, is that for some reason they decided to award subsidies so absurdly huge that there was no possible way they could economically recoup their investments. It was pure hubris on the part of Kansas leaders, to be able to take credit for "creating jobs". The only winners were the corporations receiving subsidies, and the losers were the taxpayers whose school budgets got slashed shortly thereafter, in order to pay for all these subsidies and, of course, Brownback's ridiculous tax cuts. This is a running theme in Kansas: taxpayers must lose so that businesses can win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2016, 09:48 AM
 
48,966 posts, read 39,428,364 times
Reputation: 30617
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
Look, I'm not necessarily going to defend any of these corporate relocation subsidies. But it's an entirely different conversation when you're talking about rewarding companies for moving across the state line within the same metro area. There is virtually no net employment or population gain for the "winning" state. And Missouri did not really do this at all, until they felt the need to defend themselves from Kansas.

But what makes Kansas the guilty party in my mind, is that for some reason they decided to award subsidies so absurdly huge that there was no possible way they could economically recoup their investments. It was pure hubris on the part of Kansas leaders, to be able to take credit for "creating jobs". The only winners were the corporations receiving subsidies, and the losers were the taxpayers whose school budgets got slashed shortly thereafter, in order to pay for all these subsidies and, of course, Brownback's ridiculous tax cuts. This is a running theme in Kansas: taxpayers must lose so that businesses can win.
Hey, I think we are all on the same page about these subsidies being a bad thing whether the companies get them to stay or to move.

I think you're mixing and mashing different topics together. KS started doing this under Sebelius and it continued with Brownback.

The budget cuts came much later and were a result of Brownbacks tax actions which are a separate bad thing. To say that the PEAK program caused the budget cuts doesn't logically flow.

P.S. Speaking of poaching with obscene incentives....you aren't a Rams fan by any chance?
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > Missouri > Kansas City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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