Deceitful? Not Brownback! (Humor) (Topeka: 2014, unemployment rate, to buy)

[denverian]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

That's because using a moving companies numbers is um.....sub optimal to performing a decent analysis of the issue.

Think of your typical worker going to the ND boom. Male and generally younger. Not exactly the kind that hires movers.

The list I linked to has them at the top in population change.

Sorry to crash the bash KS party once again with facts.

Hey, remember the "KS harbors sex offenders" thread the OP started? Then it turned out we were like 25th out of 50 states. Or the KS is bad for work thread when we were like 18th in unemployment?

Ah, good memories.

Couldn't the ND boom be stifled by the low oil prices? Although that probably wouldn't be reflected much in last year's numbers.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

That's because using a moving companies numbers is um.....sub optimal to performing a decent analysis of the issue.

Think of your typical worker going to the ND boom. Male and generally younger. Not exactly the kind that hires movers.

The list I linked to has them at the top in population change.

Sorry to crash the bash KS party once again with facts.

Hey, remember the "KS harbors sex offenders" thread the OP started? Then it turned out we were like 25th out of 50 states. Or the KS is bad for work thread when we were like 18th in unemployment?

Ah, good memories.

Exactly right.

It's not only a moving company, but just one moving company. What it tracks and reflects is mainly patterns among corporate upper-middle class families with company paid moves. I'd guess that's a small fraction of migration in today's America.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by AnywhereElse

.... when it looks like the place where my son was had it going on and from what he described he seen it?

Nap time.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by denverian

Couldn't the ND boom be stifled by the low oil prices? Although that probably wouldn't be reflected much in last year's numbers.

Using a hired moving company as proof of outflow and thus discredit the unemployment rate.....is pure Dewey vs. Truman when you have actual population stats to cite.

Reference is to the statistical phone poll in the 1950s leading a newspaper to famously print the wrong headline regarding the outcome of the presidential election.

It's pretty much spot on to the methodology our impartial fellow poster *cough* used in their post to try to paint KS as a hell-hole.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by SyraBrian

Doesn't 31st out of 50 mean that Kansas is in the bottom 40 percentile?

Yes.

So let me learn ya somethin since I do mathmaticating for a livin.

You would need to go back and actually view the chart to see if the population growth rate is a steep or shallow curve in order to ascertain if it really has a material impact on the unemployment rate.

That's the gist of the whole argument, that KS is really doing "crappy" because everyone leaves and it makes the unemployment numbers look better.

So, what did you find? (Not grading on the curve fyi. )

[AnywhereElse]

The one thing that I appreciate about Mathguy's posts would be that he fully demonstrates what I am talking about in his attitude. Yes, he is pretty much a standard. Let's not talk about the problems and then we don't have any. Just discourage anyone from pointing out issues. Classic Kansas!

Second town now where I see homes permanently emptying out. The older people are departing for their just rewards and the younger leaving for jobs, culture and the ability to have a decent wage and not be consumed by taxes. Local taxes are unreal and continue to get worse as fewer share the burden.

Who was it that played the fiddle while Rome burned? Nero? I think that was supposed to be the scenario. That just popped into my head.

Are jobs of substance being created? All I see is production at $8.00 an hour, retail, working with the disabled and elderly (about to take a BIG cut per Brownback's experiment) and fast food. And, how many people leave the work force to retire here: http://www.aoa.acl.gov/AoA_Programs/...cs2/Kansas.pdf A lot. When we go to the grocery store, nearly everyone we see is probably over 60. We do see younger people after the WIC coupons come out and the Vision card gets a boost at the first of the month.

There is big city metro Kansas, the richer college town areas and then there is the real Kansas that is struggling to survive.

[Mattks]

He wasn't ignoring the problem, he cited a better link and proved Kansas is not worst, in fact about 20 states are worst then Kansas on this regard.

The problem with rural exodus isn't just in Kansas, it's a rural problem nearly everywhere and it's existed for decades. You can't pretend this is all on Brownback, I didn't vote for him and I don't think he goes good either, but you can't blame him for every problem the state has. Missouri grew at almost half the rate of Kansas. The old small agricultural towns are becoming obsolete and no longer have the purpose they once did. When countries become more developed they become more urbanized, that's just how it works. I've worked all over the state, Norton, Concordia, Agra, Larned, Hays, and all over eastern Kansas, you're absolutely right, small towns are dying, but I honestly think when the economy is doing great those towns will still be dying, it's just a matter of time.

[Mathguy]

I'm no fan of Brownback and I'm on the record citing how even if his plans were sound, that they are too rapid in terms of implementation. I've never voted for him and never will.

Trying to paint me as the biased individual is rich indeed especially with your track record including the sex offender thread and various unemployment threads that were horrible attack jobs that wound up with me correcting the erroneous claims.

The one thing I cannot abide is math abuse. If the posters here had any sort of ability to craft a valid argument then I wouldn't have to come in with my big red pen and correct all of the analytical errors.

So, if the posters here could get their act together and actually make a valid point by all means please do so.

As it stands the recipe is that you guys post garbage, I point out with back-up sourcing why your conclusions were junk and then you complain that I'm biased.

lol.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by Mattks

He wasn't ignoring the problem, he cited a better link and proved Kansas is not worst, in fact about 20 states are worst then Kansas on this regard.

The problem with rural exodus isn't just in Kansas, it's a rural problem nearly everywhere and it's existed for decades. You can't pretend this is all on Brownback, I didn't vote for him and I don't think he goes good either, but you can't blame him for every problem the state has. Missouri grew at almost half the rate of Kansas. The old small agricultural towns are becoming obsolete and no longer have the purpose they once did. When countries become more developed they become more urbanized, that's just how it works. I've worked all over the state, Norton, Concordia, Agra, Larned, Hays, and all over eastern Kansas, you're absolutely right, small towns are dying, but I honestly think when the economy is doing great those towns will still be dying, it's just a matter of time.

So who's doing all the farming? Does it just take fewer people today than it did 50 years ago?

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by denverian

So who's doing all the farming? Does it just take fewer people today than it did 50 years ago?

Yes. You nailed it on the head.

Graph #4 is dated but will make the point regardless.
Structural and Financial Characteristics of U.S. Farms: 2001 Family Farm Report. Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 768 May01

Anytime an "industry" hits a rough patch there is natural consolidation. Remember "Farm Aid" in the 80's etc?

In short, economies of scale forced out most small farmers. My father grew up on a farm of 80 acres.....but today the guys where I grew up typically farm well over 1000 acres.

Keep in mind that graph is misleading because that doesn't account for land rental.

Meaning that Bob has 500 acres of his own but he also rents 1,000 acres from his retired neighbor Tim....and is thus farming 1500 acres.

So average acres farmed per farmer is wayyyyy up over where it was 30-40 years ago.