~Southern New England Demographic Update 2016 (2015) ~ (Boston, Worcester: apartment, hotels, home)

[bolehboleh]

And this just came out:

The Massachusetts miracle: rich and thriving - The Boston Globe

Massachusetts is growing at a pretty good rate.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by bolehboleh

And this just came out:

The Massachusetts miracle: rich and thriving - The Boston Globe

Massachusetts is growing at a pretty good rate.

Such a reliable, unbiased source too.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by massnative71

And they should. A lot more people should be calling, make them accountable to their voters.


The level of taxation in MA is far too high considering the quality of the roads and everything else. Like other posters noted, taxpayers would be much less jaded if they could actually see good coming from the money spent.

The problem is that half the state budget transfers money to poor people. About 25% of the budget is Medicaid. The failed cities get huge piles of money to prop up those school systems. It's not like New Hampshire where there are no cities. With the sketchy 30% of Boston, Chelsea, Springfield, Holyoke, Worcester, New Bedford, Fall River, Brockton, and Lawrence all on life support, there is little left to spend on badly needed infrastructure. This problem is hardly unique to Massachusetts. It repeats in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and down the Northeast Corridor and in the rust belt. At least Massachusetts has the vibrant I-495 belt to prop it all up. Try looking at the math in Ohio or Illinois.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

The problem is that half the state budget transfers money to poor people. About 25% of the budget is Medicaid. The failed cities get huge piles of money to prop up those school systems. It's not like New Hampshire where there are no cities. With the sketchy 30% of Boston, Chelsea, Springfield, Holyoke, Worcester, New Bedford, Fall River, Brockton, and Lawrence all on life support, there is little left to spend on badly needed infrastructure. This problem is hardly unique to Massachusetts. It repeats in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and down the Northeast Corridor and in the rust belt. At least Massachusetts has the vibrant I-495 belt to prop it all up. Try looking at the math in Ohio or Illinois.

What doesn't make sense is that states with higher poverty rates find the money to pay for those things, or at least do a better job with it.


The individual welfare payouts in MA are among the highest, even adjusted for COL. Bad behavior gets rewarded, and those that are productive and play by the rules get shafted.

[civis]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

The problem is that half the state budget transfers money to poor people. About 25% of the budget is Medicaid. The failed cities get huge piles of money to prop up those school systems. It's not like New Hampshire where there are no cities. With the sketchy 30% of Boston, Chelsea, Springfield, Holyoke, Worcester, New Bedford, Fall River, Brockton, and Lawrence all on life support, there is little left to spend on badly needed infrastructure. This problem is hardly unique to Massachusetts. It repeats in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and down the Northeast Corridor and in the rust belt. At least Massachusetts has the vibrant I-495 belt to prop it all up. Try looking at the math in Ohio or Illinois.

No, the problem is that the state has kept those people to stay poor, and then there's no choice as to keep supporting them, unless you want see your violence and drug usage rate skyrocket.

This country needs to realize that current school and police financing model based mostly on local prop taxes is non functional, it creates and supports poverty, since poor towns doomed to be poor, as they don't collect enough money from prop taxes. Core services like education, police, infrastructure need to be centrally funded.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by civis

No, the problem is that the state has kept those people to stay poor, and then there's no choice as to keep supporting them, unless you want see your violence and drug usage rate skyrocket.

Just how has the state "kept" people poor?


You do realize that many of them aren't even from Mass. right? They willingly moved in, and are free to leave whenever they choose. Unless you are talking about those incarcerated, otherwise that would be considered slavery which was outlawed almost 200 years ago.

[Dm84]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Just how has the state "kept" people poor?


You do realize that many of them aren't even from Mass. right? They willingly moved in, and are free to leave whenever they choose. Unless you are talking about those incarcerated, otherwise that would be considered slavery which was outlawed almost 200 years ago.

The point is for many of these people work would effectively net them less money than welfare. It becomes hard to get people off welfare and it becomes a way of life instead of a temporary bump in the road.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Madsachusetts' Urban poor would be greatly helped if density were more evenly spread through the region. It would lessen inequality but evening out property values and taking the concentration of apartments, projects and tenement off of our cities. Most of it cities are not Boston and will continue to decline whether we want to admit it or not. The only city not within 10 miles of Boston to truly turn around and come up is Lowell. The rest have up and down years but overall theystruggle mightily.

[Dm84]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Madsachusetts' Urban poor would be greatly helped if density were more evenly spread through the region. It would lessen inequality but evening out property values and taking the concentration of apartments, projects and tenement off of our cities. Most of it cities are not Boston and will continue to decline whether we want to admit it or not. The only city not within 10 miles of Boston to truly turn around and come up is Lowell. The rest have up and down years but overall theystruggle mightily.

It wouldn't help at all because without mass transit (which most of the state doesn't have in a meaningful way) they'd be trapped in isolated 40b ghettos. Oh wait, we already tried that...

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Dm84

The point is for many of these people work would effectively net them less money than welfare. It becomes hard to get people off welfare and it becomes a way of life instead of a temporary bump in the road.

And that's the state's fault for making welfare pay more than work. Here in Maine they offer full child care subsidies as an incentive to get people into the workforce.