[VT'ah]

Originally Posted by sheena12

NC has no appeal to me

Vermont has art, culture and natural beauty that I find irresistible.

I didn't want to get on the anti-NC bandwagon but having lived here for the past 2 years I can honestly say that I don't like it here either...people are all about themselves...and there is no culture...it is a cultural malaise with all the NY, NJ, and OH people moving here in droves with their bad habits...the population doubles every 10 years and traffic conditions are horrid.

I love Vermont. I don't like the cold winters but the summers are magical to me. Unfortunately, my idea of working at Dartmouth College making a mediocre salary while the doctors and professors live in their huge houses with views in Norwich and Quechee just wasn't all that appealing to me anymore...especially with my degree's I can make a great living outside of NH/VT. I found a happy medium when I moved to central MA, and was able to escape home on the weekends...I could easily make the move home, but honestly only think about having a car covered in rock salt and dirt for 4 months a year isn't all the appealing...If I moved, I see myself looking at the weather channel in March and seeing 70 degree sunny NC days while it was 40 and cloudy in New England.

[BS Walks]

Originally Posted by RecentlyMoved

For the second year in a row, Oregon is America's No.1 moving destination -- Fusion

I thought Green Mountain citizens would like to see this...

Even thought it's a net gain of only 325, per capita, it earns VT a spot on the top 5 move to destinations. Congrats Although I don't know if all Vermonters would be happy about this

I believe that this one measure isolated in its current context needs a much more in-depth analysis. To say this is good news may or may not be true. I'm not going to do that analysis on this forum, but I will raise some questions as to if this particular number should be met with cheers.

I'd want to see how this rate is measured against overall movement rates. If most people are staying put, then this particular number would carry less weight. Also, why are people moving to given states? Are the reason people are moving to Oregon the same reasons that are inspiring people to move to Vermont? Are people leaving NY because of negative factors that are not present in Vermont or because of negative factors not present in Virginia? Are they moving to Texas for the same reasons that others are moving to SC? This requires much more in-depth investigation than is provided with these simple numbers.

I'd also want to see who is moving to VT and why they are moving to VT. Given that Vermont is #1 in the country for the number of people on public assistance, I think that puts a few things into question. Are they moving to Vermont to get public assistance or to work? Someone on this forum mentioned that "most" people in Vermont are working. Indeed, the rate being discussed is around 4 percent and change, which seems low. But of course these rates---as well as national rates often touted as measures to economic health--- do not account for people who have dropped out of the workforce. I would argue that they also do not account for all the people on public assistance.

I think that ambiguous indices such as this are overvalued and misleading. I'm sorry to pee in your cheerios, but Vermont has highest rate of people on government assistance, one of the highest rates of drug addiction, and a high suicide rate--- all hardly worth celebrating.

[cgregor]

BS Walks-- according to cns news D.C. Ranks in Top 10 for Households Receiving Public Assistance in 2012 | CNS News, Vermont is not #1, but #3.

Adjusted for average household size, the number of households on public assistance in the top three states are: Alaska, #1: 21,091 households; Maine, #2: 690,560 households; and Vermont, #3: 7,199.

Public assistance is generally a good thing: A friend of mine who lost her health insurance when she became too sick to work spent three years and her life savings trying to get treatment. She would have died before resolving it if she hadn't had assistance. When Wall Street sucked the machine tool industry out of Springfield in the 80's, it was the money from unemployment benefits that kept the local retailers open for another year and more when 3,000 wage earners lost their jobs. And thanks to the cushion it provides, any number of people around here were and still are able to get a better-paying line of work rather than simply being forced to take the first job that comes along. There is also the crowd that needs medical support-- like the 25-year-old CP victim who needed an electric wheelchair and a personal health care aide on a regular basis.

The people I've known who I think have abused the system have mostly had pretty horrendous mental health or severe substance abuse issues-- and they've been a minority. I just don't know how large a minority that happens to be in this state.

[OhBeeHave]

Originally Posted by RecentlyMoved

My pleasure. If I could offer anyone a piece of advice on making such a drastic move, I would highly recommend renting long term first - like maybe a month or 2 to see what it's really like day to day. This may not paint the whole picture, but it would give you more insight than a visit for 1 week.

Renting first is certainly the way to go. My family did that before they made the move. It allowed them time to find the right community and then some land to build on. They're happy and that's what counts.

[BS Walks]

Originally Posted by cgregor

BS Walks-- according to cns news D.C. Ranks in Top 10 for Households Receiving Public Assistance in 2012 | CNS News, Vermont is not #1, but #3.

Adjusted for average household size, the number of households on public assistance in the top three states are: Alaska, #1: 21,091 households; Maine, #2: 690,560 households; and Vermont, #3: 7,199.

Public assistance is generally a good thing: A friend of mine who lost her health insurance when she became too sick to work spent three years and her life savings trying to get treatment. She would have died before resolving it if she hadn't had assistance. When Wall Street sucked the machine tool industry out of Springfield in the 80's, it was the money from unemployment benefits that kept the local retailers open for another year and more when 3,000 wage earners lost their jobs. And thanks to the cushion it provides, any number of people around here were and still are able to get a better-paying line of work rather than simply being forced to take the first job that comes along. There is also the crowd that needs medical support-- like the 25-year-old CP victim who needed an electric wheelchair and a personal health care aide on a regular basis.

The people I've known who I think have abused the system have mostly had pretty horrendous mental health or severe substance abuse issues-- and they've been a minority. I just don't know how large a minority that happens to be in this state.

I never argued against having any welfare programs or assistance for the truly disabled or elderly. And while I support safety nets that are short term, efficiently run and based on need, why should taxpayers subsidize your "leisurely" job search? I also disagree with your assertion that "public assistance is a good thing." Yeah, it's good to have it available, but no sane economist would argue that having lots of people using it is a measure of good economic health or a well-managed state. DC, by the way, is a city not a state.

Welfare rates vary slightly according to year and which source you look at (another source is below) but the point remains the same. Vermont is well up on the scale, along with its high drug addiction rate and high suicide rate. I stand by my position that the referenced article about migration to Vermont requires a more in depth look. Not only are people not flocking to the state, but those moving there are not necessarily going there because it's some wonderful paradise. The motives for such movement are unknown and the index is ambiguous.


http://www.politisite.com/2011/06/13...and-the-least/

[cgregor]

Ah! Politisite AND the Center for Immigration Studies. Now I understand. . .

[OhBeeHave]

Originally Posted by BS Walks

I never argued against having any welfare programs or assistance for the truly disabled or elderly. And while I support safety nets that are short term, efficiently run and based on need, why should taxpayers subsidize your "leisurely" job search? I also disagree with your assertion that "public assistance is a good thing." Yeah, it's good to have it available, but no sane economist would argue that having lots of people using it is a measure of good economic health or a well-managed state. DC, by the way, is a city not a state.

Welfare rates vary slightly according to year and which source you look at (another source is below) but the point remains the same. Vermont is well up on the scale, along with its high drug addiction rate and high suicide rate. I stand by my position that the referenced article about migration to Vermont requires a more in depth look. Not only are people not flocking to the state, but those moving there are not necessarily going there because it's some wonderful paradise. The motives for such movement are unknown and the index is ambiguous.


http://www.politisite.com/2011/06/13...and-the-least/

And a more recent link (May 2014)

https://www.aei.org/publication/stud...fare-programs/

[OhBeeHave]

Yes, benefits could very well be the reason for the net in-migration.

On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States - Forbes

Vermont increased welfare payments by the largest amount

The biggest jump in welfare payments between 1995 and 2013 was enjoyed by Vermont, where annual pre-tax-equivalent benefits jumped from $31,580 to $42,350 in 2013 dollars: an increase of $10,770. Other big gainers were D.C. ($6,850), Hawaii ($5,589), New Hampshire ($5,299), and Oregon ($5,288).

It's only (approx) $1,300 less per year than NY & NJ; housing is less, schools are better than city schools, and the environment much healthier. Yes, I can see the draw.

[cgregor]

Aaaand, data from the American Enterprise Institute! Aaaand, a quote from Forbes!

It's interesting that they don't use actual sums, but "pre-tax equivalent" numbers which of course inflate the actual figures.

I consider both of them to be written to irritate rather than inform their readers about the operation of the social safety net.

However, as America is a land of generous and charitable people, we will not elect to Congress anybody who would starve children in the name of personal responsibility. Except for that WIC program that got cut almost $1 billion last month...

[OhBeeHave]

Seeing as welfare is untaxed, unlike a paycheck, one of the two figures needs to be adjusted so apples could be compared to apples.

Given that a paycheck can vary from employee to employee depending upon the number of dependents each one has on their W-4, it makes the most sense to use gross as opposed to net figures which may vary.

In Cato’s new 2013 study, welfare paid more than $10 an hour in 33 states; 17 paid less than $8 an hour. Comparing the two data sets and accounting for inflation, 18 states saw a decline in the total value of welfare benefits; 32 states and the District of Columbia saw increases.


Tanner and Hughes award the national welfare championship to Hawaii, which offers $60,590 in annual welfare benefits, once you account for the fact that welfare benefits are tax-free to the recipient, compared to work-related wages. That’s the equivalent of $29.13 an hour. Rounding out the top five were D.C. ($50,820 per year and $24.43 an hour), Massachusetts ($50,540 and $24.30), Connecticut ($44,370 and $21.33), and New York ($43,700 and $21.01).

Although I lean a little toward the right, this article did not irritate nor inflame; I found it to be rather informational with regard to social safety nets and their cost to all taxpayers -- including the low wage employees.