Puget Sound Dominates State Job Growth (Seattle, Vancouver: 2015, home, universities)

[CrazyDonkey]

Job growth/Working Age Population (2011-2015):

Western Washington:

North I-5: 71% (58% pop.)
Southwest: 8% (9% pop.)
Olympic: 7% (12% pop.)
Total: 86% (79% pop.)

Eastern Washington:

Eastern: 6% (9% pop.)
South Central: 5% (9% pop.)
North Central: 3% (3% pop.)
Total: 14% (21% pop.)

http://opportunitywa.org/new-report-...m_medium=email

The state can realize 120,000, or nearly half, of the additional jobs needed to reach the top-five goal by raising economic performance in regions outside the North I-5 Corridor up to the state’s average growth rate. To do that, key challenges in five areas must be addressed: human capital, infrastructure, innovation ecosystem, trade and investment, and regulation.

http://www.waroundtable.com/wp-conte...otentialWA.pdf

Washington state experienced average annual job growth of 2.4 percent from 2011 to 2016, a rate well above the national growth rate of 1.9 percent. When looking at the data on a de-averaged basis, two regions stand out—the North I-5 Corridor and the Southwest Region, which came in at 2.8 and 2.7 percent average annual job growth respectively, with growth concentrated in those regions’ major metropolitan areas. Given their outsized impact on state job growth (the North I-5 Corridor is home to two-thirds of the state’s jobs), it is important that Washington continue to support growth in its high-performing regions. However, to bridge the urban-rural divide and realize our goal of diversified and inclusive statewide growth, job growth in the other regions must improve.

I'm not sure the "West-East Divide" can be bridged. I'm all for a broadband (fiber/wireless?) for all initiative, increased solar/wind energy/smart grid development, regional educational investments in STEM, high-speed cross-state passenger rail in the I-5 and I-90 corridors, equal access to health care, and redistribution of economic density/jobs outside of the Seattle Metro Area and the Central Puget Sound Region. None of these is likely to happen without Federal support, plus most eastern Washington residents will be opposed to each and every one of these proposals and will need to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages.

[PS90]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Job growth/Working Age Population (2011-2015):

Western Washington:

North I-5: 71% (58% pop.)
Southwest: 8% (9% pop.)
Olympic: 7% (12% pop.)
Total: 86% (79% pop.)

Eastern Washington:

Eastern: 6% (9% pop.)
South Central: 5% (9% pop.)
North Central: 3% (3% pop.)
Total: 14% (21% pop.)

http://opportunitywa.org/new-report-...m_medium=email



http://www.waroundtable.com/wp-conte...otentialWA.pdf



I'm not sure the "West-East Divide" can be bridged. I'm all for a broadband (fiber/wireless?) for all initiative, increased solar/wind energy/smart grid development, regional educational investments in STEM, high-speed cross-state passenger rail in the I-5 and I-90 corridors, equal access to health care, and redistribution of economic density/jobs outside of the Seattle Metro Area and the Central Puget Sound Region. None of these is likely to happen without Federal support, plus most eastern Washington residents will be opposed to each and every one of these proposals and will need to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages.

This is certainly not earth-shattering news.

I see you're trying to make a subtle jab at Eastern WA, but those numbers, and even your own title is "PUGET SOUND Dominates State Growth". It basically says that there are just as many people on the Olympic Peninsula, Lewis, Clark, and Gray's Harbor Counties, etc, who "will need to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages." Is your angst with Eastern WA, or just with everyone who doesn't live in the Puget Sound metroplex and doesn't support the state blindly tossing all it's money at Seattle?

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Job growth/Working Age Population (2011-2015):

Western Washington:

North I-5: 71% (58% pop.)
Southwest: 8% (9% pop.)
Olympic: 7% (12% pop.)
Total: 86% (79% pop.)

Eastern Washington:

Eastern: 6% (9% pop.)
South Central: 5% (9% pop.)
North Central: 3% (3% pop.)
Total: 14% (21% pop.)

http://opportunitywa.org/new-report-...m_medium=email

http://www.waroundtable.com/wp-conte...otentialWA.pdf

I'm not sure the "West-East Divide" can be bridged. I'm all for a broadband (fiber/wireless?) for all initiative, increased solar/wind energy/smart grid development, regional educational investments in STEM, high-speed cross-state passenger rail in the I-5 and I-90 corridors, equal access to health care, and redistribution of economic density/jobs outside of the Seattle Metro Area and the Central Puget Sound Region. None of these is likely to happen without Federal support, plus most eastern Washington residents will be opposed to each and every one of these proposals and will need to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages.

If rural areas would pay for their own infrastructure and not tap the Puget Sound area to pay for it, it wouldn't matter. We could use our own tax dollars to focus on our own metro and let them do as they wish. County rights?

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by PS90

This is certainly not earth-shattering news.

I see you're trying to make a subtle jab at Eastern WA, but those numbers, and even your own title is "PUGET SOUND Dominates State Growth". It basically says that there are just as many people on the Olympic Peninsula, Lewis, Clark, and Gray's Harbor Counties, etc, who "will need to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages." Is your angst with Eastern WA, or just with everyone who doesn't live in the Puget Sound metroplex and doesn't support the state blindly tossing all it's money at Seattle?

I'm for redistribution of growth and density across the state, which would mean investing revenues raised in the Puget Sound area elsewhere in the state. "Public investment", however, is a dirty phrase to Republicans these days.

The comment about "the state blindly tossing all its money at Seattle" is an Eastside myth - Seattle gets less back than it gives.

Population and economic growth is primarily along the I-5 corridor, from Bellingham to Vancouver, so yes, Grays Harbor and the Peninsula, in that they are economically stagnant, have a lot in common with eastern Washington. Politically they've been more Democratic than Republican, meaning they aren't "Do Nothings". Their young people go away to college, but then don't come back, because the opportunities are elsewhere.

[PS90]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

I'm for redistribution of growth and density across the state, which would mean investing revenues raised in the Puget Sound area elsewhere in the state. "Public investment", however, is a dirty phrase to Republicans these days.

The comment about "the state blindly tossing all its money at Seattle" is an Eastside myth - Seattle gets less back than it gives.

Population and economic growth is primarily along the I-5 corridor, from Bellingham to Vancouver, so yes, Grays Harbor and the Peninsula, in that they are economically stagnant, have a lot in common with eastern Washington. Politically they've been more Democratic than Republican, meaning they aren't "Do Nothings". Their young people go away to college, but then don't come back, because the opportunities are elsewhere.

Can you cite some actual data supporting this? This comment keeps coming up, but no one seems to have any data about it.

Admittedly, this WADOT report is 5 years old, and it's limited to transportation funding, but it basically says that it's all pretty even. And in some years, the Puget Sound area took more money it contributed:

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/defau...012Jan2013.pdf

And the rest of your post is just a bunch of ridiculous, unfounded generalizations. Unless you can also cite data that gauges the general laziness of democrats vs. republicans.

[PS90]

Originally Posted by Seacove

If rural areas would pay for their own infrastructure and not tap the Puget Sound area to pay for it, it wouldn't matter. We could use our own tax dollars to focus on our own metro and let them do as they wish. County rights?

I agree. There's no reason that wouldn't work. There are plenty of low-population states without major urban metropolises, such as Wyoming and Utah, that are economically sound.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by PS90

Can you cite some actual data supporting this? This comment keeps coming up, but no one seems to have any data about it.

Admittedly, this WADOT report is 5 years old, and it's limited to transportation funding, but it basically says that it's all pretty even. And in some years, the Puget Sound area took more money it contributed:

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/defau...012Jan2013.pdf

And the rest of your post is just a bunch of ridiculous, unfounded generalizations. Unless you can also cite data that gauges the general laziness of democrats vs. republicans.

You were the one claiming it was "the state blindly tossing all its money at Seattle". Now you're saying "it's all pretty even". What is it?

I'm going by this:

State analysis shows King County pays more in taxes than it gets | Politics Northwest | Seattle Times

For example, the analysis indicates Yakima County received $649 million in state expenditures in fiscal year 2011, but generated only $346 million in tax revenue. By comparison, King County received $3.4 billion in state general fund expenditures but generated $5.9 billion in tax revenue, according to the report prepared by the state Office of Financial Management.

King County received 23.38% of state expenditures, but paid 40.52% of state tax revenues.

If it is "the state blindly tossing all its money at Seattle", why is it that King County generated $2.5 billion more in tax revenues than it received back in state expenditures?

[PS90]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

You were the one claiming it was "the state blindly tossing all its money at Seattle". Now you're saying "it's all pretty even". What is it?

I'm going by this:

State analysis shows King County pays more in taxes than it gets | Politics Northwest | Seattle Times



King County received 23.38% of state expenditures, but paid 40.52% of state tax revenues.

If it is "the state blindly tossing all its money at Seattle", why is it that King County generated $2.5 billion more in tax revenues than it received back in state expenditures?

Well, first of all, your citation is a little fishy, considering that 3 of the 4 links on that page go to "Page Not Found", and the third link goes to research that has no indication whatsoever of who commissioned, funded, or actually carried out the study. Why would they have "conveniently" left that off of the link? There may or may not have been a conflict of interest, but we'll never know based on the data at hand...

And second of all, my original point was that you threw Eastern Washington under the bus, but yet most of Western Washington that is not in the Seattle Metro is in the same boat - which is evidenced in your original post and in your "data" cited here. I was simply asking if you just hate Eastern Washington, or if you hate every part of Washington that's not Seattle?

[CrazyDonkey]

The report was from the Washington Office of Financial Management - looks like they've moved or archived it.

The table in the article I posted is from the original report:



They've done similar reports for other years, with the same result. Here's one for Fiscal Year 2015:

https://www.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default...s_revenues.pdf

Note: Regardless of the allocation method used, King County is a very large net contributor to state revenues relative to state expenditures received.

See also:

King Co. pays for the rest of the state - is that fair? - seattlepi.com

In the 2007 fiscal year, King County contributed just over $6 billion to the state's tax coffers, according to the state. That year it received $3.5 billion from the general fund, for an expenses to revenue ratio of 0.59. The five counties which fared the worst in terms of getting tax money back compared to monies put in were: San Juan (0.41), King, Skagit (0.75), Jefferson (0.82) and Island (0.81).

Let's not forget that it is you who claimed it is "the state blindly tossing all its money at Seattle". I merely said it is an Eastside (e.g., Republican) myth, and presented data to back up that assertion. Where is your data that shows the reverse????

Note that I'm not opposed to the state subsidizing services in poor and rural counties and would like to see increased economic investment in counties outside the Puget Sound Region with stagnant economies, in order to redistribute economic and population growth. I'd like to see new four-year public universities in the Tri-Cities and Grays Harbor, for instance.

Republicans weren't always "Do Nothings" who were opposed to public investment - Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System.