Idaho's Economy (Boise: house, colleges, income)

[Torrie]

Thought some of you might find this article interesting. I think it sums up what some of the forum members have been saying;

"Idaho Chief Economist Mike Ferguson said one reason per capita income has not risen in Idaho is because many of the people relocating to the state are willing to work for less in order to enjoy the state's many amenities."

Idaho's economy expands, but income doesn't keep up | Business | Idaho Statesman (http://www.idahostatesman.com/business/story/334494.html - broken link)

[Anchorless]

I don't mind that article as much because they present some statistics without as much analysis, one way or another ("this is great because" or "this is bad because").

It does well in contextualizing why Idaho has above average population and economic growth, but that income growth still lags behind. And this is an important detail that I think is all too often left unsaid in some of these other articles (that I call "fluff" articles).

Personally I'd like to see our wages stay low. It creates a disincentive for coming here. It allows Boise and/or Idaho to remain affordable. Both of these in turn allow us to continue to be able to enjoy the many great qualities of our state, as well as still attract those that are willing to get paid less to enjoy a higher quality of life.

I just don't see a high quality of life that comes with large populations, dense traffic, and expensive homes and cost of living, no matter what recreational opportunities await. California was once (and probably still is) a recreational mecca, but who can afford to live there, and who wants to put up with all the nonsense? I don't want Idaho becoming that.

[cleosmom]

Originally Posted by Anchorless

I just don't see a high quality of life that comes with large populations, dense traffic, and expensive homes and cost of living, no matter what recreational opportunities await. California was once (and probably still is) a recreational mecca, but who can afford to live there, and who wants to put up with all the nonsense? I don't want Idaho becoming that.

Ditto!! I couldn't agree more.

[Sandpointian]

Anchorless, you offer an important POV. Are we better off with lower wages?

I have thought about the same question for a number of years. I have always had trouble keeping to one mind on the matter. Recently I have come to realize that that is so because my life's experience has evolved through several stages

When very young, one wants their parents to live a slow, predictable and free life to share with the children. This would suggest a "tradtional" unionized economy, with a 40 hour work week and without the hustle bustle.

When a teenager, a faster paced economy is cool/hip. Rural kids are often intrigued about city life. Kids do not want to feel that they are not where they "should be" regardless of how ridiculous and anonymous that standard is. All the while, kids love their nature and growing up in a beautiful area take it for granted.

When a young adult, one wants the opportunity to earn a good income, build a career, and meet other young singles. Fast paced life tends to support these wants.

As young adult turns into 30-something and the more in the demographic get married, folks start turning to wanting the conditions to build a family. This means continued career development and income growth, affordable housing or housing that will appreciate, access to other jobs, young couples activities that are of good value and easily accessible. Nature forays are welcomed.

As one reaches the maturing adult (40s), it is about continued job advancement or new opportunities to pay for colleges and fund retirement, access to information and opportunities for the kids, and adding on to home or upgrading to a nicer home to make it more comfortable for a house of adults. Slow paced community is great (provided the income is solid). Nature and slowing down is great.

I stop here, as I am in my 40s. When I look back, it was not about always wanting slow or always wanting fast, but the needs of my demographic.

One thing, however, is different today: the internet. I no longer need to be cut off from major income opportunities by living in town without much modern business formation. This represents an amazing shift in paradigm. Still, young people will still want to and benefit from the exchanmge of info from a faster paced scene. The difference is really for younger kids (whose flex time internet parents can spend a lot of time with them) and married couples and beyond, who have so many more options to avoid the grind of city life.

For me personally, on net, I would rather live in a community of successful entrepreneurs, and where services, even if pricey are always considered good value (i.e. high quality). At the same time, in lieu of that utopian society, I would prefer extremely smart growth, pikcing committed employers and an economy that enables everyone to live a very good life, if not great. I am not too fixated on the level of the wage, just what that wage buys me in terms of service.

So unless our governments and citizenry are extremely prescient and successful, I would go with you and throw in my lot with lower wages. As you suggest, it disincentivizes that nasty conmbo of greed and raping of the land that we have seen too often.

But...once we opt for growth, we need only look at the last few years to realize that uncontrolled growth is not the way to go.