Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-13-2013, 12:14 AM
Status: "I'm turquoise happy!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
23,860 posts, read 32,125,181 times
Reputation: 67698

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
I personally don't think quality of life equates with business friendliness though, which is the biggest flaw of the list.

Business friendliness in terms of low taxes and cost of living means nothing if you're having trouble attracting talent or business itself due to the low wages or the poor infrastructure.

See Mississippi on one end of the spectrum, and a state like New York on the other. Although New York isn't as business friendly, NYC is still the economic capital of the country due to all of the amenities it offers. Meanwhile, while Mississippi is extremely business friendly, it's one of the poorest states in the union economically because of its poor infrastructure.

"Business Friendly" in code for "Right to Work". Union busting states love that term.

It generally translates into low wages for middle and working class people.

Not exactly democracy in action.

MS is a poor and repressed state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-13-2013, 12:44 AM
 
Location: Battle Creek, MI
494 posts, read 800,011 times
Reputation: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
"Business Friendly" in code for "Right to Work". Union busting states love that term.

It generally translates into low wages for middle and working class people.

Not exactly democracy in action.

MS is a poor and repressed state.

Oh really? See how it was working out for people in Michigan BEFORE Right to Work. Try again..

Lastly.. Right to work does not BAN Unions as most of you people love to suggest. In states like this all it means is that if a Union wants you to join them they have to WORK FOR YOU and thus the worker. Why is that so wrong? If they do good by their workers Unions can and will thrive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 05:04 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
29,749 posts, read 18,615,199 times
Reputation: 25750
If more people agreed, there would be tons of people in N. Dakota, Maine, Hawaii, Minnesota, Vermont...but those are all low population states. I woldn't want to live in any of them except Hawaii due to climate. Hawaii is superexpensive and life is limited by the small islands so wouldn't want to live ther for very long either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,993 posts, read 10,124,065 times
Reputation: 4401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler View Post
If more people agreed, there would be tons of people in N. Dakota, Maine, Hawaii, Minnesota, Vermont...but those are all low population states. I woldn't want to live in any of them except Hawaii due to climate. Hawaii is superexpensive and life is limited by the small islands so wouldn't want to live ther for very long either.
Great analysis! If more people agreed with you the country would continue its tailspin in crime, healthcare, and education -- things that the best QOL states all fare very well in. Also, places like California, Texas and Florida would be the best places to live in the country because they are the most populated. Similarly, India, China and Pakistan are supposedly the best countries to live in the world because they are the most populous.

P.S. Minnesota has about 5.5 million people, which is what the population of Washington state was 15 years ago. Did you think Washington had a low population and low popularity then?

Last edited by Min-Chi-Cbus; 07-13-2013 at 09:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 09:43 AM
 
7,237 posts, read 12,685,101 times
Reputation: 5657
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryBTL View Post
Oh really? See how it was working out for people in Michigan BEFORE Right to Work.
Michigan's problem is that it was a one-industry state (Automotive), not so much that it wasn't Right-to-Work.

The same thing that happened in Michigan would happened in Right-to-Work/extremely conservative Texas if the Oil Industry were to ever collapse (which it KIND OF did in the 1970s).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,618 posts, read 86,565,652 times
Reputation: 36637
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
They lost me at South Dakota, Nebraska and North Dakota.

I suppose if you like being in the middle of nowhere .
. . . which some people do.

Spoiler alert:
Spoiler
not everybody likes what you like.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 10:03 AM
 
Location: SW Missouri
15,853 posts, read 34,997,155 times
Reputation: 22693
It's pretty obvious that their criteria and mine are vastly different. But then, I have never been a huge fan of maple syrup.

20yrsinBranson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,993 posts, read 10,124,065 times
Reputation: 4401
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson View Post
It's pretty obvious that their criteria and mine are vastly different. But then, I have never been a huge fan of maple syrup.

20yrsinBranson
Was maple syrup a criteria?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 10:18 AM
 
7,237 posts, read 12,685,101 times
Reputation: 5657
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
. . . which some people do.

Spoiler alert:
Spoiler
not everybody likes what you like.
I'm not saying people don't.

But using the same logic, you could say low taxes and low cost of living isn't the only thing businesses care about when deciding if a place is "business-friendly."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 03:41 AM
 
Location: Battle Creek, MI
494 posts, read 800,011 times
Reputation: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
Michigan's problem is that it was a one-industry state (Automotive), not so much that it wasn't Right-to-Work.

The same thing that happened in Michigan would happened in Right-to-Work/extremely conservative Texas if the Oil Industry were to ever collapse (which it KIND OF did in the 1970s).
This was happening for a number of years and thus way before the Automotive collapse. RegardlessSheena12 is way off the mark and wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top