[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by Off-beat

Connecticut's college grad rate is way above u.s. average, as is education quality and every significant aspect of human well-being. "Economic competitiveness" is far from being a significant aspect of human well-being, much less the only (or the most) significant one.

"Economic competitiveness" often really means "who has the biggest 'race to the bottom'" for Joe Employee's working conditions. As I've said before, what good is "job growth" if it's the kind most people can't live on or have a family with?

[Stylo]

Sure, lots of companies have chosen to move to cheaper areas. But many more have grown in places like NYC. If that wasn't true, the city wouldn't be such an economic powerhouse and it wouldn't cost $2000 to live in a closet, with astronomical rents for businesses. If companies were fleeing in droves with nothing to infill, the real estate prices would go down. They're not. Also, remember that technology and innovation - something this country still does VERY well - is booming in places like Brooklyn, Bay Area, Cambridge, etc. Bright college grads that are looking to innovate, network, and maximize their careers don't want to live in North Dakota. Sorry.

I just don't think this conservative argument about the downfall of liberal cities due to business restrictions has any weight, especially when it's been proven that those cities are growing more than they have in decades.

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

"Economic competitiveness" often really means "who has the biggest 'race to the bottom'" for Joe Employee's working conditions. As I've said before, what good is "job growth" if it's the kind most people can't live on or have a family with?

Race to the bottom-SD & ND have seen enormous median income gains.

Many states with above average employment growth do experience such gains, as the supply-demand ratio shifts more toward supply's favor. Expensive states residents tend not to account for COL differences in viewing the big picture.

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Sure, lots of companies have chosen to move to cheaper areas. But many more have grown in places like NYC. If that wasn't true, the city wouldn't be such an economic powerhouse and it wouldn't cost $2000 to live in a closet, with astronomical rents for businesses..

I'm surprised you miss a major reason NYC real estate is pricey, just as Ct's is. In both cases, it is built out. New housing and new industrial development curtails inflation amongst existing stock. The inverse is also true, and escalates faster the price inflation in the NE as well as almost all built out regions nationally.

Think of urban hotel room costs on New Years Eve. Same principle, too much demand, supply cannot be added that night to meet demand, hyper inflation.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by bobtn

Race to the bottom-SD & ND have seen enormous median income gains.

Many states with above average employment growth do experience such gains, as the supply-demand ratio shifts more toward supply's favor. Expensive states residents tend not to account for COL differences in viewing the big picture.

A lot of ND-SD growth is in temporary fracking jobs.

[Csiko]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

A lot of ND-SD growth is in temporary fracking jobs.

Was about to say the same thing.

It's good that some states got to see a nice boom, but at the same time, a lot of these booms had nothing to do with governing parties and more to do with incredible fortune. See also: Texas.

[FILF]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

A lot of ND-SD growth is in temporary fracking jobs.

With 7.4 billion barrels of oil in North Dakota alone I'm not sure I would consider that temporary. Those "temporary" jobs are also paying more than most jobs around here.

[newerabuzz]

South and North Dakota are in the midst of an economy being propelled by A Fossil Fuel boom. How long this is sustainable is an unknown.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by FILF

With 7.4 billion barrels of oil in North Dakota alone I'm not sure I would consider that temporary. Those "temporary" jobs are also paying more than most jobs around here.

With the Global thirst growing in India and China that Fuel will be gone within 20 years....then what happens to the empire they built in the Dakotas? The Middle Eastern/African countries have decided to try to form other economies so when they dry up down the road which isn't that far off , they will have Farming , Tourism and High Tech Jobs...it seems to be working well for them look at the UAE , Morocco , Tunisia , Qatar , and Bahrain.... They've also managed to reverse a prominent car / oil culture in the Urban and Suburban areas which some said was impossible , so US has no real excuses why it can't follow suit other then laziness. Now its becoming 50/50 in the Middle East...

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by FILF

With 7.4 billion barrels of oil in North Dakota alone I'm not sure I would consider that temporary. Those "temporary" jobs are also paying more than most jobs around here.

They actually have special housing for them and articles note that most of them are either single men who see this as "very temporary" or people leaving their families for a short time a la the military.

Originally Posted by newerabuzz

South and North Dakota are in the midst of an economy being propelled by A Fossil Fuel boom. How long this is sustainable is an unknown.

I actually agree with FILF that this could go on for a long time, especially if northeast states don't end up fracking due to public pressure there (while I have environmental concerns on it too, I think with good safety regulations it can be done, I'm leery that such regulations are in place in the Dakotas but there haven't been problems there yet either). Did you know thanks to what's going on in the Dakotas, we're a net exporter of oil for the first time in decades and it's growing?

Where I diverge from FILF on this one is that it seems the jobs are very temporary and it's not certain what the future of this is. But to be fair it could go either way and if it were to be "permanent" it would be a lucrative (albeit single industry) for that area. In some ways it could be like saying the film industry in California in the 1920s was temporary or the gambling industry in Las Vegas in the 1940s.

Originally Posted by Csiko

Was about to say the same thing.

It's good that some states got to see a nice boom, but at the same time, a lot of these booms had nothing to do with governing parties and more to do with incredible fortune. See also: Texas.

Unlike (for the most part) the Dakotas (since many of their temp jobs in shale oil are pretty lucrative), Texas is a good example of what I was talking about earlier; a lot of their job growth is in almost-unregulated low wage jobs. A lot of working Texans still need social service assistance (i.e. Food Stamps, Medicaid or some sort of health assistance) though their government seems to take more and more of that away with each passing year. Having a ton of new jobs for which the workers can't afford food or health care is just as bad (maybe more so) than having all of them on Welfare. If you think Zoning laws make sense, Texas is the ultimate "bad place" for you; did you know that Houston is the biggest city in the US (and perhaps the world) to have no zoning whatsoever?

Texas will be an interesting place as I see the changing demographics there making it "bluer" during the next decade or two. I hardly think it will be a "blue" state, but I think it will be a "rioting purple" one like North Carolina with their suddenly ultra-conservative governor and state legislator vs. the "Moral Mondays" protests or even something like Wisconsin. Stay tuned!