Kansas Job Losses (Topeka, Olathe, Salina: apartments, student loan, Home Depot)

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Yes, and how will this change under a different governor? State credit ratings don't get reduced without a good reason.

Not what I said.

I agree with why the bond rating went the way it did, it's still pretty high though.

But most importantly, there aren't any big bond issuances occurring.

Soooo, what we have here is another "scary" article about how KS is now going to have to pay an extra $0 on their upcoming bond issue of $0.

It's basically a re-hash that Brownbacks actions have created budget shortfalls and his plans haven't worked out (something I think most of us are in agreement with) but with a twist thrown in that the bond rating change unlike the tax and spending changes will have no effect.

It's like Brownbacks driven his car into a tree and busted up the front end but oh no....the string on the airfreshener also broke!

[SyraBrian]

For the month of July 2016, BLS stats list Kansas as having lost 5600 jobs.

[KC_Sleuth]

Here is something I don't understand: Brownback keeps stating the job losses and stagnant economy are based on the fact that the the "big three" legs of the stool (oil, aviation, big ag) are down. But wasn't the Faustian bargain he struck with the tax cuts supposed to create new burgeoning industries in Kansas? I.E. if the low state taxes were such a boon to business, why wouldn't credit card servicers or finance companies or insurance companies be knocking down the door to create a "fourth" leg of Kansas business. Or auto manufacturers coming to the state to create a "fifth" leg? Why wouldn't companies and industries be moving from states far from Kansas to come here and set up shop?

The 2012 tax cuts were supposed to attract new businesses and industries...that would include diversifying the Kansas economy beyond those three industries. Yet Brownback relies on the excuse of the big three industries being down to state why his tax cuts haven't failed (but cannot point to new industries growing here).

It's probably because state tax savings are hardly enough incentive for a large company to move from, say Seattle to Wichita; or Boston to Overland Park. Particularly when state taxes can be written off or offset through federal tax code. In reality, this tax scheme is nothing but a fools errand. Oh sure it may create 50-100 jobs here and there (mostly within the KC metro). But in order to offset the downgrade in services you would have to create thousands and tens of thousands of jobs....that's just not happening

[Mathguy]

Regardless of anything else expecting it to work that quickly was ridiculous.

[empires228]

Coleman actually moved their $100,000 plus paying office jobs back to Colorado from Wichita a few years back.

[KC_Sleuth]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Regardless of anything else expecting it to work that quickly was ridiculous.

But you would expect it to not be moving in the negative direction four years out. Unless the ALEC/Koch/Steve Moore/Heritage Found. et al. "Supply Side" plan is bunk (which I think it has been thoroughly debunked).

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by KC_Sleuth

But you would expect it to not be moving in the negative direction four years out. Unless the ALEC/Koch/Steve Moore/Heritage Found. et al. "Supply Side" plan is bunk (which I think it has been thoroughly debunked).

Sure if you ignore all other possible correlations. Also people didn't start pointing it out until it started going the way they wanted lol.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by KC_Sleuth

Here is something I don't understand: Brownback keeps stating the job losses and stagnant economy are based on the fact that the the "big three" legs of the stool (oil, aviation, big ag) are down.

I'm going to have to stop you at this point right there. You can't believe a word that Brownback says because that statement is a complete fabrication. Those three sectors make up a small percentage of the total economy. Yes, manufacturing does comprise a certain percentage (<5-8%), but agriculture and energy related jobs are less than 2% of the state total. Brownback lives in a delusional world that does not relate to concrete facts that stare at him every day.

[KC_Sleuth]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Sure if you ignore all other possible correlations. Also people didn't start pointing it out until it started going the way they wanted lol.

Pointing it out when it went south = realizing it was a pretty massive failure after you get the data and calling it out for that. That's just being an adult and acknowledging the plan was faulty. It would be foolish to just keep saying "it will work, it will work" as all indicators point to the fact that it's a utter failure. Was there any scenario in which this plan was actually going to work?

The tax breaks did not diversify the Kansas economy, and did not turn it into some economic powerhouse, plain and simple.

Meanwhile, Calif., which did not employ the same type of tax plan, continues to see its economy surge. It is outpacing the rest of US economic growth and is projected to do so through at least 2020. That state is crushing it across all sectors and didn't need to employ state tax savings to attract businesses.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by KC_Sleuth

Pointing it out when it went south = realizing it was a pretty massive failure after you get the data and calling it out for that. That's just being an adult and acknowledging the plan was faulty. It would be foolish to just keep saying "it will work, it will work" as all indicators point to the fact that it's a utter failure. Was there any scenario in which this plan was actually going to work?

The tax breaks did not diversify the Kansas economy, and did not turn it into some economic powerhouse, plain and simple.

Meanwhile, Calif., which did not employ the same type of tax plan, continues to see its economy surge. It is outpacing the rest of US economic growth and is projected to do so through at least 2020. That state is crushing it across all sectors and didn't need to employ state tax savings to attract businesses.

The point being that the jobs change measure is a simplistic, grossly flawed analysis by itself....heck, that's what Brownback supporters did when they had job growth.

Once the job growth went negative then his opponents jumped on the same one-trick pony and claimed it was all due to tax cuts.

It's more complex than that.

I think we've already agreed that his plan failed.

In order to perform a fair comparative analysis you have to adjust for correlations like macro-economic factors, industry trends, housing trends etc. and you need to baseline as well meaning that talking about percentage growth for a state that was in a bigger hole is probably not a good analysis.

California is a state with a major boom-bust cycle history pointing to the boom and saying it's because of X or despite Y is voodoo math.