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.
All that "hippie etc." stuff is pretty long past. It used to be very big around Cambridge, but it costs so much to live there now (good-bye to the Ayn Rand nightmare of rent control!) that it's hard for people to maintain a crunchy outlook with that housing price.
Yes, it is where the first Bread and Circus food store was (morphed into Whole Foods over the years). Yes, housing is expensive. Land is tight and the area was built out a long time ago, certainly north and south along the coast, because it it so desirable.
There are so many over-educated people around, that it is hard to compete for an average job. However, people come from other areas to work in healthcare, biotech, IT and such, and they are very desirable jobs.
There has rarely been any real heavy manufacturing. The textile manufacturing and shoe industries, doing South for non-union and cheap labor (and then out of the U.S.) have left some of those former manufacturing small cities in tough shape.
The tax burden here is not the highest in the country, no matter what people want to think, and there are some kinda services for the money (ask anyone who needs services in New Hampshire) or who pays real estate taxes up there. Yes, you can buy booze and cigarettes for no tax in New Hampshire, but I don't consider that a quality of life issue.
Corruption, well, yes, there is. Don't know how it compares to other states at all. The Big Dig was a hurtin' thing.
Like most places, it is not a good place to be poor, due to cost of housing and transport if you have or need a car. I am hard pressed to think of a place where it is good to be poor.
Also, it's quite secular, which I appreciate, and I think those who are religious appreciate, too, as there is no one overwhelming religious view (as people dump out of the Catholic Church).
All in all, I think it's a pretty good place to live, if you have your eyes as open as you'd need them to be anywhere you move. There is certainly more to life than a 3,000 sq.ft. house out on the highway in a subdivision full of strip malls.
To be fair, living NH is a good deal if you work in NH.
What I don't get is when people who work in MA "escape taxachusetts" and move to Hollis, NH.. yet are paying $25/k in property tax and 5% on income.
I always joke that the rural NH border towns in Middlesex country (Ashby, Townsend, Pepperell, and Dunstable) are for people who want to live in NH but have good jobs in MA.
One thing Massachusetts never has a shortage of is the "Negative Nancies."
Honestly, I've lived in other states and countries and Massachusetts is one of the most well-run places I have ever lived. Yes, we've had corruption. Yes, the last three speakers of the house have been indicted. Yes, the head of Chelsea housing was caught paying himself a ridiculous sum of money.
However, these people were caught and if they're not in the system already, they will be soon.
But I do love the state...from P-town to Pittsfield and I'm always thankful to set foot on my home soil after time away.
To be fair, living NH is a good deal if you work in NH.
What I don't get is when people who work in MA "escape taxachusetts" and move to Hollis, NH.. yet are paying $25/k in property tax and 5% on income.
I always joke that the rural NH border towns in Middlesex country (Ashby, Townsend, Pepperell, and Dunstable) are for people who want to live in NH but have good jobs in MA.
Interesting. The median price of a house in Hollis is about $500K. The tax rate is around $25 per thousand of assessment (IIRC, it has been a long time). So your statement of $25K for property tax is twice the median. A while ago I lived in Windham, and that was $24K a year for property tax, but that was on a house valued at $1.4M. But I have no idea what the tax rates are in any of the towns in that area now.
Also, you only pay the 5% MA tax rate (or whatever it is now) on income earned, for the days you actually work in MA (if the headquarters for the company, which pays you, is in some other state). We had people do that all the time. If you worked 3 weeks from home in different state, or had gone on company business elsewhere, for a company that was headquarted in, say CA or IL or anywhere else, then you don't owe income MA income tax on that amount I earned then. I had lots of people that wanted (and could effectively) work from home and NOT be in MA.
At least he's not in Iraq, visiting the troops as former Governor Romney did, when he wasn't running down the state everywhere he campa... I mean went.
NH has some kind of convoluted tax plan where some cities/towns have very high rates (givers) and others lower (receivers) and it's based on income or something, which skews the summer-home communities a lot.
Friends of mine left New Ipswich when they had a walloping increase and moved to Nashua itself.
I can live most any place in the US (or elsewhere, for that matter) I choose as my job is a) mobile; and b) all over the globe. I love the mountains (Canadian Rockies, US Rockies, Sangre de Christo Range in NM, Tuscon area, etc.) and expect we'll buy a house somewhere there. We have a small cottage on a lake in Canada. But we have chosen to live and raise kids in one of the Western suburbs of Boston and lived in Cambridge for a number of years before that (also lived in NY and the Bay area). No place is perfect, but there are more interesting people per capita here than any place else I've been. Research geneticists, world class economists, IT entrepreneurs, hedgies, human rights activists, touchy-feely organizational development folks, liberal NGO types, venture capitalists, people concerned about the state of the world, even Bainies, ... . We have great universities with extraordinary people in them.
Although I am not a big fan of unions generally or teachers unions in particular, Massachusetts (or parts of it, anyway) is one of the few states that still seems to have something of a commitment to public education. The educational level contributes to the relatively low rate of unemployment. Much of the state is beautiful (drive out Route 2 in the fall or go to the beaches on the North Shore or go hiking in the Berkshires or cycling in Concord and Carlisle or Amherst area).
Property taxes depend upon the town -- some towns have a commercial base and have lower taxes. Others don't. Some have mismanaged their public finances. Others less so.
I do fear that in the US in general, we are eating our seed corn by not investing enough in education at the public level and at the national level (funding for science research -- and I'm not a scientist). We've got a health care system that costs 16% of GDP compared to other countries at 8 to 12% of GDP with no better and arguably worse outcomes. Fixing that is going to hurt Massachusetts because we have a concentration of excellent but very expensive (and sometimes hidebound) teaching hospitals. But, relatively speaking Massachusetts is likely to remain an attractive place because highly educated people either move here or stay here and can generate businesses that support others.
My fear is for the less well-educated people, because the cost of living here is high. It can sustain the high-end but not middle class. The admin folks in my office have long commutes as a result. Even with education: the median salary for a nurse practitioner in Boston is $100K; but it is the same in Houston, which also has great medical centers/teaching hospitals. Yet the cost of living there is a lot lower (This site says Boston is 67% more expensive than HoustonModerator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed see also Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed). That strikes me as ultimately difficult to sustain despite the high incidence of interesting people.
What no mention that MA citizens are in the top 10 for debt per person as MA continues to spend away. Or that many state cops make around $150,000 a year, or firefighters in Boston call out sick constantly so their coworkers can be called it to get time and a half.
Don't get me wrong, MA is far from the worst state, but the article is very biased.
Im just curious as to why what state cops make is an issue with you? And im glad you said STATE cops..cause I was wondering where you got your numbers. If im misunderstanding, my apologies. You DO realize that is NOT base pay for those state cops? That includes overtime. Which means they are basically spending their free time working. So, when you are home with with a beer, they are out working. To me, if someone is willing to do that, why complain? If they are willing to put in the time, why does someone feel the need to get their panties in a knot over it??
Im just amazed that police who have to put up with as much crap, judgement, life and death situations, never ending politics, bullsh*t, fights, rapes, shooting, stabbings, murders, every stupid dispute in the world that could happen between people, etc and have to handle all that..I dont know WHY there are people have a problem with them getting paid decently to do that. Im telling you..you dont even know the extent of total S--it you deal with. Yet there could be some dingdong in a coorporation who makes more than that signing paperwork all day and everyone is good with that. Some of you see some cops standing out there on overtime and you think that is all there is to the job. Unreal. Im not a STATE cop, but I do work in Law Enforcement.
You talk crap, but you all will dial 911, wont ya?? You have a problem with cops..or you think you can handle the situation better? No problem. Dont call. Wont bother anyone one bit. But ask Zimmerman how that's working out for him. Bet he wishes he had just left it alone and waited for those cops who make too much to come handle it.
I do fear that in the US in general, we are eating our seed corn by not investing enough in education at the public level and at the national level (funding for science research -- and I'm not a scientist).
I am a scientist and I fear for science funding as well. However, your first statement struck me. The US spends more per student than many other nations that have superior public education. There are several reasons why students in the US perform poorly on the mean - some more popular than others. The bottom line for me is threefold: (1) American culture and attitude toward education and teachers. This is vastly different than, say, the Japanese or Chinese who honor their teachers in some ways like we do our police officers and military. The respect for teachers is immense, but here in the US, it is less so. And it has a feedback - poorly performing students usually come from less-than-opportune homes and families who do not regard education highly, and the teachers in turn do not feel as appreciated, making them less motivated to work. But also (2) American public school teachers are not jobs that the highly educated are apt to take. How many PhDs or even masters degree holders are public school physics and calculus teachers? Not many. Finally, (3) the way that teachers unions structure pay and layoffs does not pay based on merit but based on seniority. This is a terrible system and dis-incentivizes younger and perhaps better teachers from entering the profession.
So, I would argue it is not investment in money we need. It is investment in education culture.
Quote:
We've got a health care system that costs 16% of GDP compared to other countries at 8 to 12% of GDP with no better and arguably worse outcomes. Fixing that is going to hurt Massachusetts because we have a concentration of excellent but very expensive (and sometimes hidebound) teaching hospitals.
And again I would argue this is driven more by culture than by access. Having high obesity rates and a work culture that attracts, and almost encourages, long work days and less relaxation or 'free time' all contribute to declining rates of health. The former affects those of all ages, and most recently our youth. The latter can take the toll on middle class but also the older folks, which again drives up healthcare costs. So, to me, the answer is not more government reforms. Sure, there are costs that can be reduced and those should be pursued. But let's not pretend those are the reasons why the costs are so high. The fact is - the costs are high because the demands are high for healthcare in the country, moreso than other nations.
Quote:
My fear is for the less well-educated people, because the cost of living here is high. It can sustain the high-end but not middle class. The admin folks in my office have long commutes as a result. Even with education: the median salary for a nurse practitioner in Boston is $100K; but it is the same in Houston, which also has great medical centers/teaching hospitals. Yet the cost of living there is a lot lower.
There are plenty of middle class folks in metro Boston. They make it just fine without earning 6-figure salaries. No, they don't all live in Brookline or Back Bay. But they are making it and will continue to do so, so long as the jobs remain. If we shift our society here too far to the high education fields, then yes - the less educated middle class will be hurt. But this is why we have to make sure the state has a balance of the high-tech, high finance firms along with maintaining strong manufacturing and other such 'blue collar' work.
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.
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.
