Many people in Massachusetts still have the same mob mentality as when they were hanging witches (Boston: employment, transfer)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by bUU

I suppose if you prefer the imposing of grievously corrupt callous disregard for others and unconstrained exploitation of the weak by the powerful, you'd feel that way.

You just described (modern day) Massachusetts to a T.

Originally Posted by bUU

Only that which prompts NH-ers to come to MA each day. Every vehicle crossing the border in the morning is a clear indication of the failure of the state being departed as compared to the state being entered, on a crucial level.

And I see it as the failure of MA to retain all those residents. If all these good paying jobs are in MA, why would one want to put up with that nightmarish commute and not just live in the state they work?

Originally Posted by bUU

Yet, those companies haven't relocated. While NH may not be making the same mistakes today, NH hasn't made up for the depth and breadth of the relevant mistakes of the past. If they had, then the number of vehicles crossing the border in the morning would be balanced in each direction.

Many of them have (Fidelity), and likewise NH has always had its own home grown industry. I don't see how one can arrive at the conclusion you have. NH ranks up near the very top in everything. If anything, we have much to learn from them. It always amazes me that while having no state income or sales tax; I drive up there and see better roads, less trash, better police presence, and much fewer welfare losers. They must be doing something correct up there.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by bUU

Only that which prompts NH-ers to come to MA each day. Every vehicle crossing the border in the morning is a clear indication of the failure of the state being departed as compared to the state being entered, on a crucial level.

Yet, those companies haven't relocated. While NH may not be making the same mistakes today, NH hasn't made up for the depth and breadth of the relevant mistakes of the past. If they had, then the number of vehicles crossing the border in the morning would be balanced in each direction.

Wouldn't the thing to take away be that Massachusetts has the big city and New Hampshire doesn't? Commutes are almost always from less dense areas to more dense ones--so of course New Hampshire commuters will outnumber Massachusetts ones. Is it a failure of Newton that so many people commute into Boston every day?

And aren't many of the people commuting from New Hampshire either originally from Massachusetts or new to the area? Couldn't that equally be seen as a failure of Massachusetts? And while it makes sense to live in New Hampshire and commute to Massachusetts, working in New Hampshire and living in Massachusetts means paying the much higher Massachusetts income taxes so very few people do that.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by massnative71

And I see it as the failure of MA to retain all those residents. If all these good paying jobs are in MA, why would one want to put up with that nightmarish commute and not just live in the state they work?

One of the things that drove me away from Massachusetts was the concern that I if I found a house in an ideal location, that ideal neighborhood could be destroyed by either a 40B development or (as in the case in many of the more 'affordable' towns) a town government that approves almost any development for the sake of increasing municipal revenues beyond the prop 2 1/2 limits. Approving development for the sake of increasing town coffers is a vicious cycle that is unlikely to end well as the new development always leads to increased costs.

[traffic_lover]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

I was going to say it is a combination of both of those things but there are many New Hampshire residents who commute down to Peabody, Danvers, Beverly and Salem. I-95 and those towns do not have the same congestion level as Burlington, Billerica and Lexington. I have to say the "unnecessary development" is probably the bigger issue.

As far as I am concerned companies presently located in Burlington, Lexington, Billerica and Waltham are more than welcome to relocate to Salem, Nashua or Londonderry so that us New Hampshire residents (many formerly MA residents) don't have to commute in MA each day.

I spit out my coffee when I read this. I'd stack up Peabody/Salem as the worst congestion in eastern MA. 100x worse than billerica & rt 3.

[traffic_lover]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

Billerica and Chelmsford are primarily residential suburbs. Lowell is the destination in that area with the Tsongas Arena, Lowell Spinners, the national park and the university with all of its sponsored events. I expect heavy development in the destination cities and towns. Heavy development elsewhere just leads to overwhelmed infrastructure without benefit.

incorrect. Chelmsford & billerica both have a TON of tech industry. these are residential AND destination towns. proof of this is the utter nightmare 495 has become in that area

[495neighbor]

Originally Posted by traffic_lover

incorrect. Chelmsford & billerica both have a TON of tech industry. these are residential AND destination towns. proof of this is the utter nightmare 495 has become in that area

Lexington, Waltham, Burlington, Billerica, Bedford and lately Woburn have the most tech businesses outside Kendall, a trickle in Chelmsford, Westford and Nashua.

Pre and during the DotCom era, Peabody, Andover, Wilmington, Danvers and Salem had many tech businesses and professional service businesses providing services to those businesses. During the recession, it thinned out. If office space keeps filling up in Woburn, I see the overflow going to these towns.

Newton, Watertown and Needham, once populated in professional service businesses lost those businesses to the SeaPort district following the DotCom era.

Lowell, following the end of Wang, has not been a tech magnet for decades.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by massnative71

You just described (modern day) Massachusetts to a T.

Perhaps some, but fewer in MA than in most other states, in my experience.

Originally Posted by massnative71

And I see it as the failure of MA to retain all those residents. If all these good paying jobs are in MA, why would one want to put up with that nightmarish commute and not just live in the state they work?

The generally exploitative nature of many people, wanting to take advantage of what they want without paying for it, as long as they can get away with it. However, your point is well-taken. MA has not done a good job of transferring the cost of build successful industries to the employees who aren't residents.

Originally Posted by massnative71

Many of them have (Fidelity)

NH hasn't made up for the depth and breadth of the relevant mistakes of the past. If they had, then the number of vehicles crossing the border in the morning would be balanced in each direction.

Originally Posted by jayrandom

Wouldn't the thing to take away be that Massachusetts has the big city and New Hampshire doesn't?

No. The take away would be how much MA has invested in building and fostering industries, and how much NH has relied on exploiting its close proximity to MA. Remember: Boston has more population as well as more jobs.

Also: Keep in mind that traffic from Stoneham to Burlington is as heavy if not more so as from Stoneham to Boston. That's a reflection of how much the northern suburbs have invested in attracting business to the area, something which for decades the miserly NH was not inclined to do.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by bUU

NH hasn't made up for the depth and breadth of the relevant mistakes of the past. If they had, then the number of vehicles crossing the border in the morning would be balanced in each direction.

No! It never will! Even if New Hampshire had a more robust economy, the tax situation will always mean people who work in southern New Hampshire will live in New Hampshire and people who work in northeastern Massachusetts can choose to live in either.

That doesn't mean that I'm disagreeing with your assessment of New Hampshire's infrastructure spending and business climate (I'm in no position to agree or disagree), but your metric is all wrong.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

No! It never will!

And that's fine, as a choice. It leaves the situation as it is now, with NH a net-taker from MA and MA a net-giver to NH.

Originally Posted by jayrandom

Even if New Hampshire had a more robust economy, the tax situation will always mean people who work in southern New Hampshire will live in New Hampshire and people who work in northeastern Massachusetts can choose to live in either.

The tax situation only exists because NH doesn't "need" the tax revenue to invest in employment opportunities for its citizens, because MA is doing that, in some ways conceptually for NH's benefit.

Originally Posted by jayrandom

That doesn't mean that I'm disagreeing with your assessment of New Hampshire's infrastructure spending and business climate (I'm in no position to agree or disagree), but your metric is all wrong.

Actually, my metric is correct, given the point I'm making.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by bUU

And that's fine, as a choice. It leaves the situation as it is now, with NH a net-taker from MA and MA a net-giver to NH.

The tax situation only exists because NH doesn't "need" the tax revenue to invest in employment opportunities for its citizens, because MA is doing that, in some ways conceptually for NH's benefit.

Actually, my metric is correct, given the point I'm making.

I guess we view the employment situation differently. You see Massachusetts employing New Hampshire residents that otherwise wouldn't be employed, whereas I see New Hampshire housing Massachusetts employees that otherwise would have to live in even more crowded towns and cities. All those people pay Massachusetts taxes but likely get far fewer benefits than if they lived in Massachusetts, as well. It actually seems like a pretty good deal for Massachusetts.

Perhaps I'm biased because everyone I know who lives in New Hampshire and works in Massachusetts isn't from New Hampshire, but either from Massachusetts or from somewhere completely different.

It should be said that the New Hampshire unemployment rate is consistently lower than in Massachusetts.