Metro GMP, a measure of economy - MSP kicks Midwest butt (Minneapolis: transplants, home)

[xenokc]

I put this together on the KC forum but MSP area might interested. MSP has by far the strongest economy in the Midwest, especially per cap.

Look 3 posts down for per cap numbers.

//www.city-data.com/forum/kansa...y-kc-does.html

[xandrex]

It's definitely good to see our metro on top. There's a lot of changes to make that number better, I'm sure, but still...good news.

[knke0204]

If Minnesota keeps increasing the taxes around here, much of the business is going to flee the state for more lucrative and less expensive places...Like Sioux Falls.

I've heard it's becoming increasingly difficult to stay afloat as a start-up or small business with so many fees, taxes and regulations from the State of Minnesota.

[audadvnc]

But Sioux Falls has always had lower taxes than Minnesota. Given K-'s perspective, all businesses would have moved to SD years ago.

There are other reasons to exist than tax avoidance...

[northstar22]

I live near Sioux Falls, on the Minnesota side of the border, so I've spent a lot of time in that city. Sioux Falls is a really nice city, but it can't compete with the Twin Cities. It's not even in the same league. Many businesses choose to locate in large metro areas because of the availability of employee talent that you often can't find in smaller towns. South Dakota also has some of the lowest wages in the nation, which doesn't exactly attract high-end employees. Businesses look at more than just taxes when deciding where to locate.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by northstar22

I live near Sioux Falls, on the Minnesota side of the border, so I've spent a lot of time in that city. Sioux Falls is a really nice city, but it can't compete with the Twin Cities. It's not even in the same league. Many businesses choose to locate in large metro areas because of the availability of employee talent that you often can't find in smaller towns. South Dakota also has some of the lowest wages in the nation, which doesn't exactly attract high-end employees. Businesses look at more than just taxes when deciding where to locate.

My knowledge and background in Urban Planning and Regional Economics has taught me about the tree "T's" involved in re-location or location of a new business (whether it be serivce, manufacturing, etc) those three Ts are:

Transportation - It's important to have major interstate access and proximation to metro areas. St. Cloud is a great prime example as it's home to I94, Highway 10 and Highway 15.

Taxes - Property taxes and excise taxes are huge when considering relocation. Many places are fleeing MPLS and STP for suburbs because they are getting taxed too much in the main cities. TIF districts and JobZ areas have recently been created to lure jobs to an area (This does have some negative recourse, I can explain later)

Technology - Fiber optics, high-speed internet, Wi-Fi, access to databases, technology firms or start ups to encourage competition, which almost always results in a better product.

[uptown_urbanist]

But who wants to live in St. Cloud?

I know, it could be a great place to live, and I'm sure many people are very happy living there. But good luck trying to attract national or international talent there, or even just many people from elsewhere in the state. Its appeal is limited. Places like St. Cloud could work well as headquarters for certain types of businesses, but locations of that sort have many negatives, too. Even major interstate access is only relevant to some businesses. For others, access to an international airport are far more important. My husband's company, for example, sets up their offices in the most fashionable addresses they can find in each city; they don't require any freeway access, and having a city address is FAR more important in their industry than a parcel of cheap land in the exurbs somewhere. And while for them transportation IS important, it's mostly the airport, as well as ideally public transportation for their employees. Only a some companies are looking for cheap land by a freeway.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by knke0204

My knowledge and background in Urban Planning and Regional Economics has taught me about the tree "T's" involved in re-location or location of a new business (whether it be serivce, manufacturing, etc) those three Ts are:

Transportation - It's important to have major interstate access and proximation to metro areas. St. Cloud is a great prime example as it's home to I94, Highway 10 and Highway 15.

Taxes - Property taxes and excise taxes are huge when considering relocation. Many places are fleeing MPLS and STP for suburbs because they are getting taxed too much in the main cities. TIF districts and JobZ areas have recently been created to lure jobs to an area (This does have some negative recourse, I can explain later)

Technology - Fiber optics, high-speed internet, Wi-Fi, access to databases, technology firms or start ups to encourage competition, which almost always results in a better product.

You forgot the number 1 most important factor for ANY business, and educated work force. Sioux Falls only has about 150,000 in the metro SF area. They simply do not have the workforce to sustain too many businesses. Also, while income taxes in Sioux Falls are low, PROPERTY taxes are triple, at least, what they are in MN.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

But who wants to live in St. Cloud?

I know, it could be a great place to live, and I'm sure many people are very happy living there. But good luck trying to attract national or international talent there, or even just many people from elsewhere in the state. Its appeal is limited. Places like St. Cloud could work well as headquarters for certain types of businesses, but locations of that sort have many negatives, too. Even major interstate access is only relevant to some businesses. For others, access to an international airport are far more important. My husband's company, for example, sets up their offices in the most fashionable addresses they can find in each city; they don't require any freeway access, and having a city address is FAR more important in their industry than a parcel of cheap land in the exurbs somewhere. And while for them transportation IS important, it's mostly the airport, as well as ideally public transportation for their employees. Only a some companies are looking for cheap land by a freeway.

A lot of people want to live in the St. Cloud area. It is home to many businesses. It is also a great location in the state for those the like to take advantage of everything else in MN besides Minneapolis. It also has a lower cost of living than the Twin Cities. It sounds to me like your husband's office would be much better off outside of Minneapolis if they are concerned about cheep transportation for employees and easy access to the airport. Outside of the few people that work for your husband's company, no one knows that they have a "fashionable" address. Technically, MOST of the metro area has a Minneapolis or St. Paul address via the post office anyway. Most companies list "Minneapolis" or "St. Paul" as their address because no one outside of the state knows the metro area well enough to know where all the suburbs are located (and the same goes for every metro area).

[uptown_urbanist]

I know some people do want to live in St. Cloud. I was being a bit facetious. But I stand by my point: many, many people are not going to be willing to relocate to St. Cloud for work. Minneapolis can be a tough enough sell when it's competing against other bigger cities, but at least here we have an impressive list of amenities (including all those quality of life things like the Guthrie, Walker, etc.) that make it clear that this isn't some backwater. St. Cloud doesn't have that. It might be a perfectly nice place for live for some people, but good luck convincing many people that they won't keel over from boredom if they live there.

I was using my husband's company as an example. Trust me, many people DO look at addresses. For some types of jobs that's important. Not because they're "snobby" or anything else, but because it's all part of the whole package. They have offices around the country, and most of their locations are all in the same types of neighborhoods.

And you're forgetting that many jobs require a lot of client visits. So yes, if your clients show up and you're at some dumpy office park on a frontage road it doesn't exactly send the right message for many fields. There are some types of business that do very well in those sorts of settings (especially those that don't have visitors, or need large shipping/receiving facilities) but just as many that don't. Many of the types that don't are the so-called "creative" fields, and they provide good jobs for many locals. Manufacturing and industrial jobs are equally important and definitely provide good opportunities for Minnesota residents, but they're only one part of the picture. We forget the rest at our own peril. Advertising, for example, has been a successful "creative class" industry in Minneapolis; check out the website pitching the city as a good place to live and work for those in that field:
MinneADpolis
Notice the highlights are not "it's cheap." It references first creativity and culture, followed by a mention of big city amenities. Many of us don't pick our home based on cost of living alone.

And if location didn't matter, why do you think so many companies set up in downtown Minneapolis? Again, it's all about type of business, but that goes both ways. Just as many companies don't care about freeway access, that's essential for some businesses. The businesses that need a lot of cheap space, interstate access, and don't need to do a lot of national recruiting will have an easier time in locations like the outskirts of St. Cloud.

Again, I wasn't trying to insult St. Cloud. I think it will always hold some appeal for some people, but at this point they just don't have enough to offer many companies. And that's fine -- not all cities are going to excel at the same things. St. Cloud could be very successful at offering cheaper smaller city living for those who don't prioritize things that you find in Minneapolis. For those who have no interest in the amenities offered by Minneapolis (I know you mentioned in a previous thread that you had no need to go into Minneapolis, for example, and that your suburb provides all the entertainment you need) then sure, St. Cloud could be a great option. Why pay more for amenities or benefits you don't use or value? But you're forgetting that a great many other people out there DO want those amenities, and are willing to pay for them. Location is very important for these people, and cities like St. Cloud just can't compete on that level for those people. St. Cloud has a more limited appeal.

Interesting website (CEOs for Cities): http://www.ceosforcities.org/

On a related note, about a year ago we tossed around the idea of potentially relocating to Fargo for a good job opportunity. We chose not to do it, but I was impressed with how Fargo is marketing itself to a crowd more traditionally drawn to bigger cities. Sometimes you go where the jobs are, and obviously that's been the case with Fargo. Still, they are really promoting their revitalizing downtown, and trying to convince potential transplants that it's not a boring place where the best restaurant is the local Olive Garden. I don't know what St. Cloud is like these days, but perception-wise, at least, I don't think they're there yet. But they're not competing against Minneapolis, anyway; their primary competition for attracting businesses is going to be other cities closer to their own size.