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.
I look at entire county level economic, statistical, and demographic indicators. I was specifically referring to RURAL COUNTIES that do not contain a micropolitan city or part of a metropolitan area. No rural counties in Minnesota have poverty rates above 20% and the only that do in Illinois are in the far southern portion of the state. Missouri has numerous rural counties with over 20% of the population below the poverty line. The small city comparisons are for another thread. I never denied the fact that Illinois has many underperforming cities. The obvious answer for why that is goes back to an economy that is not as well diversified as it should be and overall demographics
The U.S. poverty rate is an absolutely horrible measure of anything. It's even worse than the government's officially reported (U3) unemployment figures, where if you are out of work for >6 months, you are no longer unemployed.
The U.S. poverty rate is an extrapolation of a guess as to how much a family needed to spend on food 50 years ago. Yes, that's no lie. There was a 1963 study done by the USDA which guessed as to how much money a family needed to spend on food to get an adequate amount. That 1963 dollar figure has been adjusted by the overall (not just food) Consumer Price Index ever since to arrive at the current poverty levels. Mind you the poverty rate specifically excludes any "assistance in kind" such as food stamps, subsidized housing, etc. It also is the same figure for the entire country despite the fact that the purchasing power of your money can be grossly different across the country due to large variations in cost of living. So of course a place like Minnesota with a higher cost of living and slightly higher wages to partially compensate for this will have a lower poverty rate because the wages are slightly higher- despite the folks in MN actually having less purchasing power than the "poorer" people in MO. See why the poverty figures are absolutely meaningless as currently calculated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater
Often relates to educational attainment for specific places. I do not need to elaborate further.
Many college degrees aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Saying one state is "smarter" than another because more people in the first state got a degree in 16th century English literature is absolute bunk. In fact, I'd count the number of people with degrees in economically worthless degrees such as gender studies and interpretive dance such against the state as it shows its residents are stupid enough to throw away their money on something useless. I would use something useful like percentage of the population from 16-65 who are currently employed to determine how well a state is doing rather than "educational attainment."
First off, Kentucky and Tennessee aren't Midland states, they're Southern states. Missouri is one of the 12 Midwestern states...about a quarter of it is in the South, the rest in the Midwest.
To someone from Florida I can see them considering ky and tn to be northern. Most from ms think ky is the north lol.
And the other 25 percent of mo isn't totally Midwestern but a mix of Midwest and southern culture.
The U.S. poverty rate is an absolutely horrible measure of anything. It's even worse than the government's officially reported (U3) unemployment figures, where if you are out of work for >6 months, you are no longer unemployed.
The U.S. poverty rate is an extrapolation of a guess as to how much a family needed to spend on food 50 years ago. Yes, that's no lie. There was a 1963 study done by the USDA which guessed as to how much money a family needed to spend on food to get an adequate amount. That 1963 dollar figure has been adjusted by the overall (not just food) Consumer Price Index ever since to arrive at the current poverty levels. Mind you the poverty rate specifically excludes any "assistance in kind" such as food stamps, subsidized housing, etc. It also is the same figure for the entire country despite the fact that the purchasing power of your money can be grossly different across the country due to large variations in cost of living. So of course a place like Minnesota with a higher cost of living and slightly higher wages to partially compensate for this will have a lower poverty rate because the wages are slightly higher- despite the folks in MN actually having less purchasing power than the "poorer" people in MO. See why the poverty figures are absolutely meaningless as currently calculated?
Many college degrees aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Saying one state is "smarter" than another because more people in the first state got a degree in 16th century English literature is absolute bunk. In fact, I'd count the number of people with degrees in economically worthless degrees such as gender studies and interpretive dance such against the state as it shows its residents are stupid enough to throw away their money on something useless. I would use something useful like percentage of the population from 16-65 who are currently employed to determine how well a state is doing rather than "educational attainment."
Minnesota will continue to see greater levels of job growth over time than Missouri. High paying jobs and new population growth in the Twin Cities will continue to lead to an increase in incomes and purchasing power. Missouri will not see the job growth that Minnesota is seeing because Missouri does not have a dynamic metropolitan area. As usual, you slam higher education even though I'm seeing great results at the ground level in my area in terms of growth in bioengineering, technology, biomedical, and other high end levels of private sector growth- fueled in part by a well regarded university. Your derision against education likely explains why you don't see a problem with South Dakota's teachers being at the bottom of the list for salaries as well. You can't attract and retain talented people to grow your local economy and businesses when so little is spent on education.
Minnesota will continue to see greater levels of job growth over time than Missouri. High paying jobs and new population growth in the Twin Cities will continue to lead to an increase in incomes and purchasing power. Missouri will not see the job growth that Minnesota is seeing because Missouri does not have a dynamic metropolitan area. As usual, you slam higher education even though I'm seeing great results at the ground level in my area in terms of growth in bioengineering, technology, biomedical, and other high end levels of private sector growth- fueled in part by a well regarded university. Your derision against education likely explains why you don't see a problem with South Dakota's teachers being at the bottom of the list for salaries as well. You can't attract and retain talented people to grow your local economy and businesses when so little is spent on education.
Summary: Somebody from one of the most liberal cities in the U.S. where the economic activity is heavily dependent on funding for a university (Madison, WI) is stating that everywhere that doesn't have a large liberal government in a giant urban area and shovels money toward the educational system they work for is a bunch of poor, dumb hicks. There is also no understanding of cost of living being different anywhere else in the nation, despite the region the poster comes from being a particularly high-cost area, so raw income dollar figures are all that matter. Gotcha.
Summary: Somebody from one of the most liberal cities in the U.S. where the economic activity is heavily dependent on funding for a university (Madison, WI) is stating that everywhere that doesn't have a large liberal government in a giant urban area and shovels money toward the educational system they work for is a bunch of poor, dumb hicks. There is also no understanding of cost of living being different anywhere else in the nation, despite the region the poster comes from being a particularly high-cost area, so raw income dollar figures are all that matter. Gotcha.
That is a generic argument to make when many other places in the country have a larger university. We get it, you hate universities. I'm here on the ground level and I see growth in the private sector and I work in the tech industry. I moved from a higher cost area (in terms of absolute housing costs) to Madison for a new position last year. I'm not debating the fact that Madison has seen more job growth than just about any small to medium sized metro area in the Midwest. Madison is a higher tax area and does spend a lot of money on schools, as well as many of the towns outside of Madison. I do find it fascinating that you continually avoid a direct discussion of the positives and negatives of South Dakota as you apparently would much rather live in Missouri- even though it does have an income tax that South Dakota lacks. You also did not touch on the fact that the Twin Cities have dozens of Fortune 500 companies and South Dakota has none. Yes, South Dakota has seen an increase in in-migration as it does have a more favorable tax situation than its neighbors. However, that doesn't negate the fact that it loses a good number of people to the Twin Cities with a stronger economy than the national average and per capita incomes that are higher than just about anywhere in the Midwest.
Good luck retaining high quality teachers and attracting them to South Dakota- EVEN WITH the low cost of living. Sioux Falls has definitely benefited due to the lax usury laws in place that have favored insurance companies as well as a lack of a corporate income tax. Time will tell if the state will attract the same level of talent as Minnesota.
Often relates to educational attainment for specific places. I do not need to elaborate further.
I still don't see how "overall demographics" come into this. If Missouri spent as much as Minnesota on education, would Missouri still be dumber because of our "overall demographics"? This is a point that should be elaborated on further, if we're to have a serious discussion.
I enjoyed reading all of the posts despite some posts being off the topic. M0 being in the middle of the pack turns out to be a good thing. MO has a good balance without any extremes. It makes MO more self-sufficient state. Also, it saves MO from suffering economically during the recession while many cities in other states are declaring bankruptcies such as California and crash in housing markets like Atlanta, GA.
Like many states, rural Missouri is more religious and conservative while KC and STL are more Catholic and liberal. That's what makes MO a bellwether state even though it's in Republicans' favor most of the times.
Every time I visit, the roads are improving and people are always friendly. The weather is better than Arkansas with colder winters and less humid summers.
I am seriously considering a move to St. Louis Metro Area within a year or two to be closer to family. My family moved from Arkansas Delta (Blytheville) to Cape Girardeau a few years ago so I no longer have family in Arkansas.
What are your recommendations for St. Louis suburbs? Based on my research, I like Fenton/Arnold (possibly too redneck for my taste but not sure) and Chesterfield/Ballwin/Kirkwood as cheaper alternatives to Town and Country.
That is a generic argument to make when many other places in the country have a larger university. We get it, you hate universities. I'm here on the ground level and I see growth in the private sector and I work in the tech industry. I moved from a higher cost area (in terms of absolute housing costs) to Madison for a new position last year. I'm not debating the fact that Madison has seen more job growth than just about any small to medium sized metro area in the Midwest. Madison is a higher tax area and does spend a lot of money on schools, as well as many of the towns outside of Madison. I do find it fascinating that you continually avoid a direct discussion of the positives and negatives of South Dakota as you apparently would much rather live in Missouri- even though it does have an income tax that South Dakota lacks. You also did not touch on the fact that the Twin Cities have dozens of Fortune 500 companies and South Dakota has none. Yes, South Dakota has seen an increase in in-migration as it does have a more favorable tax situation than its neighbors. However, that doesn't negate the fact that it loses a good number of people to the Twin Cities with a stronger economy than the national average and per capita incomes that are higher than just about anywhere in the Midwest.
Good luck retaining high quality teachers and attracting them to South Dakota- EVEN WITH the low cost of living. Sioux Falls has definitely benefited due to the lax usury laws in place that have favored insurance companies as well as a lack of a corporate income tax. Time will tell if the state will attract the same level of talent as Minnesota.
1. I don't hate universities, I just think that they are greatly overrated in importance by people like you.
2. South Dakota's positives:
- A minimum of taxes- no state income tax, no personal property taxes on cars, low sales taxes.
- A low population density with no large cities, so the people are generally very well-grounded and nice. Most South Dakotans are very similar to small-town and rural Missourians, but just with a northern accent and newer trucks (because the salt rusts out anything older than about 15 years old in SD.)
- Not a lot of regulation.
- There is a LOT of business activity and it is easy to find a job, sell a house, and start a business. It really seems like the housing collapse and the recession forgot SE SD, unlike central MO which very clearly got hit by both. Minnehaha and Lincoln counties thus not surprisingly have very high growth rates, some of the highest in the country.
- The schools are pretty decent and less expensive than many others. Yes, I said it. I have worked with bunches and bunches of people who have graduated from the high schools and colleges in the area (USD, SDSU) and they are not any different from those who graduated from any of the Minnesota schools (yes, we see a lot of them too, especially people who graduated from U of MN in the Twin Cities and Duluth).
South Dakota's negatives:
- All but the western 60 miles of the state are flat, treeless, dry, and WINDY. It looks like a desert 8 months out of the year, either a brown dead-grass desert or an endless expanse of white snow desert. It is not very conducive to many of the outdoor activities that I like, namely hiking, deer hunting, and target shooting.
- Seven months of sloppy, dark, car-rusting winter. Also not conducive to being outdoors and doing the activities that I like.
- Too many snotty, preachy Minnesotans, although in the STL area they are replaced by ex-Chicagoans and the "nothing matters outside of 270" STL snobs so I'd call that a draw.
- It's hundreds of miles away from family.
3. And yes, I live in SD but would love to move back to MO. The reason I live in SD is because of work. SD being a low-tax, low-regulation state has a very good economy and it is much easier to find a job, sell your house, start a business, etc. compared to Missouri. The reasons I want to move back to MO are completely non-economic in nature. I would like to be close to family, be able to do the activities I like much more often, and live in an area with some hills and trees again. I realize that it will cost me a significant amount in both lower salary and higher taxes. That would unfortunately be the tradeoff. (If there was no tradeoff, I never would have left MO in the first place.)
However bringing this back on topic, let this be a lesson for those who want to turn MO into a higher-tax, higher-regulation state to do "better" on some largely meaningless metrics. It does not go well in the real world. Middle of the pack still is certainly better than being at whatever end CA and NY are.
To someone from Florida I can see them considering ky and tn to be northern. Most from ms think ky is the north lol.
And the other 25 percent of mo isn't totally Midwestern but a mix of Midwest and southern culture.
Actually, I'm originally from the Boston area, so KY and TN are definitely southern states to me.
I have always viewed Missouri as Midwestern instead of southern, and I find it to be a diverse, interesting state with lots to offer. In the end, like the O.P. said...What's so bad about being "middle of the pack"?
All of these were legislature imposed measures that went to statewide vote despite specifically affecting the KC and STL metros.
Prop A (2008) de facto banned new casinos in the metro areas and imposed a new tax on them that went to rural schools.
Prop C (2008) required investor owned utilities (which only existed in metro St Louis) to invest in renewable energy.
Constitutional Amendment 2 (2008) prevented the Metropolitan Sewer District from borrowing money to fulfill the requirements of EPA mandate stormwater control.
Prop A (2010) placed a sunset on the KC and STL earnings taxes, a significant chunk of KC's revenue and 1/3rd of STL's revenue.
Amendment 1 (2010) put the county assessor office under state control in St Louis Counties (and Jackson County as well if its population goes over 700k).
The legislature passed a law authorizing the state to takeover SLPS (even though plenty of rural districts were performing worse).
The school transfer law in its current form was created specifically to bankrupt urban school districts.
The state refused to give back control of the SLMPD for over a century, and handed out generous benefits and pay hikes right before the city got control back. (It took a citizen initiated proposition to overturn the legislature's control.)
The state funneled homeland security funding into the RHSOC's, making countries in both metros completely ineligible for state homeland security grants.
State public health grants were funneled into the rural health clinic initiative, again making the metro counties ineligible (there is not a single state funded public health clinic in metro St Louis).
Public transit funding has been slashed to among the lowest in the country. Operational transit funding is the lowest in the country. Interstate funding has been cut as well, but the new construction moratoriums only apply in the metro districts.
And this is just the last few years. This has been going on for a very long time.
Last edited by marigolds6; 08-12-2013 at 07:35 PM..
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.
