Columbia (Kansas City, St. Louis, Oregon: violent crime, Home Depot, preschools)
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.
No, I didn't say easy-I said available. I know that wages will be less than in a state like California. What you need to remember:all of the "official" lists of unemployed only count the people collecting unemployment. If you have exhausted the state check, or have stop looking, they don't count you. You don't exist. Hence=the Oregon figure. Hospitals in California are still hiring RN's,LVN's. & CNA's-but that will stop if ObamaCare passes. Otherwise, even well heeled, degree(s) plus people are scrambling. California has layed off teachers,police, and prison guards to name a few. Between the environ-mental and the do-good-politicians, most private businesses are scrambling to other states.The Golden State is now mostly tarnished brass.
P.S. Hey Mr President!!! Exactly WHERE did those shovel ready jobs go??
Do beware of unemployment in some of the less-populated areas of Missouri; it's taken some big hits with the Chrysler assembly plants in Fenton closing down as well as the Ford plant in Hazelwood shutting down a couple of years ago. Much of the rural Ozarks and rural northern Missouri (farm country) have had stubbornly high unemployment rates for a long time.
As a native Missourian who's lived in California for the past 23 years, I couldn't agree with you more about your description of the (Fools) Golden State! Ditto for Obamacare. My wife and I are looking at Oklahoma (literally, I wish, instead of just conceptually); unlike Missouri, it's a right to work state and the official unemployment rate, using OA 5599's link is 6.3 percent (rank 7of 50.) It's great to have you here in the forums! Let's wish each other Godspeed in trying to evacuate this place and head east. And may God help our nation at this time.
Do beware of unemployment in some of the less-populated areas of Missouri; it's taken some big hits with the Chrysler assembly plants in Fenton closing down as well as the Ford plant in Hazelwood shutting down a couple of years ago. Much of the rural Ozarks and rural northern Missouri (farm country) have had stubbornly high unemployment rates for a long time.
Very true indeed. The St. Louis metro area, my new home, is currently on the brink of 10% unemployment. I was lucky to have found a job in Missouri in this economy, but my field is esoteric, highly specialized, and has relatively few new people entering it.
FYI, I am quite fond of northeastern Oklahoma. Parts of that area are still in the Ozarks, and it looks and feels a lot like rural Missouri and Arkansas. I have no idea how that part of the state is doing economically, however.
SpanielGirl, in my hometown in the rural Ozarks, a "good" job pays $12 an hour. The poverty rate is 26%, and the whole county is at 19%. This is nothing new, the area has been poor and has had little economic opportunity for decades. Outside of healthcare and public education there are very few employment opportunities. People have been getting laid off from the little manufacturing that is in the area. Nearly all of the people I grew up with, myself included, have left the area to find decent work. An acquaintance of mine who runs a cattle feed mill said he had people applying for jobs from 50 miles away. For low-paying, labor intensive jobs.
If you want to move to Missouri, whether rural or urban, that is fine. But you should be aware that the employment situation here mirrors the nation as a whole. If the unemployment figures for Oregon are misleading because many people have stopped looking for work, they probably are here too as well. Certainly do not move without getting a job lined up beforehand.
No, I didn't say easy-I said available. I know that wages will be less than in a state like California. What you need to remember:all of the "official" lists of unemployed only count the people collecting unemployment. If you have exhausted the state check, or have stop looking, they don't count you. You don't exist. Hence=the Oregon figure. Hospitals in California are still hiring RN's,LVN's. & CNA's-but that will stop if ObamaCare passes. Otherwise, even well heeled, degree(s) plus people are scrambling. California has layed off teachers,police, and prison guards to name a few. Between the environ-mental and the do-good-politicians, most private businesses are scrambling to other states.The Golden State is now mostly tarnished brass.
P.S. Hey Mr President!!! Exactly WHERE did those shovel ready jobs go??
Well, originally this thread was about Columbia, and it sounds like you're interested because of possible relocation. Based on posts like the above, I don't know that you'll like it there. It's a fairly politically progressive town. Obama won Boone County (where Columbia is) by a very solid margin. If you're a right-winger and want to be surrounded by similar people (maybe that's a reason that you want to move?), you may be better off looking into smaller rural areas...which unfortunately have some of the highest levels of unemployment in the state.
As a native Missourian who's lived in California for the past 23 years, I couldn't agree with you more about your description of the (Fools) Golden State! Ditto for Obamacare. My wife and I are looking at Oklahoma (literally, I wish, instead of just conceptually); unlike Missouri, it's a right to work state and the official unemployment rate, using OA 5599's link is 6.3 percent (rank 7of 50.)
I've lived in the southeastern corner of Oklahoma for the past six or so years. There might be jobs in Tulsa and OKC but there's not much down here. Never has been but there's even less now, no matter what the official numbers say. There's a lot of tension and desperation in the air these days.
As a native Missourian who's lived in California for the past 23 years, I couldn't agree with you more about your description of the (Fools) Golden State! Ditto for Obamacare. My wife and I are looking at Oklahoma (literally, I wish, instead of just conceptually); unlike Missouri, it's a right to work state and the official unemployment rate, using OA 5599's link is 6.3 percent (rank 7of 50.) It's great to have you here in the forums! Let's wish each other Godspeed in trying to evacuate this place and head east. And may God help our nation at this time.
Right to work states are terrible when it comes to wages, and employers can fire employees with little reason. Many right to work states have unemployment rates that are much higher than the national average as well. The CNBC "best states for workforce" listed ONLY SOUTHERN STATES. Many states in the southeast have had population growth far outstripping job growth FOR YEARS. This means you have insane competition for even basic hourly wage jobs which acts as a deflationary measure for wages. The leading 21st century industries for job growth generally require at least a Bachelors degree and often advanced degrees. The populace that has been HIT the hardest in this recession are those in blue collar fields and manufacturing again. I know some states have education programs set up to help laid off workers so that they can gain education in a different career field that will likely lead to a more secure employment future such as healthcare. Hospitals are always hiring.
Well, I'm originally from Southern California...and for about 8 weeks every year, I'm still from Southern California. Columbia is a great place to live.
There are some really rural areas in Missouri, and some big urban areas. To me, Columbia splits the difference. It's small, but has the amenities and culture of a (much) larger city. The economic base in non-industrial, so it weather bad economic times pretty well. One of those bases, however, is health care...Columbia is home to an inordinate number of hospitals. If you have a concern about this, it's an issue to keep in mind.
If you're from any of the coastal (and plenty of inland) areas of California, the cost of living in Columbia will seem straggeringly low. The house price listed on the previous page is accurate. I bought a 3 BR, 2 BA house five years ago...it's worth a little more than the $126K I paid for it. In most of the heavily populated areas in California, you can literally find no place to live for that price. My house is in a decent subdivision...lots of children, friendly neighbors. People take walks around here. I've got a yard with several trees in it. Coming form California, I loved the idea of a decent sized yard...until I started mowing. You can move into a nice 2 bedroom condo for a little more than half that...around $70,000.
Gas and food are cheaper too. Everything is cheaper. I was back in CA dealing wiht some family issues about five years ago, and I was offered a job. The job I was going to Columbia for paid around $40,000 a year. In California, I was offered $49,000." I just looked at the person who made me the offer. He hung his head. "We know," he said. $40,000 in Columbia is more or less equal to $75 to $100K in Southern California...rent alone for a small house will be a difference of at least $10000 a year--fifteen to twenty thousand is probably more like it.
Columbia isn't perfect. It's expanding, and some people don't like the extra sprawl. As noted, it's a culturally diverse and liberal town, which isn't everyone's cup of meat...some people think, "Oh, a sleepy little town in Central Missouri!" We're more like Madison or Berkeley, frankly. There's a lot of student based businesses, and if you aren't crazy about young people, that can wear on you.
There's not a lot hidden here, though. Best thing to do is rent a car, and just drive around. When something looks interesting, get out and walk around. It makes a nice day, and you'll get a good enough feel for the city that way, IMO.
As a native Missourian who's lived in California for the past 23 years, I couldn't agree with you more about your description of the (Fools) Golden State! Ditto for Obamacare. My wife and I are looking at Oklahoma (literally, I wish, instead of just conceptually); unlike Missouri, it's a right to work state and the official unemployment rate, using OA 5599's link is 6.3 percent (rank 7of 50.) It's great to have you here in the forums! Let's wish each other Godspeed in trying to evacuate this place and head east. And may God help our nation at this time.
The reason why Oklahoma had a lower unemployment rate than average was because of the energy and agricultural commodities bubble of last year. Prices were high for oil, natural gas, crops, etc. I could name you several RTW states that have unemployment rates that are above the national average. It is a complete fallacy to compare RTW states with Union states. The big problem is outsourcing and offshoring along with a lack of good tariffs.
Thread drift! Thread drift! The next time any of you spend any time in Columbia (and I know I'm ready to see our Mizzou Tigers football team take the gridiron and win big!), check out the late economist Murray Rothbard and the Austrian School of Economics. Among his arguments: Unions have the effect of driving up unemployment because they demand wages and benefits that, while beneficial for those who belong to the union, make it impossible for the employer to hire as many people, thereby creating a much more stratified economy. This is precisely what's happening in California, which is dominated by the Democrat Party, which in turn is dominated by the SEIU and the California Teachers Association union. Sorry, but Governor Schwarzenegger doesn't count, as any of us who actually live in California could tell you. And while the unemployment rate is over 15 percent in much of California's Central Valley and still rising, its state workers have kept demanding even higher wages and more lavish benefits, to the point that the state's bond rating has been decimated, and it's been forced to issue I.O.U.s instead of real American currency.
I guess while I'm totally off-topic, I'll share this information from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics: Union Members Summary. Union membership, while up slightly in 2008, is still barely over half of what it was back in 1983 percentage-wise. You are also five times more likely to be a union member if you work in a government job than if you work in a private-sector job. Gee. Maybe that's one (of many) reason why we're going to have a $2 trillion-plus federal budget deficit this year, and why so many state budgets are out of balance.
And here's Oklahoma's section of its state Constitution that addresses its right-to-work position: Right to Work States: Oklahoma | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Taking Article 23, section B, subsections 1 through 5 together, what's unreasonable about it? You're free to organize (subsection 1), and you're likewise free from being forced to belong to a union. Given the number of states that are not right-to-work, it's pretty remarkable just how low the percentage of private-sector union membership is, and this was also when our unemployment rate was half of what it is now.
Compulsory union membership is tyrannical. It should never be a condition for working in the career field of your choice. I guess if I was a betting man, I'd bet that the majority of Columbia residents would totally disagree with me. But I think most employers, even when unemployment is high, appreciate and recognize good workers when they see them, and would much rather freely provide them with wages and benefits that are fair, instead of wasting who knows how much time and capital constantly having to train new people who could be lousy workers with a terrible attitude, which is why I question the real accuracy of GraniteStater's previous statement.
And here's Oklahoma's section of its state Constitution that addresses its right-to-work position: Right to Work States: Oklahoma | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Taking Article 23, section B, subsections 1 through 5 together, what's unreasonable about it? You're free to organize (subsection 1), and you're likewise free from being forced to belong to a union. Given the number of states that are not right-to-work, it's pretty remarkable just how low the percentage of private-sector union membership is, and this was also when our unemployment rate was half of what it is now.
Compulsory union membership is tyrannical. It should never be a condition for working in the career field of your choice. I guess if I was a betting man, I'd bet that the majority of Columbia residents would totally disagree with me. But I think most employers, even when unemployment is high, appreciate and recognize good workers when they see them, and would much rather freely provide them with wages and benefits that are fair, instead of wasting who knows how much time and capital constantly having to train new people who could be lousy workers with a terrible attitude, which is why I question the real accuracy of GraniteStater's previous statement.
Um....Go Tigers!!!!
<Off-topic response>
"Compulsory union membership is tyrannical. It should never be a condition for working in the career field of your choice."
I don't disagree with that statement.
You are interpreting my prior statement in a black and white fashion. I don't disagree with several of your points regarding union membership. Low cost southern states have been attracting a huge surge of in-migration over the past several decades. This surge of people put downward pressure on wages regardless of whether the state itself is RTW or Union. The real issue is how fast is non-farm job growth in a particular area with respect to population growth. The RTW states with unemployment rates above 10% include: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee. If these states have such a diversified economy with a solid workforce than why is the unemployment so high? I think some of it has to do with the fact that many of these states have industries that depend on lower skilled labor (unfortunately) that can easily be outsourced or offshored to other countries. This problem is particularly accute in the smaller mill communities of the Southeast. This is why educational standards must be raised along with greater personal accountability as well as strong familial involvement.
"But I think most employers, even when unemployment is high, appreciate and recognize good workers when they see them, and would much rather freely provide them with wages and benefits that are fair"
The problem with that statement is the average wage (when adjusted for inflation) has stagnated for years while the cost of everything else has shot up dramatically. The states that have a surplus in workforce have greater competition for readily available jobs which intrinsically forces wages down. More people should probably be moving to states with stable economies like Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, New Hampshire, etc. where job growth is solid and hordes of people aren't relocating to.
Last edited by GraniteStater; 08-16-2009 at 05:55 PM..
Though we don't always agree, that was a very good rebuttal! I am just quite concerned about how alarmingly fast our government has grown, and not just since this past January, but before that too. What can we do to help small businesses succeed and hire more people? I am also very angry at the strong-armed tactics exhibited lately by the SEIU. Anyway...thank you for replying!
Despite Oklahoma's better-than-average unemployment rate, it's true that the southeastern section has been languishing economically. Ditto for a good part of rural Missouri. I hope Columbia's economy has been faring OK, and I think it probably has, at least relative to the surrounding rural area. It's population is now over 100,000? I had thought it was still around 80,000 to 85,000, so that seems like a very encouraging sign economically. I hope the region hasn't become too reliant on corn-based ethanol production, and can transition back to providing corn strictly as a food source. Fodder for another forum thread, I suppose!
Well, back to the first two forum thread posters--are you still with us after our lively discussion on economic theories? Ha ha ha ha ha!! There should be some good Chamber of Commerce info if you're interested: Columbia Missouri Chamber of Commerce
Last edited by northbayeric; 08-16-2009 at 06:20 PM..
Reason: One too-many "verys" in my first paragraph... :D
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.
The next time any of you spend any time in Columbia (and I know I'm ready to see our Mizzou Tigers football team take the gridiron and win big!), check out the late economist Murray Rothbard and the Austrian School of Economics. Among his arguments: Unions have the effect of driving up unemployment because they demand wages and benefits that, while beneficial for those who belong to the union, make it impossible for the employer to hire as many people, thereby creating a much more stratified economy. This is precisely what's happening in California, which is dominated by the Democrat Party, which in turn is dominated by the SEIU and the California Teachers Association union. Sorry, but Governor Schwarzenegger doesn't count, as any of us who actually live in California could tell you. And while the unemployment rate is over 15 percent in much of California's Central Valley and still rising, its state workers have kept demanding even higher wages and more lavish benefits, to the point that the state's bond rating has been decimated, and it's been forced to issue I.O.U.s instead of real American currency.
I am just quite concerned about how alarmingly fast our government has grown, and not just since this past January, but before that too. What can we do to help small businesses succeed and hire more people? I am also very angry at the strong-armed tactics exhibited lately by the SEIU. Anyway...thank you for replying!
