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.
As Deserterer noted, we have finite resources. We won't work for a lot of industries. But we can work for others, and I don't see the state stepping up to the plate.
We don't sell what we have. Do our politicians even know what we realistically have to offer, and therefore what companies to successfully court? I don't think they do.
We're the perfect state to lead the nation into green renewable energy. We have access to wind, solar and geothermal energy sources. We should be the top area for researching and developing green energy, but instead our brightest are working on nuclear weapons.
Our technology sucks. Both the infrastructure and the knowledge to use it. And younger, newer companies are embracing technology. For example, even in my industry, accounting, there is a HUGE difference in how firms embrace and utilize technology in Denver vs here. Even AZ firms are ahead of the curve compared to NM in using technology to improve productivity and customer service.
We have incredible strength in our diversity but we don't use it. This is one of the most multilingual cities I've ever lived in, and it's not just Spanish/English. If we had the technology in place, we could tout that strength and expand beyond call centers.
We have many things to offer. We just don't people who can see that and make it work.
***folding up soapbox***
Excellent post Deserter, thanks. Another poster a while back said maybe we don't want ABQ to grow. The problem is when you don't have at least some growth you have decline and decay. Check out the Tucson forum for a while, a lot of very negative posts where that city is heading, and they are similar to ABQ with low pop growth. You don't want to be compared with Tucson. What you want is "smart growth". I think Seattle and Portland have done pretty well with that, they are growing at 5-6% (2010-2013), but are very high quality of life places (I live in Seattle). Albuquerque pop growth should be more like 3.5%-4% (2010-2013) if it had a healthy economy. It doesn't have to be 9% like Austin.
New Mexico blogger on Intel's future in New Mexico. Doesn't look good Intel has 5,600 employees in 2006 now down to 2,800.
INTEL ON INTEL
Voter turnout may not be the only thing about to collapse. Rio Rancho's Intel plant seems precariously close to ending its long run in New Mexico. The company tells ABQ business leaders it will not be modernizing the plant, but maintains the facility still has plenty of work to keep it going at full capacity for the next "18 to 24 months."
If that doesn't sound like a warning shot, we've got too much wax in our ears.
Look. In July 2006 Intel reported having 5,600 employees. Wednesday it said it had 2,800. That's a 50 percent reduction. Which way do you think we are headed in the next couple years?
Why we are the only news source that cites this history to put the story in context is a head-scratcher, but it's reality.
We should also note that last November when Intel announced 400 layoffs it was reported that it's workforce would go from 3,300 to 2,900. But now it reports 2,800 on the payroll. Looks like we lost an extra hundred.
The decline in federal spending has been a major contributor to our economic malaise, but the private sector as represented by Intel and others--has also delivered a body blow. And what, if anything, we are going to do about either scenario seems to be completely up in the air.
Meanwhile, the story of the incredible shrinking workforce of ABQ and New Mexico continued in April, according to the Feds. We will get the usual spin that the stats are not totally reliable month to month, but we know the trend--and it's not our friend.
the story of the incredible shrinking workforce of ABQ and New Mexico continued in April, according to the Feds. We will get the usual spin that the stats are not totally reliable month to month, but we know the trend--and it's not our friend.
Usually when we hear about our shrinking workforce people are comparing today's numbers against the 2008-2009 peak that shows up so clearly on your graph. While your graph clearly demonstrates that our story at the moment is one of flat or slow workforce growth rather than some kind of free-fall, it's true that we're definitely quite a ways off that peak. But you're right that a simple comparison of where we are now versus where we were in 2008 is deceptive and doesn't tell the whole story.
Excellent post Deserter, thanks. Another poster a while back said maybe we don't want ABQ to grow. The problem is when you don't have at least some growth you have decline and decay. Check out the Tucson forum for a while, a lot of very negative posts where that city is heading, and they are similar to ABQ with low pop growth. You don't want to be compared with Tucson. What you want is "smart growth". I think Seattle and Portland have done pretty well with that, they are growing at 5-6% (2010-2013), but are very high quality of life places (I live in Seattle). Albuquerque pop growth should be more like 3.5%-4% (2010-2013) if it had a healthy economy. It doesn't have to be 9% like Austin.
As someone who's lived in both places I think it's safe to say we will always be compared to Tucson...the two cities are such a match in size, cultural mix, political views and general feel that comparisons are inevitable.
Seattle and Portland are great cities, but I know quite a few current and former Seattlites concerned that it's growing much, much too fast. And the cost of living there has certainly priced out a great many working-, lower-middle, and middle class people...not a problem Albuquerque or Tucson really have to deal with...
Usually when we hear about our shrinking workforce people are comparing today's numbers against the 2008-2009 peak that shows up so clearly on your graph. While your graph clearly demonstrates that our story at the moment is one of flat or slow workforce growth rather than some kind of free-fall, it's true that we're definitely quite a ways off that peak. But you're right that a simple comparison of where we are now versus where we were in 2008 is deceptive and doesn't tell the whole story.
Our workforce is 98.5% of its 2008 peak, AZ is at 96%
Good point. The people freaking out about Albuquerque usually treat us like we're in a vacuum, when it's very clearly a region-wide problem. I don't know if I'd be too worried about Arizona, either, but clearly they're in the same boat.
Here's another article about how to improve the New Mexico economy. Main points are become a "Right to Work" state and become the 10th state to eliminate the income tax. Lot's of states with no income tax have very strong economies right and low UE rates now (Texas, New Hampshire, Washington, Wyoming, South Dakota for example).
He stated “Wouldn’t it be an incredible thing for New Mexico if you became the 10th state in the country that has no income tax,”
I would have to say, it depends. But that by itself does not guarantee anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctr88
Lot's of states with no income tax have very strong economies right and low UE rates now (Texas, New Hampshire, Washington, Wyoming, South Dakota for example).
I would not live in four of the five states you listed...
There are seven U.S. states with no income tax and two states which have no income tax on wages but do tax interest and dividends. These states still need money to provide government services, they will raise it through other means as neccessary such as sales taxes, property taxes, and other fees.
I live in WA State right now that has no state income tax. And I moved to WA from CA which has the highest state income tax in the U.S. The ironic thing is, WA State seems much better run, parks & facilities in better condition, etc... vs. CA, despite having lower taxes. Seattle is absolutely booming right now, a very prosperous vibrant area.
I will take a high sales tax ANY DAY over a high income tax. It's 4th grade math. Say a family makes $150k a year taxable income. They will pay close to $15k in income tax in CA. Now take a state with a 10% sales tax like WA, even if you spent $10k a year on stuff that was subject to sales tax, that is only $1k. $15k vs. $1k??? Hmmmm. I also get a kick out of people who whine over a $100 yearly auto license tax, yet say nothing about a high income tax like 7-10%. The two types of taxes that are by far the biggest hits are income and property taxes. The rest are peanuts. Give me a high sales tax any day over high property or high income tax. That's why I like WA State, it has no state income tax, a reasonable property tax, but a high sales tax. Best way to go by far. You can always decide to consume less to pay less sales tax.
Also, I think there are nice parts I would live in all the states with no state income tax, maybe not the whole state, but each has pretty areas. Jackson WY, Grand Tetons, Sheriden WY near the Big Horns is gorgeous. NH is a very nice NE state with ocean, mnts, quaint NE towns. Spearfish and Rapid City in the Black Hills of South Dakota is not bad. WA State is a wonderful state with the Cascades, Seattle, Olympic NP. TN has Nashville, Smoky Mnts. FL warm winters, beaches. Austin and TX Hill County is a great part of TX. NV has Lake Tahoe in the Sierras. Alaska is a fine place in the summers.
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.
