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.
Richard Fisher, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, dropped by our offices this week and relayed a remarkable fact: Some 37% of all net new American jobs since the recovery began were created in Texas. Mr. Fisher's study is a lesson in what works in economic policy—and it is worth pondering in the current 1.8% growth moment.
Using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, Dallas Fed economists looked at state-by-state employment changes since June 2009, when the recession ended. Texas added 265,300 net jobs, out of the 722,200 nationwide, and by far outpaced every other state. New York was second with 98,200, Pennsylvania added 93,000, and it falls off from there. Nine states created fewer than 10,000 jobs, while Maine, Hawaii, Delaware and Wyoming created fewer than 1,000. Eighteen states have lost jobs since the recovery began.
The data are even more notable because they're calculated on a "sum of states" basis, which the BLS does not use because they can have sampling errors. Using straight nonfarm payroll employment, Texas accounts for 45% of net U.S. job creation. Modesty is not typically considered a Texas virtue, but the results speak for themselves.
The number of people in Texas who wake up early and go out and work hard far outnumbers the number of people who click on the television and wait around for the government to "make things all better again".
Well, the article is pure subjective opinion. While the guy does provide data on job changes, he doesn't look at how many jobs were lost before the economic collapse. Of course they created more jobs than California. It's one of the epicenters of the real estate collapse. They were largely saved from this due to, "He also cited a rule in place since 1998 in the backwash of the S&L debacle that limits mortgage borrowing to 80% of the appraised value of a home. Like a minimum down payment, this reduces overleveraging and means Texas wasn't hurt as badly by the housing crash as other states."
Basically, a large part of what he's saying is that they were saved from a lot of the bubble due to there being MORE government regulation in terms of mortgages in Texas than in California.
I guess to be more like Texas, you need more regulation. I'm guessing you guys all missed that.
The rest of his arguments don't really provide much data. Also, given the price of oil, it's easy for an oil rich state to be doing well. The article is largely just spin.
Well, the article is pure subjective opinion. While the guy does provide data on job changes, he doesn't look at how many jobs were lost before the economic collapse. Of course they created more jobs than California. It's one of the epicenters of the real estate collapse. They were largely saved from this due to, "He also cited a rule in place since 1998 in the backwash of the S&L debacle that limits mortgage borrowing to 80% of the appraised value of a home. Like a minimum down payment, this reduces overleveraging and means Texas wasn't hurt as badly by the housing crash as other states."
Basically, a large part of what he's saying is that they were saved from a lot of the bubble due to there being MORE government regulation in terms of mortgages in Texas than in California.
I guess to be more like Texas, you need more regulation. I'm guessing you guys all missed that.
The rest of his arguments don't really provide much data. Also, given the price of oil, it's easy for an oil rich state to be doing well. The article is largely just spin.
Nail on the head. Right about the mortgages. Right about energy prices providing a temporary boost.
The number of people in Texas who wake up early and go out and work hard far outnumbers the number of people who click on the television and wait around for the government to "make things all better again".
Well, the article is pure subjective opinion. While the guy does provide data on job changes, he doesn't look at how many jobs were lost before the economic collapse. Of course they created more jobs than California. It's one of the epicenters of the real estate collapse. They were largely saved from this due to, "He also cited a rule in place since 1998 in the backwash of the S&L debacle that limits mortgage borrowing to 80% of the appraised value of a home. Like a minimum down payment, this reduces overleveraging and means Texas wasn't hurt as badly by the housing crash as other states."
Basically, a large part of what he's saying is that they were saved from a lot of the bubble due to there being MORE government regulation in terms of mortgages in Texas than in California.
I guess to be more like Texas, you need more regulation. I'm guessing you guys all missed that.
The rest of his arguments don't really provide much data. Also, given the price of oil, it's easy for an oil rich state to be doing well. The article is largely just spin.
Actually Texas went to what the regulations USED to be for everyone. 80% used to be the norm. Loose credit allowed 110% or worse.
It's not MORE regulations, they are the same regulations but with tighter numbers. Sounds more like "smart" regulation.
Heck Texas didn't even have home equity loans when everyone else did..we came to the game late and were very conservative about it.
That was due to the banking crisis Texas had and the regulators put checks and balances in place to prevent it from happening again.
Looks like it worked.
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.