Reply With Quote
real boutons Op link....
http://www.alternet.org/why-texas-ec...tter965373&t=2
same link does not equate to the same article Junior...the article that Boutons posted is a small synapsis of the full article posted in Washington Monthly...
real boutons Op link....
http://www.alternet.org/why-texas-ec...tter965373&t=2
Unlike you, I read links and the comments. You should give it a try.
The article is linked in the alternet "piece". But continue to double down on stupid. It makes me giggle.
Comments are like assholes...every forum has one..
lol nbadan.
lol alternet.
lol TeyshaBlue
Your so wing-nut now your no longer objective...sad really...
Objective enough to read links from alternet and follow the source links. Again, you should give it at try. That you cant be bothered to read the comments if they dont say what you want them to say....sad really.
Yeah....objective enough to know that the Texas Economic Miracle is hardly a miracle and has so far failed to benefit the People of the State of Texas equally ...whatever your bull links say...
lol. I didnt post any links just a comment from the comment section....*hint*...the comments are below the article.
Your facesave dismount is hilarious tho.
Well, the libs sure got their pushed in this thread... but that was probably by design since they're into that kind of gotry.
gotry? Sounds gay to me!Well, the libs sure got their pushed in this thread... but that was probably by design since they're into that kind of gotry.
only in your wishful imagination. bull ter RickyBobby is spewing bull , like a good Repug, with no chance to be the Repug candidate. TX taxpayers getting stuck with his bogus "business" trips around the country and planet.Well, the libs sure got their pushed in this thread... but that was probably by design since they're into that kind of gotry.
The Texas-California Job Growth Derby
In recent months conservatives have been boasting about the strong job growth of red state Texas compared to the much weaker job growth of blue state California. They use this comparison to promote their line that low taxes and pro-business regulations are the key to low unemployment and prosperity. It's worth taking a closer look.
First, the story is not simply one of Texas growth being driven by oil and gas, although its abundance of energy is clearly a factor. Using the business cycle peak in December of 1981 as a start point, employment has grown by 77.9 percent in Texas compared to just 59.0 percent in California.
The 1981 start point is a good base of comparison because it was also a period when high energy prices were helping to drive the Texas economy. This means that we are picking up the growth between two energy booms. If instead we looked at the growth between the 1981 business cycle peak the 2000 business cycle peak, a period of low energy prices, California narrowly wins the job growth prize, 48.6 percent to 47.1 percent.
In this sense Texas is a bit like an OPEC country, clearly energy prices are an extremely important factor to its economy. But energy prices are not the whole story, and neither are low taxes and pro-business regulations.
The most obvious difference that would hit anyone comparing California and Texas is the enormous difference in housing costs. To take a couple of examples on the rental side according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development the fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles County is $1,398 a month. In Harris County, Texas, which includes Houston, it's just $926 a month. The fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Santa Clara County, which includes San Jose, is $1,649 a month. It was just $894 in Dallas County in 2010, the most recent year available.
Home sale prices show the same story. According to CoreLogic, the median house price in Los Angeles is $456,000. This compares to a median price of $187,000 in Houston. There is a similar story for other cities across the state.
This enormous gap in housing costs has certainly made a difference in the pace of job growth in the two states. A person working full-time at the national median wage median wage (at $17 an hour) earning $2,720 a month before taxes, could afford a two-bedroom apartment in Texas and could even buy a home. That would not be true in much of California.
The difference in housing prices is explained by differences in regulatory decisions. California has sharply restricted construction in most areas. As a result, the Census Bureau reports that the between 1980 and 2010 the number of housing units in Texas increased by 81.9 percent, compared to just 41.3 percent in California.
Restricting the number of new homes that can be built improves the quality of life for the people who live in the state by making it less crowded, thereby reducing stress on the infrastructure and the environment. It means, for example, that Californians are less likely to see their homes blown up by exploding fertilizer plants. But it also means that fewer people will live there. For this reason it shouldn't be surprising that Texas would win the job growth derby; California has effectively decided to constrain its growth.
The dividend for Californians shows up in various ways. At 80.8 years, life expectancy in California is well above the national average. The 78.5 year life expectancy in Texas is slightly below the national average. Large chunks of California have been parceled off in protected forests, sea shores, and deserts that people across the globe come to see. There is not much by way of protected nature in Texas.
If you were fortunate enough to buy a home in the state 25 or 30 years ago, you have likely made a huge amount of money. A house that sold for $150,000 in Los Angeles in 1987, would sell for $540,000 today. This implies a gain of $232,500, after adjusting for inflation. By contrast, house prices in Texas have largely just kept pace with the rate of inflation. Of course that is good news if you're a young person interested in buying a home.
It's possible to make an argument that a growth path that allows for largely unrestricted development is a better way to go than a path one that tries to constrain growth to protect the quality of life. However it doesn't make sense to argue the case based simply on the fact that the former path leads to more growth.
There is no doubt that the Texas growth path will lead to more jobs. The question is whether it creates a society where people want to live. Many people are willing to pay lots of money to live elsewhere.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/22646...b-growth-derby
gawt damn that was a stupid analysis by "truth-out"
I lol'ed at the line about exploding fertilizer plants -- classy
yeah, good ol' TX boys left to their own reckless, bravado cowboyism is a ing barrel of laughs, hee haw hee haw
No that isn't what it is attempting to address....
The author criticizes the arguments of the left and the right, yet you felt the need to quote only the criticism of the rights arguments so it's no surprise that you missed the larger point.The main theme in my blog is that we shouldn’t confuse policy with culture, and with demographic factors.
I still don't know why we have to bribe companies to come to Austin.
all cities and states are forced to play the corporate scam game of spending $100Ms of taxes to compete with other cities and states. That scam cost WA $8B to keep a Boeing plane in WA. "studies have shown" that $M or $B in tax expenditures doesn't get paid back. iow, nothing but corporate welfare
for every thousand job loss, they claim a thousand job is created, yet when u question them...they dont have an answer where these new jobs are....
I acknowledged that both came in for criticism, and posted the part that I thought you might want to acknowledge or address, as someone who seems to be to have a libertarian streak.
I do get the point of the article, and agree with the overall thrust, as it is a good attempt to quantify some of what I have always suspected on an intuitive level as well. Our educational system is better off than most think.
I wonder though why you seem to be trying to make me seem not as intelligent. Why is it you feel the need to do that?
I wasn't suggesting you were not intelligent. Your post read like you had missed the authors point and were viewing it through blue colored glasses...I guess I misread your intentions.
FWIW, I'm not a libertarian...never have been.
Miracle Worker RickyBobby's "open for business" schtick is really "my pockets are open"
Prolific Donors Are Behind Perry's Marketing Tool
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/04/...rnors-marketi/
total quid pro quo corruption: give me money, and I give you tax payers $Bs.
Hurting for Work
How disdain for government regulation sparked a “Texas miracle” economy — while tearing down protections for the workers who built it.
Behind the Texas
Miracle, a Broken System for Broken Workers
While Texas has a Division of Workers' Compensation, it is the only state that doesn’t require any private employer to carry workers’ compensation insurance or a private equivalent, so more than 500,000 people have no occupational benefits when they get injured at work.
That means they often rely on charities or taxpayers to pay for their care.Most Texans who are outside the workers’ comp system — more than a million people — do get private occupational insurance from their employers.
But those plans aren’t regulated by the state and can be crafted to sharply limit employees’ benefits, legal rights and health care choices.
Only 41 percent of the plans include death benefits, for example, according to state surveys.
Then there’s the state-regulated workers’ compensation system, which covers 81 percent of the Texas workforce.
On paper, the policies look great: They all include death benefits, partial income replacement for employees too hurt to work and lifetime medical benefits for serious injuries.
But for thousands of workers, the promised benefits never materialize.
Nearly half of all employee claims are initially denied or disputed in whole or in part, and when those denials blossom into a major disagreement before the Texas Division of Workers’ Compensation, workers lose most of the time, according to state data.
“They throw these workers away like tissue paper. They’re nothing more than a used Kleenex,” said Joe Longley, an Austin employment attorney who served as chief of the consumer protection division of the attorney general’s office in the 1970s.
“We don’t provide for the workers. We provide for the businesses."
INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS
- Texas stands alone in allowing employers to forgo workers’ comp insurance, and over 500,000 workers have no coverage if they are hurt or killed.
- Texas doesn’t regulate private occupational insurance, which often provides fewer due process rights and stingier benefits than workers’ comp.
- More than 90 percent of employers without workers’ comp flout a requirement that they notify the state of their opt-out status.
- A quarter or more of employers without workers’ comp underreport lost-time injuries, recent audits suggest.
- Major court decisions have eroded protections injured workers once had, including the right to sue certain employers who fire them for filing an injury claim.
- Nearly half (45 percent) of all workers’ comp claims were initially denied or disputed in whole or in part from 2008 to 2013.
- Workers are losing far more major disputes with workers' comp insurers, and their margin of defeat has increased.
While every other U.S. state eventually required most private employers to carry workers’ compensation insurance, Texas never did. Here, employers are permitted to “go bare,” meaning they can roll the dice, purchase no insurance for workplace mishaps and hope nothing bad happens.
http://apps.texastribune.org/hurting-for-work/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
