Comments on: The inter-state job search migration

By: tmc

tmc — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:20:43 +0000

We must be very careful in bailing out the states. I would fight with everything I have to NOT pay some union state employees grossly oversized retirement when I receive NOTHING. I can’t stand the though of it, but I will admit it most likely will have to be done. Just please hide it well, lot’s and lot’s of spin, so it won’t hurt quite so bad. If this becomes public you will see union houses burning. I don’t think anyone wants that.
Of course Mr. Norquist knows this. I just hope he has enough humility not to use it for spite.

By: Wesley_Snipes

Wesley_Snipes — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 16:26:12 +0000

Apple may like CA’s talent pool but it sure doesn’t like their high tax rates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/busine ss/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-s tates-and-nations.html?pagewanted=all&_r =0

By: mgear

mgear — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 15:25:41 +0000

Of course a large portion of what is called “job creation” in low-tax states is actually just job relocation: some Americans gaining jobs at the expense of other Americans. Mid-size to large companies may move from one state to another for tax purposes reasonably often, but the entrepreneurs who drive job growth rather than simply shift jobs around are much less likely to move across the country just to start their businesses in lower-tax states.

By: AlkalineState

AlkalineState — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:52:45 +0000

sarkozy, low-cost manufacturing is different than a low coporate tax rate, isn’t it? If Grover Norquist was worried about outsourcing of jobs overseas, he’d be talking import tariffs, wouldn’t he? So why isn’t he? They have historically run from 20 – 40% in the U.S., since the late 1700′s. In the past 30 years, these import tariffs have dwindled to 1.3%. But he still thinks the solution is just…. reduce corporate taxes in Arkansas. Or what ever his point is here. He won’t say, now that he’s been called on it.

Regarding Oklahoma, I do apologize for my snide remark. That was unnecessary. Good people of Oklahoma, it is not your fault.

By: AdamSmith

AdamSmith — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:48:21 +0000

I think AlkalineState has been very civil. It’s only the data that stings.

By: sarkozyrocks

sarkozyrocks — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:20:43 +0000

@alkalinestate: Then the emergence of Chinese manufacturing has had little to no effect on blue collar employment in the US and Europe? Businesses really haven’t located manufacturing in China because of low costs? Your blind ideology is not just shocking, it’s frightening. On another point: where do you think your hate-speech attacks, launched wholesale against the people of an entire state, will get you? Please keep this discussion civilized.

By: GetReallyReal1

GetReallyReal1 — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:49:08 +0000

Sure, Texas, high employment growth. OK, don’t count the low wage jobs, Grover will poopoo that. Let’s focus on the high wage earners, F-35 manufacturing, NASA, military support. Oh wait, all those Federally funded, tax payer supported jobs. But we hate taxes. Just keep sending it our way. We never saw a government program in Texas we didn’t like, except maybe healthcare. Superconducting semicollider anyone? I’ll take two for Texas.

By: tmc

tmc — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:28:23 +0000

And IBM s less than 20% American. Indian Business Machines.

By: AlkalineState

AlkalineState — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:34:11 +0000

sarkozyrocks states: “Businesses are highly inclined to locate production in low cost and, or low tax geographies. Just a simple fact. Who in their right mind would argue with that?”

The data. For example, Google is located in high-tax Palo Alto, California (instead of Oklahoma) because the people in Oklahoma are largely bible-thumpers and tweakers who believe that the world is 6,000 years old. They pride themselves on lack of education. Higher tech Businesses will pay a little more in order to avoid that and have a reliable and educated work force.

By: sarkozyrocks

sarkozyrocks — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:01:57 +0000

Businesses are highly inclined to locate production in low cost and, or low tax geographies. Just a simple fact. Who in their right mind would argue with that?